[DEFEATED] Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. Your overwrought claims of extinction are untrue. Your proposal does not say "determine that some population is unsustainable due to its fragmentation and then, if so, bring it together". It says "where there is fragmentation, get rid of it". There are no contingencies on your strange claims of inbreeding or limited gene pools.

As to the matter of fragmented sapient populations. We in fact do have a consistent view on this topic. After significant thought, the United Commonwealth's does not make first contact with isolated peoples, especially if they might be susceptible to foreign contagion. Your proposals would bite the same harms.

"Strange claims of limited genetic pools? Good sir, I believe that is plenty normal to be seen as an effect of fragmentation, since the amount of individuals as adults is always limited. And to knock on your claim of falsehood for extinction, all populations of fragmented animals, unless some god-sent miracle happens, or in this case, a piece of international legislation passes, there is no hope for a truly sustainable fragmented population. With all the issues that arise due to fragmentation, that have, indeed, been mentioned on this floor, in the proposal, I'm surprised you haven already figured this out."

C Marcius Blythe. Your view of fragmentation follows:

“Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers.

One will note the lack of any claims that this separation causes inbreeding, limited gene pools, a limited number of adults, or anything else. If we were to believe your version of events, we really ought to consider the population of chickens fragmented, as those on the Home Islands cannot fly the Channel to Gaul. Are we truly to "implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features" by, say, bridging the Channel? And if the Gallic chickens dare even tread down any road to speciation, you would have us forcibly integrate them with the chickens of the Home Islands.

[Untecna]

"Strange claims of limited genetic pools? Good sir, I believe that is plenty normal to be seen as an effect of fragmentation, since the amount of individuals as adults is always limited. And to knock on your claim of falsehood for extinction, all populations of fragmented animals, unless some god-sent miracle happens, or in this case, a piece of international legislation passes, there is no hope for a truly sustainable fragmented population. With all the issues that arise due to fragmentation, that have, indeed, been mentioned on this floor, in the proposal, I'm surprised you haven already figured this out."

C Marcius Blythe. Your view of fragmentation follows:

“Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers.

One will note the lack of any claims that this separation causes inbreeding, limited gene pools, a limited number of adults, or anything else. If we were to believe your version of events, we really ought to consider the population of chickens fragmented, as those on the Home Islands cannot fly the Channel to Gaul. Are we truly to "implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features" by, say, bridging the Channel? And if the Gallic chickens dare even tread down any road to speciation, you would have us forcibly integrate them with the chickens of the Home Islands.

"Thank you for bringing up domesticated vs. wild. As it stands, Ambassador Blythe, this proposal exists for wild animals and not domesticated ones. Domesticated ones are, well, domesticated, and we can't just return them to the wild like that." She snaps her fingers to indicate what she is saying. "Now, I ask you to read the preamble of the proposal to find the section that does include that information. I assure you, it is there."

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. Your view of fragmentation follows:

“Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers.

One will note the lack of any claims that this separation causes inbreeding, limited gene pools, a limited number of adults, or anything else. If we were to believe your version of events, we really ought to consider the population of chickens fragmented, as those on the Home Islands cannot fly the Channel to Gaul. Are we truly to "implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features" by, say, bridging the Channel? And if the Gallic chickens dare even tread down any road to speciation, you would have us forcibly integrate them with the chickens of the Home Islands.

"Thank you for bringing up domesticated vs. wild. As it stands, Ambassador Blythe, this proposal exists for wild animals and not domesticated ones. Domesticated ones are, well, domesticated, and we can't just return them to the wild like that." She snaps her fingers to indicate what she is saying. "Now, I ask you to read the preamble of the proposal to find the section that does include that information. I assure you, it is there."

C Marcius Blythe. I think this response is fractally wrong. First, there exist wild chickens. From whence do you think domesticated chickens come from? Your correction is inaccurate ab initio. Even if there aren't any, substitute foxes and the arguments apply regardless. And second, the preamble is non-binding whereas your definitions are binding, so that defence also falls flat. Third, the string "domestic" appears nowhere in your preamble or proposal. The word "wild" appears only in the phrase "potential extinction in the wild", which also is not a defence.

If you are truly interested in meaningful assurances, I will want more than spoken words and demonstrative snapping. I will want words on paper, for only the written word is the law.

Ending Animal Population Fragmentation
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Businesses-Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Understanding the previous legislation passed by the General Assembly on endangered animals, protecting them from harm,

Considering that it is not complete, and only protects from a small part of the entire problem,

Knowing that in that case, an enhancement may be needed to ensure that other reasons for endangerment are addressed, and

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to reduction of genetic diversity, limitation of population growth, increased danger of extirpation, lower carrying capacities in their residence areas, loss of ability to reach resources in some cases, lower life expectancy, and potential extinction in the wild, among other issues,

Notes that, while natural changes may result in the change of a fragmented population to be able to be free of fragmentation, nature is not certain, and can not wholly be accounted for to any degree in the immediate time,

Understanding that, by the nature of the detrimental effects listed above, fragmentation of animal populations reduces the diversity of species and the overall biodiversity of the land on which they reside and in the nation that is in,

Hereby enacts the following:
1. For this resolution, the following definitions are reviewed:
1a. “Animal population” is a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area.

