[Passed -> See other thread] Public Endangered Species Table

[Honeydewistania]

Lowest possible cost AND the best of its ability? Which is it? In most cases doing both would not be possible.


-Benji

[The Forest of Aeneas]

To the Treefolk of Aeneas et al:

The WORDS of the PRINCESS:

I support your efforts to promote healthy environments throughout the World Assembly. However, I cannot commit to vote in favor of this proposal in its current form, because it has tremendous flaws that (1) reveal an attitude of prejudice against our World Assembly sisters and brothers and (2) make outrageous demands which liberty compels me to resist. But I send you hope: some small changes will remedy this unfortunate situation, and allow me to vote in favor of your environmental proposal as I am wont to do.

What follows comes from the consensus of our Legislative Affairs Department:

And whereas past World Assembly law tasks the WAESC with creating a variety of documentation and assessments regarding species and subspecies and endangerment thereof, but does not mandate that these assessments or lists be public or include other information relevant to conservation but not necessarily threats to survival, nor does it necessarily prevent member states from purposefully concealing evidence of species endangerment or the extent thereof;

We must move to strike the highlighted language. We understand this statement is merely perambulatory. But there is no reason to spread innuendo disparaging members of this chamber without specific charges or proof. All World Assembly members have agreed to be bound in good faith by our laws. Frankly, if they ever really decided they did not wish to follow a WA resolution they could immediately resign their membership and then do whatever they wish with their endangered creatures. Do not forget that 90% of our world is made up of nations that are not WA members and seem to get by just fine.

For the foregoing reasons, it is inappropriate to throw around wild allegations that your proposal is necessary to combat "purposeful" disobedience of existent World Assembly law. Again, we move to strike.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'However, concealing evidence of or downplaying species endangerment is not banned by WA law. The most that there is is Trade of Endangered Organisms' mandate that member states cooperate with the WAESC to create a list of endangered species. That's it. As long as the 'endangered' status is not concealed, a member state can absolutely try to downplay a species being on the brink of extinction as just needing small conservation efforts.'

Cooperation with investigations. Each member state where a 1.c investigation is occurring must, to the best of its ability, at the lowest possible cost, and in good faith, comply with all requests for information in regard to that investigation by the ESDI. No member state or entity therein may wilfully otherwise obstruct the due course of any such investigation, via action or lack thereof.

Reconsider your demand that we comply. You are proposing a science mission. We will not comply with a World Assembly science mission that interferes with the right of our people to be secure in their homes and property. We will not comply with a World Assembly science mission that may infringe on protected state secrets or national security interests. Find a way to encourage (or perhaps procure) our compliance without demanding it. Our drafting department will work with you on this if you wish. Otherwise your establishment of an invasion force will be met with resistance, despite their presumably noble intentions.

'Done.'

Provision of information. Member states must, to the best of their ability, at the lowest possible cost, and in good faith, provide the ESDI with all research and factual data respectively published or discovered within their jurisdiction that they have practical access to, has not already been received by the ESDI, and is substantially relevant to any past, present, or future conservation efforts.

Same as above. We decline your demand to turn over "all research and factual data respectably published or discovered" to a group of World Assembly fascists. Our people worked hard to develop that data and will not be compelled by you to give it over, particularly without due compensation or any assurances that the data will not be used to undermine our security. The World Assembly must not be in the business of stealing data from our members.

'We have added a guaranteethat the ESDI will not publish raw intellectual property.'

Protection of sensitive information. Notwithstanding other mandates of this resolution, the ESDI shall not place in the Table, make public, or otherwise distribute any information in a manner that compromises national security or individual privacy. The ESDI shall, without undue delay, destroy any material evidence in its possession whose public release would compromise national security or individual privacy of an entity who has not voluntarily and clearly consented to the continued holding of that evidence by the ESDI, where the continued holding by the ESDI of that material evidence is not clearly necessary as a sine qua non to either help discover, or maximise accuracy or demonstrableness of, specific new information for the Table.

[i]You clearly understand the problem but this addresses it with a half measure. Your promise that the World Assembly will destroy our sensitive national security information - after you've reviewed it, of course - hardly fills us with much comfort. Your promise to avoid public disclosure of matters you deem compromising to privacy and national security makes us concerned about all the times when we will assert our privacy and you will insist that we have none.

'Resolved.'

Lowest possible cost AND the best of its ability? Which is it? In most cases doing both would not be possible.


-Benji

'Solved.'

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This is a pointless waste of time and money. The only people data this would be of use to are scientists, who probably have it anyway without needing a public database. Pouring money into investigating species and purchasing information is a waste of money and will hamstring other World Assembly departments. Vehemently opposed, and we will look forward to its repeal should it pass.

[Alyraa]

This is a great way to protect endangered species throughout the world. You have my support.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This is a pointless waste of time and money. The only people data this would be of use to are scientists, who probably have it anyway without needing a public database. Pouring money into investigating species and purchasing information is a waste of money and will hamstring other World Assembly departments. Vehemently opposed, and we will look forward to its repeal should it pass.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Your nation's antienvironmentalism is noted.'

