NationStates

I've made some adjustments to Uan aa Boa pointed out as being potentially problematic. Since allowing for the development of life saving medicines is a potential ecosystem service rather than something truly separate, I've basically merged it into defining the concept of ecosystem services.

Acilon, I'm going to have to agree it is a generic term with a commonly understood meaning. Where this legislation's core active endangered species restoration I think it would, of course, need more fleshing out, but since it is only being mentioned here in so much as we don't want this legislation accidentally be hindering endangered species restoration, I think it's okay as is. Could a nation have a bad faith interpretation of what is meant by "species restoration program"? Sure, but in the end I don't think any amount of defining can truly stop that.

FYI I'm thinking of submitting this in around two weeks.

Probably submitting this in ~5 days if I don't hear anything else. This may be the last warning.

Ransium wrote:Probably submitting this in ~5 days if I don't hear anything else. This may be the last warning.

Is the original post with the Proposal the most up-to-date Proposal written for this? I don't want to give my opinion on an old Proposal!

The very first post is the most up-to-date version. You can see the drafting versions in the second post I made half way down the first page.

All in all, I don't see anything that would prevent Capercom from voting in affirmation of this Proposal. I do a question though, that I'm not certain have been asked as I didn't go back through and read the entire thread (I'm sorry):

Does this Proposal take into account animals that solely exist in a particular region? If RandomNation is the only nation in the world who has AnimalB, and it has never and does not exist in any other nation, RandomNation would still have to protect the animal per the actions required in this Proposal. Yes?

That would be the only argument I could see being made to counter this Proposal, other than the belief that the environment/animals shouldn't be kept prosperous as they are impeding on human development...but nothing in this type of Proposal could win over that group of WA members favor.

When it is proposed, I would be more than happy to have this Proposal's backing while discussing WA matters within my region.

Capercom wrote:All in all, I don't see anything that would prevent Capercom from voting in affirmation of this Proposal. I do a question though, that I'm not certain have been asked as I didn't go back through and read the entire thread (I'm sorry):

Does this Proposal take into account animals that solely exist in a particular region? If RandomNation is the only nation in the world who has AnimalB, and it has never and does not exist in any other nation, RandomNation would still have to protect the animal per the actions required in this Proposal. Yes?

That would be the only argument I could see being made to counter this Proposal, other than the belief that the environment/animals shouldn't be kept prosperous as they are impeding on human development...but nothing in this type of Proposal could win over that group of WA members favor.

When it is proposed, I would be more than happy to have this Proposal's backing while discussing WA matters within my region.

What constitutes an endangered species is currently defined in GAR 66 "Endangered Species Protection" which says:

- Forms the WA Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) with the following and responsibilities:
1) The WAESC is responsible for determining reasonable numbers at which each species will be considered endangered.
2) The WAESC is responsible for accurately monitoring species’ numbers.
3) Should a species become endangered, or exhibit repeated numeric decline, the WAESC is responsible for creation of and direction of conservation efforts.

If I understand your question you asking about locally endemic species. Whether those species would be protected would be determined by the WAESC based presumably on population number and trajectory.

Ransium wrote:

Capercom wrote:All in all, I don't see anything that would prevent Capercom from voting in affirmation of this Proposal. I do a question though, that I'm not certain have been asked as I didn't go back through and read the entire thread (I'm sorry):

Does this Proposal take into account animals that solely exist in a particular region? If RandomNation is the only nation in the world who has AnimalB, and it has never and does not exist in any other nation, RandomNation would still have to protect the animal per the actions required in this Proposal. Yes?

That would be the only argument I could see being made to counter this Proposal, other than the belief that the environment/animals shouldn't be kept prosperous as they are impeding on human development...but nothing in this type of Proposal could win over that group of WA members favor.

When it is proposed, I would be more than happy to have this Proposal's backing while discussing WA matters within my region.

What constitutes an endangered species is currently defined in GAR 66 "Endangered Species Protection" which says:

- Forms the WA Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) with the following and responsibilities:
1) The WAESC is responsible for determining reasonable numbers at which each species will be considered endangered.
2) The WAESC is responsible for accurately monitoring species’ numbers.
3) Should a species become endangered, or exhibit repeated numeric decline, the WAESC is responsible for creation of and direction of conservation efforts.

If I understand your question you asking about locally endemic species. Whether those species would be protected would be determined by the WAESC based presumably on population number and trajectory.

I apologize for not reading that previous Resolution more clearly! This Proposal looks good for submission!

No apologies needed, the ins and outs of existing WA resolutions can be extremely hard for even veterans to have perfect grasp over, and often the only way you learn is asking. I just happen to have a bit of knowledge on the WA's environmental resolutions both from personal interest and through the course of drafting this. Thank you for the support!

This proposal has been submitted.

Bears Armed Mission wrote:Believing that because extinction is irreversible, and letting a species that currently exists in only one nation become extinct therefore permanently renders all nations incapable of ever acquiring populations of that species, member nations have a moral obligation -- not only to their own peoples today, but also to future generations of those peoples and to the international community -- to take action against such illegal collection and smuggling;

OOC: Wow, it's been a while.