1b. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers.

1c. “Fragmenters” is further defined as the barriers keeping animal populations fragmented.

2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
a. Research barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial, and
b. Collect and provide data and information on fragmented species for use by national efforts to end fragmentation.

3. Member nations shall assist and cooperate with the WAESC in finding and researching said barriers.

4. All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC to increase the information database on fragmented populations.

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.

6. All member nations are encouraged to conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

7. Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to give to nations unable to implement such actions due to lack of funds to do so.

Coauthored with Onionist Randosia

[Untecna]

"Thank you for bringing up domesticated vs. wild. As it stands, Ambassador Blythe, this proposal exists for wild animals and not domesticated ones. Domesticated ones are, well, domesticated, and we can't just return them to the wild like that." She snaps her fingers to indicate what she is saying. "Now, I ask you to read the preamble of the proposal to find the section that does include that information. I assure you, it is there."

C Marcius Blythe. I think this response is fractally wrong. First, there exist wild chickens. From whence do you think domesticated chickens come from? Your correction is inaccurate ab initio. Even if there aren't any, substitute foxes and the arguments apply regardless. And second, the preamble is non-binding whereas your definitions are binding, so that defence also falls flat. Third, the string "domestic" appears nowhere in your preamble or proposal. The word "wild" appears only in the phrase "potential extinction in the wild", which also is not a defence.

If you are truly interested in meaningful assurances, I will want more than spoken words and demonstrative snapping. I will want words on paper, for only the written word is the law.

Ending Animal Population Fragmentation
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Businesses-Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Understanding the previous legislation passed by the General Assembly on endangered animals, protecting them from harm,

Considering that it is not complete, and only protects from a small part of the entire problem,

Knowing that in that case, an enhancement may be needed to ensure that other reasons for endangerment are addressed, and

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to reduction of genetic diversity, limitation of population growth, increased danger of extirpation, lower carrying capacities in their residence areas, loss of ability to reach resources in some cases, lower life expectancy, and potential extinction in the wild, among other issues,

Notes that, while natural changes may result in the change of a fragmented population to be able to be free of fragmentation, nature is not certain, and can not wholly be accounted for to any degree in the immediate time,

Understanding that, by the nature of the detrimental effects listed above, fragmentation of animal populations reduces the diversity of species and the overall biodiversity of the land on which they reside and in the nation that is in,

Hereby enacts the following:
1. For this resolution, the following definitions are reviewed:
1a. “Animal population” is a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area.

1b. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers.

1c. “Fragmenters” is further defined as the barriers keeping animal populations fragmented.

2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
a. Research barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial, and
b. Collect and provide data and information on fragmented species for use by national efforts to end fragmentation.

3. Member nations shall assist and cooperate with the WAESC in finding and researching said barriers.

4. All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC to increase the information database on fragmented populations.

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.

6. All member nations are encouraged to conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

7. Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to give to nations unable to implement such actions due to lack of funds to do so.

Coauthored with Onionist Randosia

OOC:
"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."

"1b. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers, causing reduction in life expectancy, gene pools, lower carrying capacities, limitation of growth, among more issues."

These clauses edited to address the concerns.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. The edits are well taken, though a refinement in the term "fragmentation" might be appropriate, insofar as its meaning now deviates from expectations.

[Untecna]

OOC. The edits are well taken, though a refinement in the term "fragmentation" might be appropriate, insofar as its meaning now deviates from expectations.

OOC: What kind of refinement would you recommend?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. The edits are well taken, though a refinement in the term "fragmentation" might be appropriate, insofar as its meaning now deviates from expectations.

OOC: What kind of refinement would you recommend?

The classic legalism is to prepend the word "material". Though there are definitely more appropriate terms.

[Xanthorrhoea]

OOC. The edits are well taken, though a refinement in the term "fragmentation" might be appropriate, insofar as its meaning now deviates from expectations.

OOC: What kind of refinement would you recommend?

To shove my oar in as someone with a literal sophomoric understanding of the issue (briefly studied the topic in uni), I have two issues with this proposal.

First, the definition of 'fragmentation' as proposed does not explictly exclude speciation.

1b. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers, causing reduction in life expectancy, gene pools, lower carrying capacities, limitation of growth, among more issues.

The way this is phrased, all separation of animal populations counts as fragmentation. On my reading, the following part "causing reduction in life expecctancy [etc]" is merely a list of possible effects, and does not limit the definition, merely gives some context.

