[PASSED] Repeal "Invasive Species Response Act"

[Bergnovinaia]

Repeal GA #254, "Invasive Species Response Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | GA #254|Proposed by: Bergnovinaia

The General Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent behind GA #254, "Invasive Species Response Act;"

YET CONCERNED with the resolution's heinous failure to adequately define invasive species to include all known species that can destroy non-native ecosystems upon introduction;

NOTING that the resolution's definition of invasive species as "any non-sapient plant or animal species posing a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment" alarmingly disregards bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi as potential invasive species threats;

OBSERVING that the biological domains and kingdoms omitted from the definition all contain species that can be considered invasive and highly dangerous if introduced into a non-native habitat;

REGRETTING that the resolution's "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations" is impossible to enforce, because in most cases the introduction of a potential invasive species is by definition "unregulated" anyway;

SADDENED that the target resolution merely "ENCOURAGES cooperation between member-states and the World Assembly Science Program in identifying species with the potential to thrive in and dominate certain environments or cause extinctions of native species," making a great policy optional instead of mandating the policy - something that would help to control the spread of invasive species in all member-states;

Hereby REPEALS GA #254, thereby making it completely null and void.

Editor: DIscoveria

[Ceni]

In hindsight, I realize that we definitely rushed submission. I can't believe there were some glaring errors in the resolution- we'll have to go back to the drawing board, and that's probably a good thing.

[Bergnovinaia]

In hindsight, I realize that we definitely rushed submission. I can't believe there were some glaring errors in the resolution- we'll have to go back to the drawing board, and that's probably a good thing.

Shall I expect the ambassador's approval of this repeal effort, then?

[Ceni]

In hindsight, I realize that we definitely rushed submission. I can't believe there were some glaring errors in the resolution- we'll have to go back to the drawing board, and that's probably a good thing.

Shall I expect the ambassador's approval of this repeal effort, then?

Yes.

[Damanucus]

Firstly, on behalf of all opponents of the ISRA, I would like to thank you for including all our debates and grievances in your repeal.

Now, to analyse:

YET CONCERNED with the resolution's heinous failure to adequately define invasive species to include all known species that can destroy non-native eco-systems upon introduction;

NOTING that the resolution's definition of invasive species as "any non-sapient plant or animal species posing a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment" both disregards sapient beings as potential invasive species, and more alarmingly does not include species that are members of the Domain Bacteria, Domain Archaea, Kingdom Protista, and Kingdom Fungi;

BELIEVING that all of the domains and kingdoms left out of the definition all contain species that can be considered invasive and highly dangerous if introduced into the correct non-native habitat;

I do solidly agree here, and the ambassador from Christian Democrats was the first to bring this up in the original debate, (with Potted Plants United following), however I'd like a bit of ruling (right term here?) from the Secretariat on the inclusion of such specific, possibly Real Life^TM-based terms such as "Kingdom Fungi" and the like. (I'm just concerned; if the ruling's okay, then I'd say this is perfect as is.)

HIGHLIGHTING that the target resolution places a "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations," a ban that is completely impossible to enforce since the introduction is "unregulated' and therefore out of the control of WA member states to enforce;

This was something I personally brought up (although I did ignore the definition), so I have no problem with it. (Thank you for expanding on it, though.)

SADDENED that the target resolution merely "encourages cooperation between member-states and the World Assembly Science Program in identifying species with the potential to thrive in and dominate certain environments or cause extinctions of native species," making a great policy optional instead of mandating the policy--something that would help to control the spread of invasive species in all member states;

This is the only one that is not mentioned in the transcripts, and we wish to thank the delegate from Bergnovinaia for pointing this out in the repeal. We would like to add, though, that it would be difficult to properly enforce such a policy anyway, as (if anyone has any knowledge of weeds and feral animals) invasive species tend to adapt quickly to their new environs, making them difficult to control.

IMPLORING the World Assembly to draft another version of this legislation that adequately deals with the numerous grave flaws;

Well, I would not be so quick to replace this, but a well-written one might actually get my vote.

In all, you have my support.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Discoveria]

Don't forget to mention the other three kingdoms of life!

