NationStates

Untecna wrote:I've attempted to address these concerns, but it does not seem very clear to me what you are asking for, considering the proposal already appeared to cover your concerns to some degree.

“To some degree” is the problem. The unworkable issues I noted above have not been fully addressed, which mean that the proposal still effectively bans any and all construction.

Clause 1a:

“Animal population” is a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient wild animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area.

Clause 1b:

“Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers, potentially causing detrimental affects to a population.

Clause 5:

All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to ensure that the construction will not further fragmentation that already persists to some degree, and is detrimental to the species.

Consider the case of microscopic animals. Such creatures are non-sapient wild animals. Therefore a group of them living in an area for a proposed construction to be reviewed under clause 5 would be considered an ‘animal population’ as per 1a.

Natural barriers are ubiquitous on a microscopic level. Individual drops of water can be enough to ‘separate animal populations’ at this scale. This meets your current definition of fragmentation, as it is separation of an animal population (microscopic animals) by natural barriers(water drops, puddles, shady sides of rocks etc). Therefore, fragmentation is ubiquitous in all locations.

Any construction in such an area will cause disruption to the environment, and given the enormous number of microscopic species in the vast majority of environments (certainly in all environments habitable to humans), it is practically guaranteed that such disruption will further separate at least one of those species. This meets your criteria for ‘furthering fragmentation.’

Following this logic, any construction plan in any area can reasonably be said to further fragmentation. Consequently, any and all construction will still fall foul of clause 5, and not be allowed.

(Side note here, the way you’ve constructed the wording of clause 5, the independent environmental body must ensure that the construction is detrimental to the species. I don’t think that was your intent)

Your revisions have not stopped the gigantic problem of the proposal effectively banning all construction. You need to be much more precise in your wording, and in what you are defining. If your definitions continue to be overly broad, similar issues will continue to plague it.

Xanthorrhoea wrote:

Untecna wrote:I've attempted to address these concerns, but it does not seem very clear to me what you are asking for, considering the proposal already appeared to cover your concerns to some degree.

“To some degree” is the problem. The unworkable issues I noted above have not been fully addressed, which mean that the proposal still effectively bans any and all construction.

Clause 1a:

“Animal population” is a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient wild animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area.

Clause 1b:

“Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers, potentially causing detrimental affects to a population.

Clause 5:

All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to ensure that the construction will not further fragmentation that already persists to some degree, and is detrimental to the species.

Consider the case of microscopic animals. Such creatures are non-sapient wild animals. Therefore a group of them living in an area for a proposed construction to be reviewed under clause 5 would be considered an ‘animal population’ as per 1a.

Natural barriers are ubiquitous on a microscopic level. Individual drops of water can be enough to ‘separate animal populations’ at this scale. This meets your current definition of fragmentation, as it is separation of an animal population (microscopic animals) by natural barriers(water drops, puddles, shady sides of rocks etc). Therefore, fragmentation is ubiquitous in all locations.

Any construction in such an area will cause disruption to the environment, and given the enormous number of microscopic species in the vast majority of environments (certainly in all environments habitable to humans), it is practically guaranteed that such disruption will further separate at least one of those species. This meets your criteria for ‘furthering fragmentation.’

Following this logic, any construction plan in any area can reasonably be said to further fragmentation. Consequently, any and all construction will still fall foul of clause 5, and not be allowed.

(Side note here, the way you’ve constructed the wording of clause 5, the independent environmental body must ensure that the construction is detrimental to the species. I don’t think that was your intent)

Your revisions have not stopped the gigantic problem of the proposal effectively banning all construction. You need to be much more precise in your wording, and in what you are defining. If your definitions continue to be overly broad, similar issues will continue to plague it.

A few clauses have been reworked to say it does not apply for microscopic species. If there is still any issue on the construction portion, please go ahead and point it out.

Thanks for the elaboration, by the way.

The changes are welcome!

Defining by size is rather arbitrary, but for a workable solution you do have to call it somehow. When things exist on a spectrum (in this case size), you have to pick a point on the spectrum to discuss things with any meaning. Arbitrarily picking 'microscopic' as that point is as good as anything else I suppose.

Stylistically, you probably only need to include the microscopic exclusion in the definition of 'fragmentation' (or even for 'animal population' instead), instead of restating it again in clause 5. The repetition doesn't seem to break anything though, so keep it if you want.

