[DEFEATED] Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation

[Morover]

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.

API uses tag:API not tag:delegates

[Untecna]

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

API uses tag:API not tag:delegates

To clear this up, I used the tag:delegates, and not the API.

If Tinhampton perhaps blocked the campaign TG category, that may explain this. Otherwise, he should have one.

[Tinhampton]

...I forgot that I actually did get it! my goodness

[Untecna]

...I forgot that I actually did get it! my goodness

Ah, good! I remember you were one of the first two to approve it as well, so you must've gotten it.

[Untecna]

As of 10:09-10:11 PST, we have reached quorom with 57 approvals! Spokesland is the most recent delegate to approve, with Budgie Snugglers getting us to the finish line!

[Team Leo]

As of 10:09-10:11 PST, we have reached quorom with 57 approvals! Spokesland is the most recent delegate to approve, with Budgie Snugglers getting us to the finish line!

Noooo. I hope this horrible bad-ass prop fail.

[Unified Democratic Europe]

Approved. I have a bias for our friends from IOC, and when you add a wonderfully made proposal on top of that bias, you're guaranteed to get an approval.

[Team Leo]

Approved. I have a bias for our friends from IOC, and when you add a wonderfully made proposal on top of that bias, you're guaranteed to get an approval.

so ur only supporting this bc of IOC? wow...

[Kingdom Of Englands]

As of 10:09-10:11 PST, we have reached quorom with 57 approvals! Spokesland is the most recent delegate to approve, with Budgie Snugglers getting us to the finish line!

Noooo. I hope this horrible bad-ass prop fail.

Explain in full detail why this should fail?

Does it not cover Animal Populations fragmentation enough?

As of 10:09-10:11 PST, we have reached quorom with 57 approvals! Spokesland is the most recent delegate to approve, with Budgie Snugglers getting us to the finish line!

Good luck, I really like this

[Milorum]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, "Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Amerion]

The South Pacific's World Assembly Delegation has cast the Coalition's vote FOR this proposed resolution, Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation, and warmly encourages fellow member regions to vote FOR.

[Untecna]

I did not realize that Paid Leave Act II was pulled, and I was considering pulling this for edits.

After voting, if it fails, I'll restart drafting; if not, that obviously won't be necessary.

Edit: My reasoning to restart drafting is that I don't believe this proposal should just get cast away and forgotten about, it has some merits and is mostly developed so far, albeit with issues that could have been foreseen. With that in mind, I'll most likely end up making another drafting thread and make another version of this proposal, making sure to cut out the issues noted, if any.

That said, of you would like to point out anything that may have been missed in drafting, feel free to do so.

[Caymarnia]

The National Council of the People's Will has examined the proposal and takes issue with the following. First, clause 5:

All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to implement plans to mitigate or neutralize foreseeable fragmentation from the construction project.

While we do take measures to preserve both the natural landscape and those creatures that live within it - indeed, having returned our national animal, the gryphon, from the brink, the result of overhunting by the zealous lickspittles of the late, unlamented Emperor - we are also in the midst of a massive modernization campaign to bring our nation out of the medieval superstitious wreck it had been before the Revolution, and too much bureaucratic interference dries up the wheels of progress.

There is here a question from a Council member as well: "What next, legislation to respect the personal space of trees?" Somewhat cynical, I confess, but the honored member is in the Council to express the views of the people, and some think as their representative does.

Secondly, clause 9:

Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to finance endeavors spawned from this resolution to member states who are unable to pay for such activities to occur.

The issue that has been brought up by others is the vague nature of the description: what endeavors, exactly?

We wish to add the fact that, quite honestly, every bit of money from the World Assembly flushed into this hole is less money going to efforts to better the lot of the people of the member nations - and if a member state is unable to pay for "such activities to occur", and the World Assembly funnels money into animal conservation efforts, what does this say for its priorities? Again, we are committed to preserving the natural life of our nation as best as we can, but we also must take the needs of our people into consideration, first, foremost, and always.

Caymarnia therefore votes against.

[Sanctaria]

7. All member nations are required to take action to mitigate and minimize the effects of fragmentation if the animal in question meets the guidelines and the fragmentation is caused by artificial barriers.

Ambassador, perhaps my eyesight isn't what it once was, and I've read the proposed resolution a number of times now, but I can't for the life of me find any mention of guidelines in the resolution prior to article 7.

The article requires member nations to act under certain guidelines, but I'm not entirely sure how when it doesn't tell us what those guidelines are. I'm assuming the author means if the definition of animal population as per this resolution is met, but that's not entirely clear, and I'm not sure that something being left to an assumption when there's a requirement involved is best practice.

Maybe if the author could just elaborate on what exactly was meant, just so I can follow, and if when re-drafting should the resolution fail, maybe better clarify.