Fragmentation and speciation are two, separate consequences that can occur when a previously cohesive population is split into two or more genetically isolated groups (Note this is not only caused by physical separation, but also by specialisation into different niches in the same area, sexual selection etc.) If the new group[s] is[are] large enough to maintain genetic diversity, then the poputations will maintain themselves and eventually diverge and evolve into separate species - i.e. speciation (increasing biodiversity). If the new group[s] is[are] too small to maintain genetic diversity, then they will lose genes to genetic drift and eventually ccollapse from disease/inbreeding etc - i.e. fragmentation and local loss of the species (decreasing biodiversity in the area). For the purposes of this proposal, these outcomes are rather different, and mean that speciation must be excluded from the effects of the proposal.

Including speciation in the definition (or not explicitly excluding it) will lead to efforts to halt any splitting of populations, which will inhibit the evolution of future species - a.k.a ecological catastrophe. I believe this might have been part of Imperium Anglorum and Separatist Peoples' points earlier. Future drafts of the proposal must narrow the definition to only apply to population separation into small enough populations to succumb to genetic drift (which will differ in size depending on the species).

Second is clauses 5 and 6:

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.

6. All member nations are encouraged to conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

In a word, no. In two, absolutely not.
Species fragmentation is (as aknowledged by your proposal) a naturally occurring process that occurred prior to humanity, and will cocntinue to occur once they're gone (assuming we avoid total ecological collapse). It is part of the ongoing progression of our biosphere. Attempts to halt natural species fragmentation are misguided. Some species will go extinct, it is the ultimate fate of the vast majority of speccies on earth, and to pretend otherwise is naïve. Natural fragmentation should only be mitigated/reversed when it occurs concurrently with some level of human-caused fragmentation, and only if mitigating the human-caused fragmentation is untenable.

Similarly, attempting to end human-caused fragmentation is simply impossible. Almost any human activity on any scale has the possibility of causing species fragmentation. When you look at the vast diversity of microscopic life, it is almost that fragmentation will occur with any and all human activity. Attempting to end fragmentation will never work. Clause 5 in particular needs changing, as it currently effectively bans all construction of any kind when you consider this.

In short, I would recommend the following:

1. Changing the title (and preamble) to make the proposal about minimising the effects of human-caused species fragmentation.
2. Remove clause 6 and alter clause 5 to reflect this new focus.
3. Alter the definition in clause 1b so it only applies to population splitting into genetically unsustainable populations.

natural selection, while shorter than evolution

Natural selection is one of the processes by which evolution occurs. This is like saying that driving is shorter than travelling (nonsense). I'm concerned about your understanding of the fundamental mechanisms at work here.

Edit: I'd also like to see some practical work here on exactly how nations can limit fragmentation (e.g. wildlife corridors, breeding programs, reintroduction of locally extict species etc) The proposal has a large focus on what not to do, and not much focus on what to do.

[Untecna]

OOC: What kind of refinement would you recommend?

To shove my oar in as someone with a literal sophomoric understanding of the issue (briefly studied the topic in uni), I have two issues with this proposal.

First, the definition of 'fragmentation' as proposed does not explictly exclude speciation.

1b. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers, causing reduction in life expectancy, gene pools, lower carrying capacities, limitation of growth, among more issues.

The way this is phrased, all separation of animal populations counts as fragmentation. On my reading, the following part "causing reduction in life expecctancy [etc]" is merely a list of possible effects, and does not limit the definition, merely gives some context.

Fragmentation and speciation are two, separate consequences that can occur when a previously cohesive population is split into two or more genetically isolated groups (Note this is not only caused by physical separation, but also by specialisation into different niches in the same area, sexual selection etc.) If the new group[s] is[are] large enough to maintain genetic diversity, then the poputations will maintain themselves and eventually diverge and evolve into separate species - i.e. speciation (increasing biodiversity). If the new group[s] is[are] too small to maintain genetic diversity, then they will lose genes to genetic drift and eventually ccollapse from disease/inbreeding etc - i.e. fragmentation and local loss of the species (decreasing biodiversity in the area). For the purposes of this proposal, these outcomes are rather different, and mean that speciation must be excluded from the effects of the proposal.

Including speciation in the definition (or not explicitly excluding it) will lead to efforts to halt any splitting of populations, which will inhibit the evolution of future species - a.k.a ecological catastrophe. I believe this might have been part of Imperium Anglorum and Separatist Peoples' points earlier. Future drafts of the proposal must narrow the definition to only apply to population separation into small enough populations to succumb to genetic drift (which will differ in size depending on the species).
Second is clauses 5 and 6:

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.

6. All member nations are encouraged to conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

In a word, no. In two, absolutely not.
Species fragmentation is (as aknowledged by your proposal) a naturally occurring process that occurred prior to humanity, and will cocntinue to occur once they're gone (assuming we avoid total ecological collapse). It is part of the ongoing progression of our biosphere. Attempts to halt natural species fragmentation are misguided. Some species will go extinct, it is the ultimate fate of the vast majority of speccies on earth, and to pretend otherwise is naïve. Natural fragmentation should only be mitigated/reversed when it occurs concurrently with some level of human-caused fragmentation, and only if mitigating the human-caused fragmentation is untenable.