Jokes aside, this looks good. I'll check back later.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You can't simply say "bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi"? Why do we have to get overly technical with their precise scientific classification?

[Bergnovinaia]

You can't simply say "bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi"? Why do we have to get overly technical with their precise scientific classification?

Meh... technicality is my speciality.

FIxed.

[The Akashic Records]

A point of concern for us is that, the reason that invasive species only included non-sapient ones was because of the meaning of sapient itself, and how it applies to citizens. Had the bill included the sapient species into the regulations, we can see easy circumventions of both the Charter of Civil Rights, as well as the Convention Against Genocide.

Sapient species is capable of making, at least, some sound judgments, and as such, there shouldn't be any grounds for their population to have a "rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment".

However, we do agree that it needed more refinements, as well as a much more significant clause in regards to international cooperation.

[Christian Democrats]

This repeal proposal looks good to me.

[Ponderosa]

Support support support.

[Bergnovinaia]

A point of concern for us is that, the reason that invasive species only included non-sapient ones was because of the meaning of sapient itself, and how it applies to citizens. Had the bill included the sapient species into the regulations, we can see easy circumventions of both the Charter of Civil Rights, as well as the Convention Against Genocide.

Sapient species is capable of making, at least, some sound judgments, and as such, there shouldn't be any grounds for their population to have a "rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment".

However, we do agree that it needed more refinements, as well as a much more significant clause in regards to international cooperation.

So does the ambassador recommend we remove the mention of sapient organisms from the list of grievances?

[Riasy]

I believe that mentioning of sapient organisms may introduce unnecessary controversy into this necessary repeal. Removing this part will make the repeal stronger.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador

[Bergnovinaia]

I believe that mentioning of sapient organisms may introduce unnecessary controversy into this necessary repeal. Removing this part will make the repeal stronger.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador

So edited:

NOTING that the resolution's definition of invasive species as "any non-sapient plant or animal species posing a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment" which, alarmingly, disregards bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi as potential invasive species threats;

[SkyDip]

I am fully behind this repeal and hope to vote in favor, should it reach quorum. Best of luck.

[The Akashic Records]

Seeing that there is already an ongoing draft on the topic, by the respective authors within the resolution to be repealed, and we see no point for too much of a concern, we believe that we can support this effort as it is. Unless the other delegates have other suggestions regarding the matter, that is.

[Bergnovinaia]

With approximately 24 hours to go before GA #254 passes, I am planning to submit this repeal to the quorum immediately after the proposal becomes law.

Do we have any more suggestions? I have only gotten positive feedback from everyone so far.

[San Leggera]

You have my support, ambassador.
~Ambassador Hardcastle

[United Federation of Canada]

Not one to be a negative Nancy here, but this passed by a fairly large margin. What makes you believe the Assembly members are going to instantly repeal it?

As it stands, our vote will be against any repeal of this act. (no offence Berg)

[Bergnovinaia]

Not one to be a negative Nancy here, but this passed by a fairly large margin. What makes you believe the Assembly members are going to instantly repeal it?

As it stands, our vote will be against any repeal of this act. (no offence Berg)

I have my own theory about this, and I am going to actually (maybe) conduct a study on it, about something I call "Following the Pact Phenomenon" (FPP). I believe that once the vote margin reaches a certain majority (1,000 difference), many inexperienced WA voters will abide by FPP and cast their vote in the direction that the vote is going since, possibly, they believe that the majority is always right or, possibly, always want to vote with the majority. At this point, the only way a vote could be swung back is with a rally of big-vote delegates.

I believe this will pass because I feel that I can get many regional delegates on board with how well this repeal is crafted, as well as the support of one of the co-authors, Ceni. (I am not aware if the other will support or not. I will TG him soon.)

What is your reason to oppose this repeal?

[United Federation of Canada]

Not one to be a negative Nancy here, but this passed by a fairly large margin. What makes you believe the Assembly members are going to instantly repeal it?

