Ransium wrote:Recognizing its members' continued commitment to the preservation of endangered organisms,
This being the opening statement, you need to make nations feel good about being on your side, so I'd suggest something like "Applauding its members' continued efforts on the preservation of endangered organisms".
Noting the tangible benefits of endangered species preservation, such as the development of medicines, industrial materials, and ecosystem services, the loss of which has the potential to cause extreme harm to member nations populations,
This sounds more like an argument for Free Trade category than Environmental, because "the loss of which" seems to refer to the industries rather than the ecosystems/endangered species. Perhaps this should be clarified, possibly by poking at the way the sentence is structured.
Concerned that illegal collection and smuggling of endangered organisms could undermine preservation efforts,
This should be near the top of these arguments, certainly above the possible industry losses.
Hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, including the fact that trade involving certain groups of organisms may already be covered separately by such legislation,
Why any of that after "hereby" is needed? Is there one or more extant resolutions you fear could render this one illegal? If so, which ones?
1. Instructs WAESC (the World Assembly Endangered Species Committee)
Full committee name first, shortening in parentheses.
and WA member nations' governments to cooperate with each other in creating and maintaining up-to-date lists
That reads like the member nations' governments also needed to cooperate with each other, which, though preferable, might just not happen due to various diplomatic reasons. Perhaps, rather than speak of the member nations in plural, speak in singular. It'll still apply to all the member nations.
of species, and of local populations within species, that qualify as 'Endangered';
Okay, this is where it goes into serious micromanagement territory. I know what you mean, but you'll run into the issue of what counts as a local population? Is it all the individuals in a certain nation? Province? Municipality? Valley? Pond? And while I understand there's no easy fix for this, perhaps you should instead say "of the populations of species and sub-species", as that will let you add the variations of an organism that are worth preserving, requires the populations to be monitored, and yet dodges the issue of "local".
2. Bans the international import and export into or from member nations of all organisms from endangered species or local populations, and of goods derived wholly or partly from said organisms, except when any of the following exemptions apply:
Again I'd change "local populations" for "sub-species". Also, I think the wording goes "wholly or in part". Also, using both "except" and "exemption" seems unnecessary, though that's just a nitpick from my days in school, I'd probably say that with "unless any of the following exemptions applies".
i) They are specimens collected or being repatriated as part of a scientifically run species restoration program, or they are goods being imported or exported as part of a scientifically run restoration program;
ii) They are specimens which originate from a non-wild source such as a farm, laboratory, or nursery, and birthed or grown from seeds, spores, or other material, that itself was collected from either a non-wild source or as part of a species restoration program;
I would add "eggs" into that list, since I've actually heard someone in these halls complain about egg-laying species "not giving birth". And you don't really grow anything from an egg, you hatch something from one.
And why do you need to repeat the "or as part of a species restoration program", when you already say it in i)? It would make more sense if i) dealt with wild sources and ii) with non-wild sources. Unless the "or" is an unnecessary word in the sentence.
iii) They are goods derived from organisms that fall under exemption 'ii';
Unnecessary. Combine this with ii) as "specimens or goods derived from".
iv) They are goods that were derived from specimens in a manner which does not increase the species' endangerment and were collected purely for scientific or species restoration purposes;
Is "endangerment" even a word? Wouldn't "does not further endanger the species" work?
v) They are durable goods such as lumber, which can be historically or scientifically proven to have been processed 10 years before the species was first noted as being endangered by WAESC;
Exact numbers like that are always a bad idea, especially as "10 years" may be vastly different time interval, depending on how long the year is on any given planet. Just drop the "10 years" and go with the addition to the WAESC list, as that'll be the same date for everyone.
vi) They are widely dispersed reproductive material such as pollen or reproductive spores which are present at incidental levels on other trade materials;
I'd go with "such as seeds, pollen, eggs or spores". Many insect eggs and plant seeds can be too tiny to detect easily. Although, I'm wondering if "they are unintentionally distributed trace amounts of reproductive materials such as seeds, pollen, eggs or spores in or on other trade goods" might work better, since "unintentional" means that sapients did not mean to include them, and "trace amounts" pretty much means "not a lot". Also I would put the "in or on" in there, since if you export a bag of the finest sand for whatever purpose, that may have some seeds or pollen in it, rather than on it. And "trade goods" instead of "materials", because "materials" can be read to mean only non-processed stuff.
3. Urges member nations to pass legislation preventing the internal transport and monetization of endangered species and derived products within their own borders;
I know what you want to say, but it sounds a bit clumsy. Maybe "preventing transporting of and profiting from endangered species and products derived from them, within their own borders" instead? That would also prevent transporting the goods, which would further prevent profiting from them. Scientific things usually aren't done for direct profit, so they'll still be excused by the previous clauses. Also, why are you only urging? Your area of effect is "all businesses", which is usually considered to have the same effect as "significant or strong" strength in other categories. You should have more requirements. Either this or clause 4 should be a requirement, not simply a "pretty please?"
4. Requests member nations ardently enforce measures designed to stop illegal collection and trade of endangered species, and of products derived from endangered species, within their jurisdictions.
I would rewrite that as "Requires member nations, within their jurisdictions, to ardently enforce measures designed to stop illegal collection and trade of endangered species and products derived from them". It just flows better that way.