Similarly, attempting to end human-caused fragmentation is simply impossible. Almost any human activity on any scale has the possibility of causing species fragmentation. When you look at the vast diversity of microscopic life, it is almost that fragmentation will occur with any and all human activity. Attempting to end fragmentation will never work. Clause 5 in particular needs changing, as it currently effectively bans all construction of any kind when you consider this.

In short, I would recommend the following:

1. Changing the title (and preamble) to make the proposal about minimising the effects of human-caused species fragmentation.
2. Remove clause 6 and alter clause 5 to reflect this new focus.
3. Alter the definition in clause 1b so it only applies to population splitting into genetically unsustainable populations.

natural selection, while shorter than evolution

Natural selection is one of the processes by which evolution occurs. This is like saying that driving is shorter than travelling (nonsense). I'm concerned about your understanding of the fundamental mechanisms at work here.

Edit: I'd also like to see some practical work here on exactly how nations can limit fragmentation (e.g. wildlife corridors, breeding programs, reintroduction of locally extict species etc) The proposal has a large focus on what not to do, and not much focus on what to do.

I'll address some of your points in a moment, but first, my response to your suggestions:
1. Let's review that, yes, not all fragmentation can be ended. Let's also note that I said wild animals, and so your microscopic point is more or less null. But creating this just to minimize something is like throwing a wrapper at a bear; you're only going to make it worse. If some can be ended, then the resolution is doing its job just fine. Otherwise, a few edits made to limit exactly what is prioritized.

2. Removing Clause, not 6 anymore, but 7, is out of the question. You think of it wrong; it is not a mandate but instead a simple encouragement clause. No one has to do it if they do not wish to, but they may if they do. Clause 5, as above response.

3. Addressed in Clause 2c, considering fragmentation can be both stable and unstable populations.

In regards to your edit, I can see the need for that, but... where would that be placed? I've reviewed the proposal and there really is no appropriate place to put that at all.

Some of your other points were addressed, others were not. This is because while some make sense, like ensuring the populations are genetically unstable, others, not so much. I feel like this feedback you've given is two-faced; while you made some good suggestions, those being implemented, most of this was just simply trying to make this unnecessarily watered down, or just an encouragement all around.

[Xanthorrhoea]

I'll address some of your points in a moment, but first, my response to your suggestions:
1. Let's review that, yes, not all fragmentation can be ended. Let's also note that I said wild animals, and so your microscopic point is more or less null. But creating this just to minimize something is like throwing a wrapper at a bear; you're only going to make it worse. If some can be ended, then the resolution is doing its job just fine. Otherwise, a few edits made to limit exactly what is prioritized.

I would argue that my point still stands. The definition of ‘animal’ is surprisingly nebulous. If we go by classification, there are literally thousands of microscopic members of the kingdom Animalia (e.g. nematodes, tardigrades and rotifers). If you go by size, then you’re being somewhat arbitrary. As for minimisation vs elimination, when elimination is not an option, harm minimisation is better than nothing (a good example is managing substance use). I believe, for the reasons I’ve stated, that ending fragmentation is unrealistic and overly onerous, hence minimisation is an appropriate compromise.

2. Removing Clause, not 6 anymore, but 7, is out of the question. You think of it wrong; it is not a mandate but instead a simple encouragement clause. No one has to do it if they do not wish to, but they may if they do. Clause 5, as above response.

I’m well aware that clauses 5 and 7 (nèe 6) are encouragements. I just don’t see the point of encouraging an impossible task, when you can mandate an achievable one.

3. Addressed in Clause 2c, considering fragmentation can be both stable and unstable populations.

I’m glad to see 2c attempting to address the issue. As per your definition, the only way to end fragmentation as several of your clauses aim to do, is to remove barriers between divided populations. This makes 2c a bit awkward, as it’s no longer about ending fragmentation, but about supporting fragmented populations. At what point does the support stop? It aims to ensure populations can maintain themselves without assistance, but how is that determined? At what point are they not needing assistance, and how permanent is that status? At what point is the population no longer considered fragmented? I think these questions could be more elegantly solved by tweaking your definition and adopting a more mitigation based approach. Otherwise this proposal has an impracticably large potential scope of obligation. I support the basic concepts behind clause 2c (and the new clause 6), but I think they need a little refining.

In regards to your edit, I can see the need for that, but... where would that be placed? I've reviewed the proposal and there really is no appropriate place to put that at all.

I’d suggest tacking it on the end, similar to how you’ve included clauses 5-7. It’s a related enough concept that I don’t see much issue in including some brief encouragement clauses.

I feel like this feedback you've given is two-faced; while you made some good suggestions, those being implemented, most of this was just simply trying to make this unnecessarily watered down, or just an encouragement all around.

I’m sorry the way I phrased thing gave that impression. I assure you that my feedback was intended to improve the proposal and make it more repeal-proof. I don’t like seeing proposals with a good basic premise (which this is) shot down because of accidental loopholes or overly wide scopes. I’m simply trying to help, so that when this goes to vote, it’s more likely to pass, and not be repealed.