As it stands, our vote will be against any repeal of this act. (no offence Berg)

I have my own theory about this, and I am going to actually (maybe) conduct a study on it, about something I call "Following the Pact Phenomenon" (FPP). I believe that once the vote margin reaches a certain majority (1,000 difference), many inexperienced WA voters will abide by FPP and cast their vote in the direction that the vote is going since, possibly, they believe that the majority is always right or, possibly, always want to vote with the majority. At this point, the only way a vote could be swung back is with a rally of big-vote delegates.

I believe this will pass because I feel that I can get many regional delegates on board with how well this repeal is crafted, as well as the support of one of the co-authors, Ceni. (I am not aware if the other will support or not. I will TG him soon.)

What is your reason to oppose this repeal?

Lemmings at their finest lol!!! I am actually pretty neutral on this, and voted the way my region did (43-2). From what I have learned in my time here, they are not big supporters of inst-repeals. If on the odd chance, they decide to vote for the repeal, I will certainly go along with it though.

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way speaking for, nor representing the Democratic Socialist Assembly in this matter. All comments are my own, and that of my government.

[Bergnovinaia]

I understand, hence you uphold my theory.

In all seriousness, I do not understand why people would be opposed to this insta-repeal effort. The proposal, if they actually read it, would appear as bad as I find it to be because of the plethora of errors.

Please pass this on to your delegate. I am curious to see how s/he reacts.

[The Akashic Records]

HIGHLIGHTING that the target resolution places an "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations," a ban that is completely impossible to enforce since the introduction is "unregulated' and therefore out of the control of WA member states to enforce;

Giving both this repeal and the piece of legislation that it is trying to pull from the books a more thorough look, I think, that the target resolution placed an "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potentially invasive species to nations" because some invasive species might be beneficial in some way, hence it mandates "that nations or other groups desiring to introduce any potentially beneficial non-native species conduct highly thorough research into the potential consequences thereof and maintain a fund for use in population control efforts should they become necessary".

By requiring "that nations maintain a reasonably comprehensive, freely accessible registry of indigenous species indicating their reproductive capacity, biological predators, genetic variability, and ideal environmental conditions, among other information relevant to population growth capacity or pest control", and granting "businesses, particularly those involved in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and other industries whose profitability is likely to be hampered by the costs of invasive species management, full access to the aforementioned registries", we believe that it is quite possible to regulate the introduction of potentially invasive species.

We still would very much like to see the target resolution be improved, and hope that this repeal progresses well.

[Bergnovinaia]

Ok. The bill passed, as expected.

Any more feedback for the next 12 hours? I will submit it this evening when I return from a day trip, and then conduct a mass-TG campaign and see what happens.

I will consider the Akashic Records' recommendations all day while I am away and remove the clause later if i feel the need too. My current leaning is no because invasive species that are considered beneficial are typically not considered invasive species (IRL). That's just my opinion, though.

[Discoveria]

Just some clean-up.

Repeal GA #254, "Invasive Species Response Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | GA #254|Proposed by: Bergnovinaia

The General Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent behind GA #254, "Invasive Species Response Act;"

YET CONCERNED with the resolution's heinous failure to adequately define invasive species to include all known species that can destroy non-native ecosystems upon introduction;

NOTING that the resolution's definition of invasive species as "any non-sapient plant or animal species posing a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment" alarmingly disregards bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi as potential invasive species threats;

OBSERVING that the biological domains and kingdoms omitted from the definition all contain species that can be considered invasive and highly dangerous if introduced into a non-native habitat;

HIGHLIGHTING that the target resolution places an "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations", a ban that is completely impossible to enforce since the introduction is "unregulated' and therefore out of the control of WA member states to enforce;
--Perhaps reword as "REGRETTING that the resolution's "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations" is impossible to enforce, because in most cases the introduction of a potential invasive species is by definition "unregulated" anyway;"

SADDENED that the target resolution merely "ENCOURAGES cooperation between member-states and the World Assembly Science Program in identifying species with the potential to thrive in and dominate certain environments or cause extinctions of native species", making a great policy optional instead of mandating the policy - something that would help to control the spread of invasive species in all member-states;

IMPLORING the World Assembly to draft another version of this legislation that adequately deals with the numerous grave flaws identified above; This is a controversial clause that may not be necessary, depending on your analysis of voter positions on the issue.

Hereby REPEALS GA #254, thereby making it completely null and void.