[DRAFT] Biodiversity Sanctuary Act

[Normlpeople]

OOC: If you are returning wiser/more experienced (though i didnt see you debating elsewhere), it might be better to abandon this this thread/draft and start fresh with a clean slate.

[Separatist Peoples]

At the rate you two are going neither of you will have your environments intact.

"We have plenty of environmental legislation to protect our quite stunning natural heritage. None of it is so ham-fisted as this. Subtly implying that this is all that stands between us and environmental failure is rather silly."

[BattleWorld]

Personally I like this proposal, and may join the WA just so I adhere to this, as the local power hungry politicians have stonewalled my attempt to pass a similar law, and this would do me the favor of forcing this onto us without having to deal with them.

[Percussionland]

Thank you, I appreciate your support.

[Catholicmania]

ROMAN CATHOLICS UNITE BEHIND THIS RESOLUTION TO PROTECT THE BEAUTIFUL EARTH GOD HAS GIVEN US!!! PURGE THE UNIVERSE OF THE SCUM OPPOSED TO THIS!!! DOOM TO THE INFIDELS!!! PRAISE JESUS CHRIST!!!

[Percussionland]

ROMAN CATHOLICS UNITE BEHIND THIS RESOLUTION TO PROTECT THE BEAUTIFUL EARTH GOD HAS GIVEN US!!! PURGE THE UNIVERSE OF THE SCUM OPPOSED TO THIS!!! DOOM TO THE INFIDELS!!! PRAISE JESUS CHRIST!!!

I appreciate your support, but please keep the religious outbursts to a minimum on this thread, as I value constructive criticism and don't want nations to get offended and stop posting on this tread. Also, please do not post "Doom to the infidels," as all have a right to their religious beliefs and this may be interpreted as offensive and may get you reported to the moderators in the future.

[Infinite Freedom]

I agree with BattleWorld, which says something because of our extreme political differences. I may actually join the WA just to force this resolution on my nation. I hope this resolution becomes WA law as soon as possible!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'm not equipped to do a character count at this time, but you seem to be right up against the limit (if not several meters past it). All this business about parasites and stuff seems awfully nitpicky given your stated much broader goal of establishing pretentiously highfalutin'-sounding wildlife preserves.

There's also the matter of human development: one nation may find itself the unwilling host of such a sanctuary merely because it got screwed economically - so while its neighbors buzzed their territory of the biome to the ground and built cities and industries on top, this nation still has its section of the biome. The very least you could do now to make up for prohibiting this hypothetical nation's development is help it develop a safari/ecotourism industry within the sanctuary. If it's being forced against its will to have the thing, it should be able to make some money off it.

[Lexicor]

I'm not equipped to do a character count at this time, but you seem to be right up against the limit (if not several meters past it). All this business about parasites and stuff seems awfully nitpicky given your stated much broader goal of establishing pretentiously highfalutin'-sounding wildlife preserves.

There's also the matter of human development: one nation may find itself the unwilling host of such a sanctuary merely because it got screwed economically - so while its neighbors buzzed their territory of the biome to the ground and built cities and industries on top, this nation still has its section of the biome. The very least you could do now to make up for prohibiting this hypothetical nation's development is help it develop a safari/ecotourism industry within the sanctuary. If it's being forced against its will to have the thing, it should be able to make some money off it.

OOC: Here is a handy dandy character counter tool: https://www.charactercountonline.com/

"We cannot support this resolution, as we believe it overfringes on the boundaries of a nations sovereignty. We have enough resolutions on the books when it comes to protecting the environment. I fail to see where this resolution becomes an international issues."

~ [Legitimate] Deputy-Ambassador to the General Assembly

Peter Piertotem

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Here is a handy dandy character counter tool: https://www.charactercountonline.com/

"We cannot support this resolution, as we believe it overfringes on the boundaries of a nations sovereignty. We have enough resolutions on the books when it comes to protecting the environment. I fail to see where this resolution becomes an international issues."

~ [Legitimate] Deputy-Ambassador to the General Assembly

Peter Piertotem

OOC: I could probably do that from my phone, but it's a big enough pain in the ass that I'm not gonna.

IC: Indeed, further to that, I'd strongly suggest adding something to the effect that Nature preserves meeting these criteria in the jurisdiction of WA members or of treaty organizations to which they are party will remain under their current administration. At least that way you can claim (I won't say how convincingly...) that you are respecting the basic idea of national sovereignty. And reducing the intended WA financial burden considerably.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: ok, the sheer number of nations that have posted in this thread with one or two posts only, all of which showing support for an obviously unpopular draft is making me suspect some serious puppets wank. I was an issue at the start of this thread and it's becoming an issue again.

[Percussionland]

OOC: ok, the sheer number of nations that have posted in this thread with one or two posts only, all of which showing support for an obviously unpopular draft is making me suspect some serious puppets wank. I was an issue at the start of this thread and it's becoming an issue again.

I do have puppets to experience different ends of the political spectrum, but I do not use them to falsify forum votes, as this is pointless and extremely counterproductive, and why have them post when my main nation drafting the legislation can do it?

[Normlpeople]

OOC: ok, the sheer number of nations that have posted in this thread with one or two posts only, all of which showing support for an obviously unpopular draft is making me suspect some serious puppets wank. I was an issue at the start of this thread and it's becoming an issue again.

I do have puppets to experience different ends of the political spectrum, but I do not use them to falsify forum votes, as this is pointless and extremely counterproductive, and why have them post when my main nation drafting the legislation can do it?

OOC: Because these forum votes (and posts) can give the impression of support where none exists. Multiple nations, posting for the first time in unpopular draft threads, all blindly agreeing with the draft while not providing any sort of actual feedback, is suspicious at best. I will not throw an accusation, but it does set off the puppet wanking red flag of those who have been here awhile.

I repeat my earlier statement: You did take time off, and despite the fact that you did not take part in any debates, You may well have lurked, and learned a bit about this place in the meantime. If you didn't, then the time off was pointless. Either way, considering this draft is a mess, it might be prudent to scrap it and return to the drawing board. Show that you have learned something after all.

[Frisbeeteria]

I do have puppets to experience different ends of the political spectrum, but I do not use them to falsify forum votes, as this is pointless and extremely counterproductive,

You're right. Puppet wanking is pointless and extremely counterproductive. You should stop, and stop lying about it while you're at it.

Frisbeeteria, Senior Game Moderator

[Percussionland]

Please drop the unfounded accusations and keep the discussion on the draft. If you have a problem with me send a telegram, as this is not the proper setting for accusations and arguments unrelated to the draft.

[Wrapper]

Please drop the unfounded accusations and keep the discussion on the draft. If you have a problem with me send a telegram, as this is not the proper setting for accusations and arguments unrelated to the draft.

OOC: Really? A moderator says you're faking support for this via puppet-wanking, and that's not only an unfounded accusation but also "unrelated to the draft"?

IC: We find that this draft sucks and, unlike the non-voting representatives from the authoring nation's subordinate jurisdictions, we cannot support it.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Flare sent up. I sincerely hope I'm just being unnecessarily suspicious.

[Percussionland]

Wrapper, you seemed more open minded to this draft if it was edited in the start, what changed?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Please drop the unfounded accusations and keep the discussion on the draft. If you have a problem with me send a telegram, as this is not the proper setting for accusations and arguments unrelated to the draft.

They aren't unfounded. You know what you're doing, cut it out.

[Percussionland]

Please drop the unfounded accusations and keep the discussion on the draft. If you have a problem with me send a telegram, as this is not the proper setting for accusations and arguments unrelated to the draft.

They aren't unfounded. You know what you're doing, cut it out.

Again, send a telegram, this is not the appropriate venue for complaints and arguments about me that are unrelated to the draft.

[Separatist Peoples]

They aren't unfounded. You know what you're doing, cut it out.

Again, send a telegram, this is not the appropriate venue for complaints and arguments about me that are unrelated to the draft.

Ooc: a moderator, acting in the capacity of a mod and not a player, has told you to stop puppetwanking, which you are doing. They have to tools to see what computer is behind what nation. Their claims are not unfounded, and since you insist on filling your thread with transparent attempts at generating peer consensus for your terrible draft, it's highly relevant.

[Percussionland]

I have plenty of independent peer consensus, since any mod can tell you I dont have 45 puppets to vote with, and please don't trash the draft unless you have a suggestion for improvement.

[Separatist Peoples]

I have plenty of independent peer consensus, since any mod can tell you I dont have 45 puppets to vote with, and please don't trash the draft unless you have a suggestion for improvement.