I do stand by my points about the impossibility of completely ending species fragmentation and limiting the scope to human/sapient-caused changes. I do concede that some species may need support in the case of a natural disaster/event threatening biodiversity significantly. However, I think this is possibly a separate issue better addressed in a different proposal aimed at some sort of global ecological security.

You are of course free to completely ignore all this if you choose. Please be assured I do offer this feedback in good faith.

[Untecna]

I'll address some of your points in a moment, but first, my response to your suggestions:
1. Let's review that, yes, not all fragmentation can be ended. Let's also note that I said wild animals, and so your microscopic point is more or less null. But creating this just to minimize something is like throwing a wrapper at a bear; you're only going to make it worse. If some can be ended, then the resolution is doing its job just fine. Otherwise, a few edits made to limit exactly what is prioritized.

I would argue that my point still stands. The definition of ‘animal’ is surprisingly nebulous. If we go by classification, there are literally thousands of microscopic members of the kingdom Animalia (e.g. nematodes, tardigrades and rotifers). If you go by size, then you’re being somewhat arbitrary. As for minimisation vs elimination, when elimination is not an option, harm minimisation is better than nothing (a good example is managing substance use). I believe, for the reasons I’ve stated, that ending fragmentation is unrealistic and overly onerous, hence minimisation is an appropriate compromise.

2. Removing Clause, not 6 anymore, but 7, is out of the question. You think of it wrong; it is not a mandate but instead a simple encouragement clause. No one has to do it if they do not wish to, but they may if they do. Clause 5, as above response.

I’m well aware that clauses 5 and 7 (nèe 6) are encouragements. I just don’t see the point of encouraging an impossible task, when you can mandate an achievable one.

3. Addressed in Clause 2c, considering fragmentation can be both stable and unstable populations.

I’m glad to see 2c attempting to address the issue. As per your definition, the only way to end fragmentation as several of your clauses aim to do, is to remove barriers between divided populations. This makes 2c a bit awkward, as it’s no longer about ending fragmentation, but about supporting fragmented populations. At what point does the support stop? It aims to ensure populations can maintain themselves without assistance, but how is that determined? At what point are they not needing assistance, and how permanent is that status? At what point is the population no longer considered fragmented? I think these questions could be more elegantly solved by tweaking your definition and adopting a more mitigation based approach. Otherwise this proposal has an impracticably large potential scope of obligation. I support the basic concepts behind clause 2c (and the new clause 6), but I think they need a little refining.

In regards to your edit, I can see the need for that, but... where would that be placed? I've reviewed the proposal and there really is no appropriate place to put that at all.

I’d suggest tacking it on the end, similar to how you’ve included clauses 5-7. It’s a related enough concept that I don’t see much issue in including some brief encouragement clauses.

I feel like this feedback you've given is two-faced; while you made some good suggestions, those being implemented, most of this was just simply trying to make this unnecessarily watered down, or just an encouragement all around.

I’m sorry the way I phrased thing gave that impression. I assure you that my feedback was intended to improve the proposal and make it more repeal-proof. I don’t like seeing proposals with a good basic premise (which this is) shot down because of accidental loopholes or overly wide scopes. I’m simply trying to help, so that when this goes to vote, it’s more likely to pass, and not be repealed.

I do stand by my points about the impossibility of completely ending species fragmentation and limiting the scope to human/sapient-caused changes. I do concede that some species may need support in the case of a natural disaster/event threatening biodiversity significantly. However, I think this is possibly a separate issue better addressed in a different proposal aimed at some sort of global ecological security.

You are of course free to completely ignore all this if you choose. Please be assured I do offer this feedback in good faith.

7 is the encouragement, 5&6 are not. Let's address that first, since you still seem to be unable to realize that.

Next, placing in actual solutions. More of the problem is not just where but why as well. Not only does it not have a great place to store it, but its not really policy either. It seems that could be more in the OOC wall of text at the beginning.

Finally, your point on scope. Yes, it is impossible to end all fragmentation, and so a direct focus has been added. My issue is that you seem to not understand that simply mitigating a situation is not enough. It also never states a time constraint, which does mean if a solution can not be made immediately it can be developed.

[Xanthorrhoea]

7 is the encouragement, 5&6 are not. Let's address that first, since you still seem to be unable to realize that.

My mistake, I was somewhat confused by the wording of your reply. Let me rephrase. I see no point in mandating or encouraging an impossible task, when you can mandate an achievable one

Next, placing in actual solutions. More of the problem is not just where but why as well. Not only does it not have a great place to store it, but its not really policy either. It seems that could be more in the OOC wall of text at the beginning.

If that’s where you think it’s best to go, then that sounds good to me. It was more me musing on something I thought might fit. If you don’t think it fits well, then it’s best not to force it.

Finally, your point on scope. Yes, it is impossible to end all fragmentation, and so a direct focus has been added. My issue is that you seem to not understand that simply mitigating a situation is not enough. It also never states a time constraint, which does mean if a solution can not be made immediately it can be developed.