---

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley, stands up, happily, somewhat beaming, perhaps. "Ah! This reminds me of my work in cultural preservation! Certainly was a task, in 1910, to work on preservation of the Latin fort in Icenishire."

"However it is," she points to the above quote in the transcript, "I support such language, but my Cabinet colleagues in Greyhall would like justification for why permanent inability of acquisition is a bad thing. To take a parasitical view of it, we would be happy if in the future, it became impossible for anyone in society to acquire polio or smallpox. Certainly, that needs response. However, seeing as you did not include it in the proposal, I'll move on."

"Our species restoration programmes are primarily run by entrepreneurs, explorers, and economists; why we call it the three 'E's programme. Why does your proposal require that such programmes be run by scientists? Or would you instead interpret it such that it is run with scientific principles and facts in mind?"

Ambassador Tāne takes the floor and begins to speak: "Indeed, my interpretation of the words "scientifically run" are not that it need be run by scientists, necessarily, but rather, that it is run in accordance with scientific principles and the best available science. I assumed that this was the most commonly accepted meaning of the words, but we are now uncertain if this is a more regional or jargonostic understanding of the phrases meaning. Ransium does not have many formal scientists these days since abolishing public university, so it was certainly not our intent for the phrase be construed to mean restoration programs need be run by formal scientists.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:"I support such language, but my Cabinet colleagues in Greyhall would like justification for why permanent inability of acquisition is a bad thing. To take a parasitical view of it, we would be happy if in the future, it became impossible for anyone in society to acquire polio or smallpox."

"Hr'rrmm. Since one can not altogether rrule out the possibility of those diseases returning naturally, from a previously-unsuspected 'reservoir' such as the population of a nation that has only just come into contact with any WA member, is not keeping "captive" stocks of the organisms concerned available -- under proper security, of course -- for use in the creation of vaccines advisable?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"We proudly stand in support of this legislation."

"We have voted FOR, reading it see no reason to go against to our knowledge. It doesn't hurt any of our own personal agendas, dosen't insert itself too much in our business, and a worthy cause."

Money, industry and economy are all important factors that determine the wealth of a nation. But should a nation reserve the right to call itself wealthy when its landscape is barren, its waters are acid, and its air is toxic; when all its trees are cut down to print more money; when the songs of its birds are a thing of the past, and it hears only the rumbles of factories instead?

Issues concerning natural environment, with emphasis on endangered organisms, transcend the scope of national sovereignty; they affect everyone and everything in the world. Hence, it is the responsibility of every nation to protect Mother Nature from the avarice of mankind, and endangered species from evitable extinction.

The inclusion of all organisms in this resolution, as opposed to merely the animals, is highly commendable and a good reminder that humans are not only responsible for themselves, their fellows and their pets, but as well as for other living things, great or small, visible or invisible, economical or uneconomical, that support the ecosystem through whatever role they play.

Thus, Iraines hereby votes for this resolution to protect endangered organisms from exploitative trade.

As the author of GA Resolution #66, Endangered Species Protection, I applaud the proposal currently before the GA, and urge members to vote for it.

At the time of its passage, Burnination worried that granting the WAESC broader latitude in its interests would make the act too controversial at a time in NS history when many WA members were concerned so strongly with national sovereignty, that it was often difficult to obtain passage.

This is an excellent, and we believe important (and well-authored) proposal -- the first we have seen in quite a while.

Burnination gladly casts its vote "for" the proposal Trade of Endangered Organisms.

OOC (because Araraukar isn't a WA nation in IC): Since it's now in the right category, no problem voting for.

Maoltao Narulm Shumaza-Melikos, Ascendant Scholar of the Eriaroon World Assembly Experiment, opened communications from her communications chamber. She began emitting pulses of light, moving her tentacles, and expelling water in the organised manner through which communication took place in Eriaroon Amalgamated Language. She hoped that translation of her comments would succeed.

"I have examined both General Assembly Resolution #66 and this proposal. It is my opinion that, unless a persuasive argument is made against it sufficient enough to alter my opinion, this resolution should be accepted rather than rejected."

Bakhton wrote:"We proudly stand in support of this legislation."

Fairburn: How does your Delegation still have functioning knees at this point?

I am concerned that this would inhibit breeding programs of endangered species and make genetic inbreeding from small local populations a certainty - probably leading to greater species loss from genetic disease.
Without a clause that specifically deals with this issue in plain terms I'll be voting no.

Myopic wrote:I am concerned that this would inhibit breeding programs of endangered species and make genetic inbreeding from small local populations a certainty - probably leading to greater species loss from genetic disease.
Without a clause that specifically deals with this issue in plain terms I'll be voting no.

Ambassador Tāne takes the floor and begins to speak: "With all due respect ambassador, we feel you may be mistaken about the total contents of the resolution, section 2a which deals with exceptions reads:

They are specimens or goods that are being collected or being returned as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;

Preventing inbreeding depression through the transport of endangered species is indisputably and unambiguously covered under this clause.

"We have voted for this proposed resolution... of course.
"Furthermore, I am instructed to inform you that Bears Armed proper -- although not itself a member of this organisation -- will be fully in compliance with these rules."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

If the restrictions on the trade of endangered animals wins then I call for a mass resignation from the World Assembly.