Being really nitpicky, "microscopic" is not especially well defined as a term either. It's debatable at exactly what point things are no longer easily seen with the naked eye, so theoretically there could be some legal wrangling between developers and environmental groups over fragmenting some miniscule species of insect that falls in the grey area. The area of fuzziness is tiny however, so as long as individual nations adopt their own specific definitions of microscopic, it should be fine. If one nation allows fragmenting of species 0.5mm and lower and another allows it for species 0.3mm and lower, it won't matter much overall. A lot of waffle to say: technically iffy, but practically ok I think.

I'm still not personally in favour of the proposal as I think it's still too broad a definition of fragmentation, but it's no longer catastrophically broad, so I'm happy for it to simply be a difference of opinion, and for the WA to ultimately decide :)

Xanthorrhoea wrote:The changes are welcome!

Defining by size is rather arbitrary, but for a workable solution you do have to call it somehow. When things exist on a spectrum (in this case size), you have to pick a point on the spectrum to discuss things with any meaning. Arbitrarily picking 'microscopic' as that point is as good as anything else I suppose.

Stylistically, you probably only need to include the microscopic exclusion in the definition of 'fragmentation' (or even for 'animal population' instead), instead of restating it again in clause 5. The repetition doesn't seem to break anything though, so keep it if you want.

Being really nitpicky, "microscopic" is not especially well defined as a term either. It's debatable at exactly what point things are no longer easily seen with the naked eye, so theoretically there could be some legal wrangling between developers and environmental groups over fragmenting some miniscule species of insect that falls in the grey area. The area of fuzziness is tiny however, so as long as individual nations adopt their own specific definitions of microscopic, it should be fine. If one nation allows fragmenting of species 0.5mm and lower and another allows it for species 0.3mm and lower, it won't matter much overall. A lot of waffle to say: technically iffy, but practically ok I think.

I'm still not personally in favour of the proposal as I think it's still too broad a definition of fragmentation, but it's no longer catastrophically broad, so I'm happy for it to simply be a difference of opinion, and for the WA to ultimately decide

I can see where size definitions could be an issue. Perhaps I should include "microscopic" in the definitions to ensure we have a set size?

Would you also care to add what you think could be done to make the definition less broad?

You could include a definition of microscopic I suppose, but I'm not too sure it's needed. It's hard to credibly argue anything over at least 1mm (at an absolute maximum) is microscopic, so leaving it up to individual nations to define isn't too problematic. Defining it as 0.3mm inseatd of 0.2mm is not going to change the proposal in any meaningful way, and you have to draw a line somewhere. Equally, including a definition in the proposal wouldn't be harmful either, for the exact same reasons.

My personal concerns re: broadness is twofold. I think that as worded, the proposal still may prevent speciation from occurring, which isn't optimal. Also, I think that ensuring fragmentation won't be furthered as in clause 5 is still too restrictive.

If I were writing it (just riffing here, so it's a bit rough), I'd probably explicitly define fragmentation as something like "separation of animal populations that is likely to cause a net detriment to the population," and move he microscopic exclusion to the definition of animal populations (change it to something like "a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient wild animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area, excluding microscopic animals"). This would more narrowly target harmful splitting of populations, but allow benign splitting and speciation to still occur.

In clause 5, instead of ensuring construction won't further fragmentation, I'd rewrite it to compel those responsible for the construction to "develop and implement plans to mitigate (compensate for/neutralise maybe?) the detrimental effects of any fragmentation that their construction will foreseeably cause." This is still a relatively onerous requirement that (I think) is in line with your intent, but limits excessive liability, and also allows responsible construction to still occur. It allows construction companies to implement (or simply fund) creative ways to manage fragmentation (e.g. building a highway, but including wildlife over/underpasses to allow migration to still occur; funding breeding programs to maintain genetic diversity between otherwise divided populations; individually helicoptering lizards from one side of a canal to the other - utterly ridiculous, but a fun visual )

I'm also still in favour of letting some level of naturally caused fragmentation occur, but seeing as clause 8 is optional, I'm happy with the way it is. I'll just partially comply with that one in my own (glorious) nation.

While I'm offering edits: Clause 9 is a bit hard to read. I'd suggest rearranging it to something like "Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to finance compliance with this resolution in nations which would otherwise be unable to do so due to lack of funds." It reads a little more cleanly to me.

Personally I'm not a fan of the trend of using the general fund as a bailout tool for poorer nations. It's this weird trope where it ends up being treated as an infinate money printing get out of jail free card. Ultimately, the responsibility of complying with WA legistation should fall on individual GA members, not the GA. Just a personal opinion of mine though, many people here seem to disagree, so go with your gut on that one.

