NATION

PASSWORD

Never mind... cancelled.

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Denecaep
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1834
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Never mind... cancelled.

Postby Denecaep » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:36 pm

Animal Extinction Prevention Act

RECOGNIZING that extinction is the main thread to biodiversity, and that it can cause consequences such as:
- The extinction of a species may cause other species to die out that feed primarily on the species.
- This effect can cause a chain reaction resulting in many species and ecosystems dying out.
- The loss of species can result in the loss of key ingredients for medicines and treatments.
- Extinction can have long term negative effects to agriculture, tourism, and other commercial values.

UNDERSTANDING that the harm from extinctions would far exceed any harm that would come from effort to save species from extinction.

DEFINES a Species in Risk of Extinction (SRE) as a species whose overall population has decreased to below 2,000.

REQUIRES that any species that is suspected of being an SRE, must be investigated through cooperation of nations in the animal's range; to confirm or to deny that the species' population is under 2,000.

FURTHER REQUIRES that if a species is confirmed to be an SRE, then further investigation must be done, and reports must be made with the following information:
- The estimated population of the species.
- The primary cause or causes of the decline of the species.
- Whether or not there are any conservation efforts currently attempting to rise the population of the species.
- Whether or not the species would be able to survive in captivity.

MANDATES the following action by nations in which an SRE report is made, and an investigation is completed:
a) The nation must work toward either elimination of the cause toward a species' extinction.
b) If an elimination of the cause is nearly impossible, or would be harmful to a nation, then the nation must find another solution to help prevent the species from going extinct. This may include protecting the species in captivity (if possible) or another form of conservation effort.
c) Nations shall share SRE reports with other nations where the same species is going extinct, to examine whether the causes are identical. If the causes are identical, a mutual effort is encouraged.
d) Nations must continue SRE reports on the species each year until the population of the species has risen to 10,000 or above. At that point, conservation efforts are still encouraged.
e) Nations that rise a species' population to 10,000 or above will be recognized as one of the nations that has protected the species.
f) If conservation efforts are taken and the species' population does not rise in a specific nation, then all nations that have filed an SRE report on the species are required to provide aid to save the species in that nation.
g) If conservation efforts are taken and the unlikely event happens that a species' population does not rise in any nation that has filed an SRE report on it, then all nations that have members of that species are required to provide minimal or higher aid of some form.


So, what does everyone think? Are there things I should add, things I should remove?
Last edited by Denecaep on Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:40 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Founding Senator Dene Caep of the NSG Senate

User avatar
Avenio
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11113
Founded: Feb 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Avenio » Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:13 am

Though I don't have much in the way of experience with WA proposals, I'll try to help as much as I can. Overall, the proposal's quite good, but I do have some issues with a few parts of it.

Denecaep wrote:DEFINES a Species in Risk of Extinction (SRE) as a species whose overall population has decreased to below 2,000.


I'm not too fond of having a cut-and-dry arbitrary number for a one-size-fits all definition of Species in Risk of Extinction. The particular species, habitat size and local biota can have a quite large effect on population sizes and stability, making one particular number open to abuse or loopholes. Though I'm not sure if this is legal or not, I particularly like the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definitions of endangerment based upon the rate in which their populations are declining. For example, this is what the line of your proposal would look like if using something similar to the IUCN's definition;

DEFINES a Species in Risk of Extinction as a species who fits one or more of the below criteria;

Vulnerable Species - A species which is undergoing a population decline of 20-30% per year.
Threatened Species - A species which is undergoing a population decline of 30-40% per year.
Critical Species - A species which is undergoing a population decline of 40-60% per year.
Terminal Species - A species which is undergoing a population decline of 60-80% per year.



This way, when you talk about bringing back up the populations to a normal level, you could even define it as something along the lines of 'The pre-decline population with a stable growth rate' or something along those lines. I don't know how exactly it would work within the framework of your proposal, but I think that it could make a potential WA resolution much more clear-cut.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:05 am

I think the term Endangered Species or Critically Endangered Species is much better and is unlinked to RL things, obviously. ;)

Better still, we could have a list called the Red List (the term being generic as well), listing the endangered species along with the conservation efforts.

Ms. S. Harper.

User avatar
The Final Rome
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 170
Founded: Nov 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Final Rome » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:11 am

I like the idea of defining threatened species by percentage population loss per year. An insect species with 2000 members would probably be in far worse condition than a large mammal species with 2000 members.
Utie Logicam Semper

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian-3.23

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:17 am

That would be one of the better measures, but also reproduction rate versus declining rate. If one specie only laid once egg in their life then it would be something to worry about.

- Ms. S. Harper.

User avatar
Rutianas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: Aug 23, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Rutianas » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:17 am

What's wrong with the one we already have?

Paula Jenner - Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

User avatar
Denecaep
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1834
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Denecaep » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:56 am

Rutianas wrote:What's wrong with the one we already have?

Paula Jenner - Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador


I've seen that, but this is very different. Its focus is on terminal species, not endangered overall.


As for those suggesting I change to percentage; it might not be necessary. Sure, 2,000 insects is very different from 2,000 mammals, but both cases would be very serious, correct?

The other problem that I have with the percentage decline strategy, is that there are some species with huge populations, that may have a pattern of rapidly decreasing, rapidly increasing, simply depending on climate and such. I think that a specific number, no matter what, will still get the work done. As long as the work is put on the species, isn't that what matters?

Also, the entire purpose of this is to focus on the species in most danger. If we were dealing with endangered species in general, I would use percentages, but we are dealing with a small specific group of species.
Founding Senator Dene Caep of the NSG Senate

User avatar
Denecaep
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1834
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Denecaep » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:46 am

So then... usually I have to make a lot more edits on a draft before I say this, but: should I submit this now?
Founding Senator Dene Caep of the NSG Senate

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:28 am

Isn't that a bit too quick, honoured ambassador? I would personally wait a little bit longer for further feedback. There are a few issues like: what if a member state has done all they has an excellent protection programme yet the' population will never go above 10,000 due to hunting?

- Ms. S. Harper.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:55 am

Denecaep wrote:So then... usually I have to make a lot more edits on a draft before I say this, but: should I submit this now?


submit it? seriously? YOU may believe it is "different" from the Endangered Species Protection Act already in force, but you are about the onbly one. This thing is nothing more than useless duplication.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Denecaep
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1834
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Denecaep » Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:37 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Denecaep wrote:So then... usually I have to make a lot more edits on a draft before I say this, but: should I submit this now?


submit it? seriously? YOU may believe it is "different" from the Endangered Species Protection Act already in force, but you are about the onbly one. This thing is nothing more than useless duplication.


Useless duplication? The main reason I created this was because of what I saw WASN'T in the ESPA. If you read it, you'll notice the differences. This is about investigation into the most critical species' decline. The ESPA is just an overall act to protect endangered animals.
Founding Senator Dene Caep of the NSG Senate

User avatar
Denecaep
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1834
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Denecaep » Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:39 pm

Never mind, it's not worth arguing. Obviously, if nations won't vote for it, it won't pass, so I'll leave this one to die... I apologize for being a bit of a waste of time.
Founding Senator Dene Caep of the NSG Senate


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads