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.