"We've suggested the only palpable improvement already: kerosene and a lit match. Most of your "consensus" has managed to come from day-old nations who's ambassadors struggle with spelling. Every experienced ambassador who weighed in did so in opposition. Considering the most powerful voting bloc in the WA consists of delegates and advisors who are all very much veterans of the GA, the level of stomped this proposal will end up boggles the mind. If you still don't believe me, go ahead and submit this dreck and see what happens."

[Araraukar]

Ok, let's see if a thorough dissection will reveal what changes (if any) were made for the better since I last saw this.

Area of Effect: All Industries

For environmental "All Industries" is pretty much same as "Strong" is for those categories with strengths. We'll see if this has enough clout for the strength.

APPLAUDING efforts to preserve biodiversity and protect endangered species by all nations.

CONCERNED that more and more species may become extinct every day, damaging biodiversity across the territory encompassed by or controlled by, World Assembly nations.

You're contradicting yourself right off the bat. You can't be applauding all nations of doing a good job if you're so concerned of member nations not doing a good enough a job that you want to fix it with a resolution. Also, the Concerned part sounds very clumsy as is. I'd leave the whole conditional alarmist "more and more species may become extinct every day" off entirely and go for "extinctions damaging biodiversity". Currently it makes for a cute bumpersticker, but not much more.

DEFINES a Biodiversity Sanctuary as an area protected by the local government from habitat destruction, pollution, or any act that permanently harms the biodiversity of an area in a extensive and detrimental fashion.

I doubt you can 100% protect any open-area place from air pollution, but you put the "extensive and detrimental" in as an afterthought. Also, "local government"? Like what, the municipality? Wouldn't it make more sense for the national government to be in control of that? Especially as I see later on you don't actually make the local governments protect them, but rather the WA committee.

CREATES The International Biodiversity Preservation Commission (IBPC).

*sigh* What's wrong with WASP? Using an existing committee is preferable to creating new one-purpose-only ones. [OOC: Also, Indian Business and Professional Council would like to have a word with you.]

MANDATES that an Biodiversity Sanctuary be created to protect a habitat when:

And now it's time for some WA comedy. Also known as "I refuse to understand what ecosystems are and how they work".

1. When a habitat is rare or unique

You don't have to put much effort into it to prove any habitat anywhere to be unique. I mean, unless we're talking of 100% identical dimensions or something like that, no habitat is exactly the same as another similar one. Take two mountain valleys within the same mountain range, even if they were neighbouring valleys, each is bound to be unique. One may be lacking one kind of flower, or one may have a frog species the other lacks. One may have natural springs and the other is watered entirely by meltwater. And that's not even going into the different habitats within the mountain valleys (valley floor, valley walls lower/higher, possible aquatic/terrestrial habitats, different soils, etc., depending how nitpicky you want to get and how microscopic your view) themselves.

Now if you mean a type of habitat, like, say, taiga, or indeed mountain valleys, then fine, but that's not the same as a single unique habitat. [OOC: You can even count your eyelashes as a type of habitat - for the eyelash mites and bacteria and fungi and whatnot - and I daresay yours are different from mine, not to mention unique.]

and its destruction would significantly degrade the biodiversity of the territory encompassed by or controlled by World Assembly nations.

...does this mean the territority controlled [OOC: don't use encompass, as a WA nation may encompass in its entirety a non-WA nation, but is unlikely to control it] by the particular one WA nation, or all WA nations as a whole?

There's a good reason I'm asking that; let's say your nation is an island nation separated from everywhere else on the planet - like the Galapagos Islands in the Real Life game - and is unique not only to the planet you're on, but also the entirety of the WA-controlled areas. If the bit above means your particular one WA nation, then you can justify land-use as long as you have another similar-enough habitat surviving either on same or another island. But if it means the WA nations as a whole, then the WA committee could very well declare your entire non-urban land area as a biodiversity sanctuary, since any habitat destruction would undeniably - see above for uniqueness of habitats - deprive the WA as a whole of some biodiversity.

Then again, your use of "significant" is weird there - any habitat loss would be a huge issue to that one nation, but might not be for the whole of WA. So it sounds like you're screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.

2. When a habitat's destruction would set off a chain reaction through an ecosystem that would negatively impact a habitat designated as a Biodiversity Sanctuary.