I’m not sure if we’re working off the same meaning of the word ‘mitigate’. The way I’m meaning it is to identify negative outcomes, and minimise their impacts. If you can neutralise the negative impacts of something, then (to me) that’s essentially solving the problem. Fragmentation itself is not the issue after all, it’s the ecological downsides of it. Solve the downsides, and you don’t need to solve fragmentation completely. (An analogue would be reaching net zero carbon emissions compared to gross zero emissions. If you plant trees to sequester it, you can get away with emitting a little CO₂)
Essentially, I regard sufficient mitigation as equally effective as ending fragmentation.

[Untecna]

7 is the encouragement, 5&6 are not. Let's address that first, since you still seem to be unable to realize that.

My mistake, I was somewhat confused by the wording of your reply. Let me rephrase. I see no point in mandating or encouraging an impossible task, when you can mandate an achievable one

Next, placing in actual solutions. More of the problem is not just where but why as well. Not only does it not have a great place to store it, but its not really policy either. It seems that could be more in the OOC wall of text at the beginning.

If that’s where you think it’s best to go, then that sounds good to me. It was more me musing on something I thought might fit. If you don’t think it fits well, then it’s best not to force it.

Finally, your point on scope. Yes, it is impossible to end all fragmentation, and so a direct focus has been added. My issue is that you seem to not understand that simply mitigating a situation is not enough. It also never states a time constraint, which does mean if a solution can not be made immediately it can be developed.

I’m not sure if we’re working off the same meaning of the word ‘mitigate’. The way I’m meaning it is to identify negative outcomes, and minimise their impacts. If you can neutralise the negative impacts of something, then (to me) that’s essentially solving the problem. Fragmentation itself is not the issue after all, it’s the ecological downsides of it. Solve the downsides, and you don’t need to solve fragmentation completely. (An analogue would be reaching net zero carbon emissions compared to gross zero emissions. If you plant trees to sequester it, you can get away with emitting a little CO₂)
Essentially, I regard sufficient mitigation as equally effective as ending fragmentation.

Edits made.

[Untecna]

My realization has only just come that I was, indeed, aiming for too much, and that it would've gotten watered down. Nonetheless, I may write another proposal later on to tack more on and make even stronger mandates.

[Untecna]

Edits previously suggested by Apato on using list coding have been made, with the proposal in the proper format.

[Untecna]

/bump

[Onionist Randosia]

OOC: What kind of refinement would you recommend?

To shove my oar in as someone with a literal sophomoric understanding of the issue (briefly studied the topic in uni), I have two issues with this proposal.

First, the definition of 'fragmentation' as proposed does not explictly exclude speciation.

1b. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers, causing reduction in life expectancy, gene pools, lower carrying capacities, limitation of growth, among more issues.

The way this is phrased, all separation of animal populations counts as fragmentation. On my reading, the following part "causing reduction in life expecctancy [etc]" is merely a list of possible effects, and does not limit the definition, merely gives some context.

Fragmentation and speciation are two, separate consequences that can occur when a previously cohesive population is split into two or more genetically isolated groups (Note this is not only caused by physical separation, but also by specialisation into different niches in the same area, sexual selection etc.) If the new group[s] is[are] large enough to maintain genetic diversity, then the poputations will maintain themselves and eventually diverge and evolve into separate species - i.e. speciation (increasing biodiversity). If the new group[s] is[are] too small to maintain genetic diversity, then they will lose genes to genetic drift and eventually ccollapse from disease/inbreeding etc - i.e. fragmentation and local loss of the species (decreasing biodiversity in the area). For the purposes of this proposal, these outcomes are rather different, and mean that speciation must be excluded from the effects of the proposal.

Including speciation in the definition (or not explicitly excluding it) will lead to efforts to halt any splitting of populations, which will inhibit the evolution of future species - a.k.a ecological catastrophe. I believe this might have been part of Imperium Anglorum and Separatist Peoples' points earlier. Future drafts of the proposal must narrow the definition to only apply to population separation into small enough populations to succumb to genetic drift (which will differ in size depending on the species).

Second is clauses 5 and 6:

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.

6. All member nations are encouraged to conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

In a word, no. In two, absolutely not.
Species fragmentation is (as aknowledged by your proposal) a naturally occurring process that occurred prior to humanity, and will cocntinue to occur once they're gone (assuming we avoid total ecological collapse). It is part of the ongoing progression of our biosphere. Attempts to halt natural species fragmentation are misguided. Some species will go extinct, it is the ultimate fate of the vast majority of speccies on earth, and to pretend otherwise is naïve. Natural fragmentation should only be mitigated/reversed when it occurs concurrently with some level of human-caused fragmentation, and only if mitigating the human-caused fragmentation is untenable.

Similarly, attempting to end human-caused fragmentation is simply impossible. Almost any human activity on any scale has the possibility of causing species fragmentation. When you look at the vast diversity of microscopic life, it is almost that fragmentation will occur with any and all human activity. Attempting to end fragmentation will never work. Clause 5 in particular needs changing, as it currently effectively bans all construction of any kind when you consider this.