[Untecna]

7. All member nations are required to take action to mitigate and minimize the effects of fragmentation if the animal in question meets the guidelines and the fragmentation is caused by artificial barriers.

Ambassador, perhaps my eyesight isn't what it once was, and I've read the proposed resolution a number of times now, but I can't for the life of me find any mention of guidelines in the resolution prior to article 7.

The article requires member nations to act under certain guidelines, but I'm not entirely sure how when it doesn't tell us what those guidelines are. I'm assuming the author means if the definition of animal population as per this resolution is met, but that's not entirely clear, and I'm not sure that something being left to an assumption when there's a requirement involved is best practice.

Maybe if the author could just elaborate on what exactly was meant, just so I can follow, and if when re-drafting should the resolution fail, maybe better clarify.

It is referring to the animal being evaluated. The "guidelines" referred to are in Clause 2, Subclause 3:

Assess whether the species in question is both able to be assisted at the time and is in danger of detriment from fragmentation

This is listed as a position for the WAESC, but bear with me. Pun intended.

This subclause makes it clear that any animal species that looks like it needs assistance must be evaluated for eligibility for assistance, via finding the imminent danger amount for the species and whether or not it is able to be assisted (if this place is dangerously remote, there may be issues helping).

Hopefully that answers the question, and I'll throw in some more clarification in the next drafting period.

---

The National Council of the People's Will has examined the proposal and takes issue with the following. First, clause 5:

All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to implement plans to mitigate or neutralize foreseeable fragmentation from the construction project.

While we do take measures to preserve both the natural landscape and those creatures that live within it - indeed, having returned our national animal, the gryphon, from the brink, the result of overhunting by the zealous lickspittles of the late, unlamented Emperor - we are also in the midst of a massive modernization campaign to bring our nation out of the medieval superstitious wreck it had been before the Revolution, and too much bureaucratic interference dries up the wheels of progress.

There is here a question from a Council member as well: "What next, legislation to respect the personal space of trees?" Somewhat cynical, I confess, but the honored member is in the Council to express the views of the people, and some think as their representative does.

Issues with Clause 5 have been brought up by the opinions of regions around the world, and so I am working to find ways to fix this in the next drafting period. Most of it will be clarifying and fixing what kind of construction is tolerable enough to not have an assessment done. As is any environmental proposal, this one can be a blocker to progress, but there are other workarounds and compromises to achieve that progress, even at the expense of the original plans.

Secondly, clause 9:

Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to finance endeavors spawned from this resolution to member states who are unable to pay for such activities to occur.

The issue that has been brought up by others is the vague nature of the description: what endeavors, exactly?

We wish to add the fact that, quite honestly, every bit of money from the World Assembly flushed into this hole is less money going to efforts to better the lot of the people of the member nations - and if a member state is unable to pay for "such activities to occur", and the World Assembly funnels money into animal conservation efforts, what does this say for its priorities? Again, we are committed to preserving the natural life of our nation as best as we can, but we also must take the needs of our people into consideration, first, foremost, and always.

Caymarnia therefore votes against.

The activation of Clause 9 may also be fixed to something more on the lines of:

Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to finance endeavors spawned from this resolution to member states who request funding for projects, and should they pass an examination to determine eligibility for that funding it shall be received.

Again, something on those lines, not exactly what will happen. That addition will make it a bit more difficult to actually attain the funding and so allow financing to occur to other resolutions' endeavors.

The endeavors mentioned in the clause can not be readily defined in a proposal like this; if I could add ways to mitigate the issue, I would, but that takes up space and is relatively useless (It also runs the risk of being a RL references violation). However, it is clear by the other clauses of this proposal that action taken happens more IC and in the background, as with most proposals. To be clear, a proposal designed to mitigate bank fraud could not list all the ways you can, because it would be both extremely tedious and difficult to do so, and there are many more solutions besides any listed. Constraining people to those preset solutions is not viable should another solution be needed.

[Onionist Randosia]

I did not realize that Paid Leave Act II was pulled, and I was considering pulling this for edits.

After voting, if it fails, I'll restart drafting; if not, that obviously won't be necessary.

Edit: My reasoning to restart drafting is that I don't believe this proposal should just get cast away and forgotten about, it has some merits and is mostly developed so far, albeit with issues that could have been foreseen. With that in mind, I'll most likely end up making another drafting thread and make another version of this proposal, making sure to cut out the issues noted, if any.

That said, of you would like to point out anything that may have been missed in drafting, feel free to do so.

Ok
If we redraft I suggest we make it more concise.

[Untecna]

I did not realize that Paid Leave Act II was pulled, and I was considering pulling this for edits.

After voting, if it fails, I'll restart drafting; if not, that obviously won't be necessary.

Edit: My reasoning to restart drafting is that I don't believe this proposal should just get cast away and forgotten about, it has some merits and is mostly developed so far, albeit with issues that could have been foreseen. With that in mind, I'll most likely end up making another drafting thread and make another version of this proposal, making sure to cut out the issues noted, if any.