Okay, now you're confusing ecosystems with habitats. Decide which you're defending and stick to it. Also, can you please finally give me an example of that "chain reaction" thing?

3. When a habitat does not necessarily have large amounts of biodiversity

Bullshit. Go into microscopic scale and any biome's going to contain a lot of biodiversity. Also referring to biodiversity as something you can have "large amounts of", is weird. It's like saying that someone who's tall has "large amounts of height". It's a quality on an ecosystem level.

but contains such a large population of a species that its destruction would damage the biodiversity of all of the territory encompassed by or controlled by World Assembly nations.

Now there's something wrong in just saying "would endanger a species"? You don't really have to mention biodiversity there at all. Although, why suddenly focus on single species instead of habitats, I haven't got a clue.

STATES that it will be the duty of the IBPC to determine when an area must be preserved, to maintain Biodiversity Sanctuaries

...just give the duty to WASP already. And also, earlier you define a biodiversity sanctuary as protected by the local government, now you're suddenly making their creation and maintenance the job of a WA committee. So... by your own definition, it stops being a biodiversity sanctuary the moment the WA takes it over.

and to ensure that they are created when mandated.

[OOC: Trying to enforce compliance is futile; a nation that's not going to follow all resolutions can just as well ignore this one too.]

MANDATES that all member nations avoid actions that would permanently damage a Biodiversity Sanctuary in a detrimental fashion.

I think "damage" automatically counts as "detrimental". You can probably cut down on the redundancy.

This does not ban all industry and commerce around Biodiversity Sanctuaries, just those which would severely damage the Sanctuary.

And thus is born the unpluggable loophole.

MANDATES that member nations include the entire qualifying area in all Biodiversity Sanctuaries when they are created.

Even if that covers your entire nation?

STATES that the IBPC will work to keep invasive and non indigenous species out of Biodiversity Sanctuaries so that they cannot damage the biodiversity of the sanctuary.

Isn't there an entire resolution against Invasive Species already? Also, this should be up there with the committee's other duties.

STATES that the protection afforded by this resolution does not extend to disease causing agents.

Even if said agents are perfectly harmless in their own role in the ecosystem and only cause issues when, say, a stupid sapient goes and gets a cut on their skin and said agents then make them die bleeding from every available orifice? Also, this creates more issues (your efforts below) than it solves. Why do you even need to mention diseases at all?

STATES that should a disease causing agent enter a Sanctuary, infected organisms may not be killed to stop the disease, but will be quarenteened and treated by the IBPC, and only put down if deemed necessary by a certified IBPC veterinarian.

Others have pointed out the absurdity of this already. And it also ignores the fact that "organisms" doesn't equal "animals".

STATES that no nation, company, individual, or organization may deliberately release a disease causing agent into a Sanctuary, and one that does so accidentally will be subject to heavy fines.

So accidental release will get you heavy fines, but deliberate ignoring-the-ban release will not? Again, if you'd left diseases unmentioned in the first place, this issue wouldn't exist. [OOC: And, again, trying to enforce compliance by closing unnecessary loopholes will only lead to nations pressing the ignore button.]

STATES that in the case of parasites that are endangered, a living organism that a parasite resides on cannot be in itself a Sanctuary, though it may reside within one, which allows protection to itself and the parasite, unless the parasite threatens the host organisms life, in which case it is not protected, and the protected host organism will be treated by the IBPC to remove the parasite.

...what? And why is that in the least bit necessary? [OOC: I admit I had a good giggle out of the thought of WA trying to ban diseases (viruses, for example, can be classified as parasites) from happening in the nature.]

ENCOURAGES local governments to help with this effort.

Help how? You're taking away anything they could do about this.

ENCOURAGES nations to choose to create Biodiversity Sanctuaries that do not meet the above mentioned requirements simply for the sake of preserving biodiversity, even when creating one is not mandated.

This is the only single bit that doesn't tie directly into the committee and thus may make it just barely legal, rather than running afoul of committee-only.

I honestly can't remember when I last read the last draft, but from what I remember of it, this isn't an improvement. As for the "strength" - if this allows a WA committee to willynilly declare the entire surface area of any nation as "biodiversity sanctuary", then you're definitely spot on.

Still, I would take others' suggestions on handling this - I can even loan my flamethrower for the job.

[Percussionland]

If I were to scrap this and start over with a less extreme piece of environmental legislation, what course of action would you recommend I take?