In short, I would recommend the following:

1. Changing the title (and preamble) to make the proposal about minimising the effects of human-caused species fragmentation.
2. Remove clause 6 and alter clause 5 to reflect this new focus.
3. Alter the definition in clause 1b so it only applies to population splitting into genetically unsustainable populations.

natural selection, while shorter than evolution

Natural selection is one of the processes by which evolution occurs. This is like saying that driving is shorter than travelling (nonsense). I'm concerned about your understanding of the fundamental mechanisms at work here.

Edit: I'd also like to see some practical work here on exactly how nations can limit fragmentation (e.g. wildlife corridors, breeding programs, reintroduction of locally extict species etc) The proposal has a large focus on what not to do, and not much focus on what to do.

IC: The Honorable Ambassador to Onionist Randosia that per your advice of not trying to interfere in animal population fragmentation as it is a natural speciation mechanism, would it not also be desirable to avoid human-caused fragmentation due to it being a decidedly unnatural mechanism?
OOC: I do agree with most of what you said, I was just pointing out that some of it could be interpreted as being hypocritical.

[Onionist Randosia]

My realization has only just come that I was, indeed, aiming for too much, and that it would've gotten watered down. Nonetheless, I may write another proposal later on to tack more on and make even stronger mandates.

Is the proposal still going ahead?
Also can you post an updated version on the forum, so others can see the progress that has been made?

[Untecna]

My realization has only just come that I was, indeed, aiming for too much, and that it would've gotten watered down. Nonetheless, I may write another proposal later on to tack more on and make even stronger mandates.

Is the proposal still going ahead?
Also can you post an updated version on the forum, so others can see the progress that has been made?

This proposal is going ahead. If you mean an updated version of this proposal, the current version is the most recent update.

[Xanthorrhoea]

IC: The Honorable Ambassador to Onionist Randosia that per your advice of not trying to interfere in animal population fragmentation as it is a natural speciation mechanism, would it not also be desirable to avoid human-caused fragmentation due to it being a decidedly unnatural mechanism?
OOC: I do agree with most of what you said, I was just pointing out that some of it could be interpreted as being hypocritical.

Given that this is apparently still in the works, I feel like I can reply without this being gravedigging.

I 100% agree that it is desirable to avoid human-caused fragmentation. The point I was trying to express (evidently rather poorly seeing as it’s confused people) is that ending all human-caused fragmentation is not possible without wiping humanity from the face of the earth.

My proposed alternative was instead to focus on minimising as much as is practical, and obliging those doing the fragmentation to mitigate its effects. Banning industry that causes any fragmentation will never fly, because it’s effectively a ban on all industry (see my point re: microscopic animals above.

Therefore, a realistic approach needs to define an ‘acceptable’ level of fragmentation it is willing to let occur, or only outright ban fragmentation that is likely to cause significant knock-on effects (e.g. ‘keystone’ species etc). Ideally, it should also include provisions to minimise the effects of the fragmentation it does allow to happen, as that will allow for an increased level of protection.

TLDR: I agree reducing human-caused fragmentation is desirable. I’m just aware that ending it fully is not achievable.

[Untecna]

IC: The Honorable Ambassador to Onionist Randosia that per your advice of not trying to interfere in animal population fragmentation as it is a natural speciation mechanism, would it not also be desirable to avoid human-caused fragmentation due to it being a decidedly unnatural mechanism?
OOC: I do agree with most of what you said, I was just pointing out that some of it could be interpreted as being hypocritical.

Given that this is apparently still in the works, I feel like I can reply without this being gravedigging.

I 100% agree that it is desirable to avoid human-caused fragmentation. The point I was trying to express (evidently rather poorly seeing as it’s confused people) is that ending all human-caused fragmentation is not possible without wiping humanity from the face of the earth.

My proposed alternative was instead to focus on minimising as much as is practical, and obliging those doing the fragmentation to mitigate its effects. Banning industry that causes any fragmentation will never fly, because it’s effectively a ban on all industry (see my point re: microscopic animals above.

Therefore, a realistic approach needs to define an ‘acceptable’ level of fragmentation it is willing to let occur, or only outright ban fragmentation that is likely to cause significant knock-on effects (e.g. ‘keystone’ species etc). Ideally, it should also include provisions to minimise the effects of the fragmentation it does allow to happen, as that will allow for an increased level of protection.

TLDR: I agree reducing human-caused fragmentation is desirable. I’m just aware that ending it fully is not achievable.

*Yet

I add that little asterisk because there is a chance someone, maybe myself, will make a proposal furthering this one, acting as a supplement to make more fragmentation dealt with. But, of course, that would be at a later time.

As for OR's comment:

To shove my oar in as someone with a literal sophomoric understanding of the issue (briefly studied the topic in uni), I have two issues with this proposal.