Xanthorrhoea wrote:You could include a definition of microscopic I suppose, but I'm not too sure it's needed. It's hard to credibly argue anything over at least 1mm (at an absolute maximum) is microscopic, so leaving it up to individual nations to define isn't too problematic. Defining it as 0.3mm inseatd of 0.2mm is not going to change the proposal in any meaningful way, and you have to draw a line somewhere. Equally, including a definition in the proposal wouldn't be harmful either, for the exact same reasons.

My personal concerns re: broadness is twofold. I think that as worded, the proposal still may prevent speciation from occurring, which isn't optimal. Also, I think that ensuring fragmentation won't be furthered as in clause 5 is still too restrictive.

If I were writing it (just riffing here, so it's a bit rough), I'd probably explicitly define fragmentation as something like "separation of animal populations that is likely to cause a net detriment to the population," and move he microscopic exclusion to the definition of animal populations (change it to something like "a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient wild animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area, excluding microscopic animals"). This would more narrowly target harmful splitting of populations, but allow benign splitting and speciation to still occur.

In clause 5, instead of ensuring construction won't further fragmentation, I'd rewrite it to compel those responsible for the construction to "develop and implement plans to mitigate (compensate for/neutralise maybe?) the detrimental effects of any fragmentation that their construction will foreseeably cause." This is still a relatively onerous requirement that (I think) is in line with your intent, but limits excessive liability, and also allows responsible construction to still occur. It allows construction companies to implement (or simply fund) creative ways to manage fragmentation (e.g. building a highway, but including wildlife over/underpasses to allow migration to still occur; funding breeding programs to maintain genetic diversity between otherwise divided populations; individually helicoptering lizards from one side of a canal to the other - utterly ridiculous, but a fun visual )

I'm also still in favour of letting some level of naturally caused fragmentation occur, but seeing as clause 8 is optional, I'm happy with the way it is. I'll just partially comply with that one in my own (glorious) nation.

While I'm offering edits: Clause 9 is a bit hard to read. I'd suggest rearranging it to something like "Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to finance compliance with this resolution in nations which would otherwise be unable to do so due to lack of funds." It reads a little more cleanly to me.

Personally I'm not a fan of the trend of using the general fund as a bailout tool for poorer nations. It's this weird trope where it ends up being treated as an infinate money printing get out of jail free card. Ultimately, the responsibility of complying with WA legistation should fall on individual GA members, not the GA. Just a personal opinion of mine though, many people here seem to disagree, so go with your gut on that one.

I've provided changes within the proposal to follow your recommendations, of course, with my own wording.

As for the definition of microscopic, I have decided it should be added since, without one, one nation could make a perfectly visible animal "microscopic" in definition and not assist. Not saying it would happen, but I can see that as a legal loophole no one wants. I'll place it at a length of 0.25 mm to balance between 0.2 and 0.3.

OOC: I'll take a detailed look at the current draft at some point in the next few days.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: I'll take a detailed look at the current draft at some point in the next few days.

Legality check, or opinion on the draft?

Untecna wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: I'll take a detailed look at the current draft at some point in the next few days.

Legality check, or opinion on the draft?

OOC: primarily opinion, although if I see any obvious illegalities then I'll point those out.

Bears Armed wrote:

Untecna wrote:Legality check, or opinion on the draft?

OOC: primarily opinion, although if I see any obvious illegalities then I'll point those out.

Alright, just wanted to clarify. Thanks.

Bears Armed wrote:

Untecna wrote:Legality check, or opinion on the draft?

OOC: primarily opinion, although if I see any obvious illegalities then I'll point those out.

Are you still planning on providing an opinion? I don't mean to rush you if you are, but it has been more than a "few days".

Untecna wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: primarily opinion, although if I see any obvious illegalities then I'll point those out.

Are you still planning on providing an opinion? I don't mean to rush you if you are, but it has been more than a "few days".

OOC: Oops!
Tomorrow, I promise.

Bears Armed wrote:

Untecna wrote:Are you still planning on providing an opinion? I don't mean to rush you if you are, but it has been more than a "few days".

OOC: Oops!
Tomorrow, I promise.

Noted.

Okay, I've read through the current draft.
Firstly, while this isn't actually an illegality it would be a potential argument for use in repeals: In the preamble you say that

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to reduction of genetic diversity,

and

Understanding that, by the nature of the detrimental effects listed above, fragmentation of animal populations reduces the diversity of species

However, as has already been pointed out to you, fragmentation of populations sometimes leads to speciation, in which case those statements would be incorrect: I therefore suggest inserting "potential" in front of "reduction" in the first of those clauses, and "potentially" in front of "reduces" in the second of them, for greater accuracy & thus -- hopefully -- less chance of a successful repeal.

There is one point in the operative clauses that I think really needs to be fixed, which otherwise could perhaps lead to a legality challenge on the grounds of Contradiction:

2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
a. Research barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial,
b. Collect and provide data and information on fragmented species for use by national efforts to end fragmentation, and
c. Ensure the fragmented population is not only able to be assisted, but can not sustain itself in the long run without intervention.

Subclause 2.b. apparently requires WAESC to ensure that the fragmented population "can not sustain itself in the long run without intervention". Now, I realise that presumably you intended this to mean only that they must check for this factor before providing aid, but it could be read as telling the committee itself to reduce that population's chances of sustaining itself! That would clash with the current legislation on endangered species, so I definitely would replace the "Ensure" with something less open to that misinterpretation.

Otherwise, it looks good.

Bears Armed wrote:Okay, I've read through the current draft.
Firstly, while this isn't actually an illegality it would be a potential argument for use in repeals: In the preamble you say that

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to reduction of genetic diversity,

and

Understanding that, by the nature of the detrimental effects listed above, fragmentation of animal populations reduces the diversity of species

However, as has already been pointed out to you, fragmentation of populations sometimes leads to speciation, in which case those statements would be incorrect: I therefore suggest inserting "potential" in front of "reduction" in the first of those clauses, and "potentially" in front of "reduces" in the second of them, for greater accuracy & thus -- hopefully -- less chance of a successful repeal.

There is one point in the operative clauses that I think really needs to be fixed, which otherwise could perhaps lead to a legality challenge on the grounds of Contradiction:

2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
a. Research barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial,
b. Collect and provide data and information on fragmented species for use by national efforts to end fragmentation, and
c. Ensure the fragmented population is not only able to be assisted, but can not sustain itself in the long run without intervention.

Subclause 2.b. apparently requires WAESC to ensure that the fragmented population "can not sustain itself in the long run without intervention". Now, I realise that presumably you intended this to mean only that they must check for this factor before providing aid, but it could be read as telling the committee itself to reduce that population's chances of sustaining itself! That would clash with the current legislation on endangered species, so I definitely would replace the "Ensure" with something less open to that misinterpretation.

Otherwise, it looks good.

"Potential" and "Potentially" added where needed.

For Subclause 2c (italics for correction to your statement), this is what I've come up with:

Find that the species in question is both able to be assisted at the time and is in danger of detriment from fragmentation.

Edit: With that, last call status has been entered. I'm going to keep it up for at least a little more than a week so I have time to get everything ready for submission.

/shamelessbump

Untecna wrote:2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
…
c. Find that the species in question is both able to be assisted at the time and is in danger of detriment from fragmentation.

The way 2c is currently worded, WAESC will automatically find that all species they assess are able to be assisted and in danger. “Find that” needs to be altered to something like “Assess whether.”

Xanthorrhoea wrote:

Untecna wrote:2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
…
c. Find that the species in question is both able to be assisted at the time and is in danger of detriment from fragmentation.

The way 2c is currently worded, WAESC will automatically find that all species they assess are able to be assisted and in danger. “Find that” needs to be altered to something like “Assess whether.”

Good catch, thank you.

This proposal has been submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1641660884

Good luck!

Untecna wrote:This proposal has been submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1641660884

Nice one! Hope it reaches quorum, I’ll tell my delegate to approve it if they haven’t already

Onionist Randosia wrote:

Untecna wrote:This proposal has been submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1641660884

Nice one! Hope it reaches quorum, I’ll tell my delegate to approve it if they haven’t already

Based on the swift amount of approval (32 in 9 hours), I'd say we have a fair chance.

Apatosaurus wrote:Good luck!

Thanks Apato!

Has this been campaigned for? I don't see any campaign TGs and I just approved it because I wanted to

Tinhampton wrote:Has this been campaigned for? I don't see any campaign TGs and I just approved it because I wanted to

I received one, tagged with tag:delegates. Curious as to why you didn’t receive one.

Morover wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Has this been campaigned for? I don't see any campaign TGs and I just approved it because I wanted to

I received one, tagged with tag:delegates. Curious as to why you didn’t receive one.

If he’s using the API, it goes in alphabetical order, so it might not have gotten to T yet.