That said, of you would like to point out anything that may have been missed in drafting, feel free to do so.

Ok
If we redraft I suggest we make it more concise.

Thats the idea...

[United Malia]

It is clear why so many people oppose the resolution. The reason is that leaders from each country should be the ones that decide the policy to protect their country's environment, not the World Assembly. There are many cases where the public benefits from constructing buildings outweigh the benefits by protecting the environment. There is no guarantee that WAESC will consider such circumstances that differ by each country. There is a high possibility that the WAESC will decide based on radical environmentalism and interfere with every construction plan that the governments take.

Construction plans will create numerous jobs and increase the income of the poor. However, the fifth article gives the WAESC the authority to interfere with the country's economic policy. The development of the economy and welfare might stop because of it. The resolution does not even tell us who will run and participate in the WAESC. Countries can not trust such organizations that are not transparent and allow them to make the decisions.

WAESC has no right to collect a country's information and violate its sovereignty. The World Assembly should let countries voluntarily protect their environment by giving incentives and benefits. It should not be done in such a way as the resolution is stating.

Therefore, I vote against the resolution.

[Untecna]

It is clear why so many people oppose the resolution. The reason is that leaders from each country should be the ones that decide the policy to protect their country's environment, not the World Assembly. There are many cases where the public benefits from constructing buildings outweigh the benefits by protecting the environment. There is no guarantee that WAESC will consider such circumstances that differ by each country. There is a high possibility that the WAESC will decide based on radical environmentalism and interfere with every construction plan that the governments take.

I see you've missed the environmental protection legislation that has come before this. If you are so opposed to this on "NatSov Environmental" grounds, you might want to see those... oppose those and you might as well not be in the WA.

I am aware of Clause 5. Its been stated before, in the redraft, I will limit it. Severely.

Construction plans will create numerous jobs and increase the income of the poor. However, the fifth article gives the WAESC the authority to interfere with the country's economic policy. The development of the economy and welfare might stop because of it. The resolution does not even tell us who will run and participate in the WAESC. Countries can not trust such organizations that are not transparent and allow them to make the decisions.

Once again, I am aware of Clause 5... damn it, I wrote the proposal. I'm aware of what its contents are.

The resolution does not tell you who runs or participated in the WAESC because:

1. This resolution did not create the WAESC, this one did.
2. I can't. By default, every WA member state is to participate in the decisions of these bodies, and you can not construct the bodies like they would be run by member states or imaginary people. Doing so would make this proposal illegal.

WAESC has no right to collect a country's information and violate its sovereignty. The World Assembly should let countries voluntarily protect their environment by giving incentives and benefits. It should not be done in such a way as the resolution is stating.

Voluntary doesn't work. Those kinds of resolutions are easily repealed because they are voluntary, not mandates. That means that the resolution is useless because it has no power to do anything. Generally, you want your proposal to do something.

Note that the resolution does indeed have an encouragement clause, that being for natural-barriers fragmentation, which is harder to deal with. There are no "incentives or benefits" from the WA either. Why is that? Because that's also useless. If you do barely anything, you can get money. That's corrupt.

And, finally, NatSov only arguments, whether in repeals or opposition statements as crude as yours, generally do not hold up well in the WA. Why? Because by joining the WA, you choose to bargain away some sovereignty, so that the laws of the WA can be followed! To add, the WAESC is not collecting social security numbers on the peasants of a backwater nation; they are collecting information on animal species both for general records and to assess the need from that species for strategies to be made and implemented to mitigate their fragmentation back down to a non-detrimental level.

[Unified Democratic Europe]

You make a compelling argument, but unfortunately, Clause 5. Checkmate. /s

[Untecna]

And only now I realize that I did not change the title in the draft portion of the OP to the current title... I'll fix that next time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

When redrafting, do not use this thread. Create a new one.

[Weivaren]

When redrafting, do not use this thread. Create a new one.

Untecna on an alt account (I'm doing RP stuff with this one) here, quick question: When I redraft, am I allowed to use the same proposal with fixes to problems, or do I have to rewrite it?

[Goobergunchia]

When redrafting, do not use this thread. Create a new one.

Untecna on an alt account (I'm doing RP stuff with this one) here, quick question: When I redraft, am I allowed to use the same proposal with fixes to problems, or do I have to rewrite it?

It's fine to use your earlier work as a base. Plagiarism (for site purposes) is about stealing other people's work.

Goobergunchia
Game Moderator

[Weivaren]

Untecna on an alt account (I'm doing RP stuff with this one) here, quick question: When I redraft, am I allowed to use the same proposal with fixes to problems, or do I have to rewrite it?

It's fine to use your earlier work as a base. Plagiarism (for site purposes) is about stealing other people's work.

Goobergunchia
Game Moderator

Thanks, Goob.