First, the definition of 'fragmentation' as proposed does not explictly exclude speciation.


The way this is phrased, all separation of animal populations counts as fragmentation. On my reading, the following part "causing reduction in life expecctancy [etc]" is merely a list of possible effects, and does not limit the definition, merely gives some context.

Fragmentation and speciation are two, separate consequences that can occur when a previously cohesive population is split into two or more genetically isolated groups (Note this is not only caused by physical separation, but also by specialisation into different niches in the same area, sexual selection etc.) If the new group[s] is[are] large enough to maintain genetic diversity, then the poputations will maintain themselves and eventually diverge and evolve into separate species - i.e. speciation (increasing biodiversity). If the new group[s] is[are] too small to maintain genetic diversity, then they will lose genes to genetic drift and eventually ccollapse from disease/inbreeding etc - i.e. fragmentation and local loss of the species (decreasing biodiversity in the area). For the purposes of this proposal, these outcomes are rather different, and mean that speciation must be excluded from the effects of the proposal.

Including speciation in the definition (or not explicitly excluding it) will lead to efforts to halt any splitting of populations, which will inhibit the evolution of future species - a.k.a ecological catastrophe. I believe this might have been part of Imperium Anglorum and Separatist Peoples' points earlier. Future drafts of the proposal must narrow the definition to only apply to population separation into small enough populations to succumb to genetic drift (which will differ in size depending on the species).

Second is clauses 5 and 6:

In a word, no. In two, absolutely not.
Species fragmentation is (as aknowledged by your proposal) a naturally occurring process that occurred prior to humanity, and will cocntinue to occur once they're gone (assuming we avoid total ecological collapse). It is part of the ongoing progression of our biosphere. Attempts to halt natural species fragmentation are misguided. Some species will go extinct, it is the ultimate fate of the vast majority of speccies on earth, and to pretend otherwise is naïve. Natural fragmentation should only be mitigated/reversed when it occurs concurrently with some level of human-caused fragmentation, and only if mitigating the human-caused fragmentation is untenable.

Similarly, attempting to end human-caused fragmentation is simply impossible. Almost any human activity on any scale has the possibility of causing species fragmentation. When you look at the vast diversity of microscopic life, it is almost that fragmentation will occur with any and all human activity. Attempting to end fragmentation will never work. Clause 5 in particular needs changing, as it currently effectively bans all construction of any kind when you consider this.

In short, I would recommend the following:

1. Changing the title (and preamble) to make the proposal about minimising the effects of human-caused species fragmentation.
2. Remove clause 6 and alter clause 5 to reflect this new focus.
3. Alter the definition in clause 1b so it only applies to population splitting into genetically unsustainable populations.

Natural selection is one of the processes by which evolution occurs. This is like saying that driving is shorter than travelling (nonsense). I'm concerned about your understanding of the fundamental mechanisms at work here.

Edit: I'd also like to see some practical work here on exactly how nations can limit fragmentation (e.g. wildlife corridors, breeding programs, reintroduction of locally extict species etc) The proposal has a large focus on what not to do, and not much focus on what to do.

IC: The Honorable Ambassador to Onionist Randosia that per your advice of not trying to interfere in animal population fragmentation as it is a natural speciation mechanism, would it not also be desirable to avoid human-caused fragmentation due to it being a decidedly unnatural mechanism?
OOC: I do agree with most of what you said, I was just pointing out that some of it could be interpreted as being hypocritical.

I don't believe we need to further this debate, since changes have already been enacted into the proposal.

[Untecna]

/bump

[Untecna]

Not intended as a bump, rather as a notice:

Considering the general lack there has been of advice on the proposal since Xanthorrhoea's comments on changes to be made, and seeing as I doubt anyone will make any more comments in regards to changes on the proposal, I will be considering moving this to a [LAST CALL] status. This change will not happen right now, as I believe some more commenting may change my view on when this will be placed under that, but I would also need to remove this from drafting if it is no longer being commented on. That said, I will most likely, in the time that I will be waiting for it, get some telegram stamps and things so I can lobby convince Delegates to give their approval to the proposal.

Thank you for your time.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Clause 5 and the definition of fragmentation still suffer the same issues I pointed out before, and really need some rewording to avoid ruining business completely. The problem with clause 5 wasn’t the newness of the fragmentation, it was the inevitability. Limiting its effect to only new fragmentation will not solve the problem. My previous arguments still apply to construction etc furthering fragmentation that already exists to some degree.

I’d also suggest rewording your definition of fragmentation to limit it only to splitting of populations with detrimental effects.

[Untecna]

Clause 5 and the definition of fragmentation still suffer the same issues I pointed out before, and really need some rewording to avoid ruining business completely. The problem with clause 5 wasn’t the newness of the fragmentation, it was the inevitability. Limiting its effect to only new fragmentation will not solve the problem. My previous arguments still apply to construction etc furthering fragmentation that already exists to some degree.

I’d also suggest rewording your definition of fragmentation to limit it only to splitting of populations with detrimental effects.

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.