'As mentioned in the preamble, past World Assembly law does not prevent or ban member states from concealing evidence of species extinction - in that case, it cannot be used by scientists, so forced investigations are one of the few means to reliably prevent this, with its publication indeed helping research. Moreover, even so, the non-research uses of a public database include helping tailor conservation efforts and promoting awareness surrounding endangered species.'

'In other news, submission of this proposal is imminent.'

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'However, concealing evidence of or downplaying species endangerment is not banned by WA law. The most that there is is Trade of Endangered Organisms' mandate that member states cooperate with the WAESC to create a list of endangered species. That's it. As long as the 'endangered' status is not concealed, a member state can absolutely try to downplay a species being on the brink of extinction as just needing small conservation efforts.'

"The fact that it is not 'banned by WA law' does not mean it is occurring. Tunneling to the center of the earth in an effort to find and free the dark lord Cthulhu also is not banned by WA law, but we don't have any basis to simply assume that some nation is doing so. We continue to find fault with your assumption that we need a kind of WA police force to go into member nations and investigate for themselves, because member nations cannot be trusted to comply with their existing obligations to endangered species in good faith."

'Done.'
* * *
'We have added a guaranteethat the ESDI will not publish raw intellectual property.'
* * *
'Resolved.'
* * *
'Solved.'

OOC: I'm not going to respond to these in character because there isn't a lot for me to say in response to "done" and "resolved" and "solved" other than: no you didn't. I'm not going to rehash my arguments from above. I'm just going to highlight how you've failed to meaningfully address them with your current draft.

1. Each member state where such an investigation is occurring must, to the best of its ability and in good faith, comply with all requests for information in regard to that investigation by the ESDI, subject to 2.c.
   
2. No member state or entity therein may wilfully otherwise obstruct the due course of any such investigation, via action or lack thereof, subject to 2.d.
   
3. A member state where such an investigation is occuring may deny ESDI requests as part of that investigation for information whose accessing, provision, or publication is substantially likely to compromise national security or individual privacy, unless the ESDI can clearly demonstrate that provision of that information is strictly necessary to ensure that the aim of that investigation is met.
   
4. ESDI access may be denied to areas within a member state to which access is restricted for all national residents without specific authorisation for protection of national security or that area's status as private property, a quarantined area, or a vulnerable culturally or environmentally significant site, by that member state or an entity therein in charge of preventing unauthorised access to that area, where that access is not clearly strictly necessary to ensure that the aim of the investigation is met. If the ESDI does enter such an area, it shall take sufficient precautions to duly minimise risk to national security, damage to that private property or health via quarantine violation, or the security of a culturally or environmentally significant site.

By leaving in the highlighted sections you make it so member nations cannot restrict ESDI at all under any circumstances unless ESDI itself agrees that whatever they wanted isn't "strictly necessary" or "clearly strictly necessary" for their investigation. Anytime ESDI believes access or information is "strictly necessary" for their investigation, your proposal requires they be given access regardless of member nation's interests.

Provision of information. Member states must, to the best of their ability and in good faith, provide the ESDI with all research and factual data respectively published or discovered within their jurisdiction that they have practical access to, has not already been received by the ESDI, and is substantially relevant to any past, present, or future conservation efforts, except if it can clearly demonstrate that the accessing, provision, or publication of that information is substantially likely to compromise national security or individual privacy.

Protection of sensitive information. Notwithstanding other mandates of this resolution, the ESDI shall not place in the Table, make public, or otherwise distribute any information in a manner that is substantially likely to compromise national security or individual privacy, nor shall the ESDI place in the Table raw intellectual property outside of mere fact. The ESDI shall, without undue delay, destroy any material evidence in its possession whose public release is substantially likely to compromise national security or individual privacy of an entity who has not voluntarily and clearly consented to the continued holding of that evidence by the ESDI, where the continued holding by the ESDI of that material evidence is not clearly essential to either help discover, or maximise accuracy or demonstrableness of, specific new information for the Table.

The first provision continues to require information be turned over unless the member nation "can clearly demonstrate" a violation of their national security? Demonstrate to whom? You don't say. Doesn't matter, because the effect is that member nations must show the information to someone in order to clearly demonstrate how it is likely to compromise national security. You're forcing member nations to compromise sensitive information simply to prove that it is sensitive information. That's a non-starter for me.

The second provision has the exact same problem: member nations have to turn over information and then hope that ESDI will destroy it without leaking it. We have to hope that ESDI will recognize our national security interests. AND even if ESDI recognizes our national security interests, you've written that they will keep the information anyway if it is "essential" to their endangered species mandate.

My delegation is convinced that your vision on this is beyond repair and beyond anything we could support. I'm joining WBEO in committing to oppose this and work for its repeal if it ever became law.

You are not promoting a legitimate form of international environmentalism here. You're promoting international fascism.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'We have caved in to pressure and allowed member states to refuse to provide information on good faith justifications of national security or privacy.'

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Submitted.

[Fachumonn]

Approved.

Submitted.