[PASSED] Preventing Species Extinction

[Frisbeeteria]

This is a repeal and replace effort of GAR: 66.

Here is a link to the replacement drafting thread: viewtopic.php?p=35444467#p35444467

Thanks to Uan aa Boa and Aclion who gave feedback and some text suggestions on Forest's forum.

Title: Preventing Species Extinction

Category: Environmental - All Industries - Strong

The World Assembly,

Praising this august body's long and storied commitment to the protection of endangered species,

Noting that maintaining high levels of biodiversity has a multitude of financial benefits for all member nations, both indirectly, for example through water purification, flood control, maintaining clean air and atmospheric health, and preventing soil erosion; as well as directly through tourism, providing the inspiration for medicinal compounds and industrial inventions, and being sources of food and water,

In addition, firmly believing that sapient beings have a moral obligation to avoid causing the extinction of non-sapient species,

Aware that when species are lost due to extinction, the loss is permanent and irreversible,

Therefore, in addition to any existing resolutions' regulations with regards to endangered species, hereby:

1. Charges the WA Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) with:
   
   1. Documenting all known species and genetically distinct sub-species which are native to the territories of member nations;
   2. Assessing threats to the continued survival of the above species and subspecies;
   3. Creating a list of all species and subspecies threatened with extinction by non-natural causes, hereafter referred to as at-risk species, and a species by species assessment of the short-term risk of extinction;
2. Charges member nations to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction; the plan shall:
   1. Provide protections designed to prevent the probability of at-risk species becoming extinct from increasing; depending on the risk of extinction, the protections can range from the continued monitoring of the at-species' population level, at the low end of risk, to preventing all possible actions that are likely to negatively impact the at-risk species in any manner, at the high end of risk, or any level of protection in between;
      
   2. If possible, include WAESC-supported actions that will be undertaken by the member nations such that the at-risk species can recover to the point where active protections are no longer needed, these actions might include captive breeding programs, the restoration of destroyed habitats, and/or the removal of pollution, among others;
3. Encourages member nations to seek conservation actions that allow the local populace and other people negatively impacted by these plans to become positively economically invested in species conservation, as long as these actions are consistent with conservation goals and existing WA legislation;
   
   
4. Charges member nations to work with property owners impacted by these actions to compensate them for the partial or complete loss of relevant property rights;
   
   
5. Charges member nations to periodically update conservation plans, with the approval of WAESC, based on new information, conditions, or novel findings of the best available science;
   
   
6. Notes that WAESC may determine that one or more of the following conditions apply, in which case member nations' conservation responsibilities will be partially or wholly lifted for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. The endangered species presents a public health risk, such as through infection or parasitism;
   2. The endangered species is outside of its native range and invasive in its present location;
   3. The clearly needed protections for the species would present a serious public health emergency;
   4. The clearly needed protections for the species would negatively impact another species also at risk for extinction;
7. Clarifies that proactive protection is not required when the risk of extinction is not caused or exacerbated by the actions of sapient species;
   
   
8. Clarifies that member nations may enact more stringent national regulations on the impacts of endangered species, at their own discretion, so long as they are compliant with all other World Assembly resolutions.

[Democratic Republic Of Unified States]

I love this

[Ransium]

Reserved for past drafts.

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘charges’ clause appears to suggest that property rights can be taken away and buildings stopped if an endangered species is at risk, which I disagree with rather strongly. In the event that a rare fruit fly is found nesting where for example, a hospital could be, I for one will not prioritise non-sapient beings over sapient ones.”

[Ransium]

“Your ‘charges’ clause appears to suggest that property rights can be taken away and buildings stopped if an endangered species is at risk, which I disagree with rather strongly. In the event that a rare fruit fly is found nesting where for example, a hospital could be, I for one will not prioritise non-sapient beings over sapient ones.”

1) The same is true under current endangered species protections. GAR 66 says:

Should a species become endangered, the WAESC is responsible for protecting the species' remaining habitat through halting business or residential encroachment into the species' habitat,

There is actually more flexibility written into this proposal so that perhaps some sort of easement could be come up with so both could exist. But if not, why can't the hospital be built elsewhere?

2) I did write this clause which allows for the loosening of protections:

The clearly needed protections for the species would present a serious public health emergency or massive and systemic economic downturn;

3) If private property rights cannot be partially or wholly modified to aid endangered species I don't see how you can actually protect endangered species. Are all species that depend on some amount of private property for survival forfeit because we prioritize sapient beings over non-sapient?

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘charges’ clause appears to suggest that property rights can be taken away and buildings stopped if an endangered species is at risk, which I disagree with rather strongly. In the event that a rare fruit fly is found nesting where for example, a hospital could be, I for one will not prioritise non-sapient beings over sapient ones.”

1) The same is true under current endangered species protections. GAR 66 says:

Should a species become endangered, the WAESC is responsible for protecting the species' remaining habitat through halting business or residential encroachment into the species' habitat,

(OOC: Hence the reason Kenmoria supports your repeal of GA #066; the nation is hoping some less restrictive legislation might be passed.

There is actually more flexibility written into this proposal so that perhaps some sort of easement could be come up with so both could exist. But if not, why can't the hospital be built elsewhere?

Maybe the hospital is being built because there are none in one particular village, which has an endangered species all over it. Perhaps the hospital would be best built at a road junction for access of ambulances, where a rare type of peony is nesting. There are many situations where one location is obviously superior.

2) I did write this clause which allows for the loosening of protections:

That will probably be enough for Kenmoria to claim creative compliance, so potentially the measure will have IC support, which is how I vote, but given the ultracapitalism present in the country, pretty much any environmental legislation will be opposed.

3) If private property rights cannot be partially or wholly modified to aid endangered species I don't see how you can actually protect endangered species. Are all species that depend on some amount of private property for survival forfeit because we prioritize sapient beings over non-sapient?

In Kenmoria, most certainly.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"This seems thorough and proper. I wonder if you could give an example of a necessary protection that would cause 'a massive, systemic economic downturn?' To my knowledge, any such massive protection necessarily leads to what parasites and bankers call 'creative destruction,' where new industries arise to take over for obsolete ones - as when they finally built enough nuclear reactors to halt the carbonation of Urrth's atmosphere and just barely kept polar bears from dying out. Oil magnates didn't like it, but tough shit. Everyone else prospered and thrived. So I'm unclear how the scenario you make exception for could come to pass."

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: copy of draft taken to study while offline)

[The Feylands]

Quite shameful that something like this hasn't already been implemented...

[Bears Armed]

Quite shameful that something like this hasn't already been implemented...

It has been. The plan is to repeal the earlier resolution and then replace it with this one.

[Marxist Germany]

Quite shameful that something like this hasn't already been implemented...

OOC:This is a replacement.

[United Massachusetts]

Could this be titled "Preventing Species Extinction"?

[Ransium]

"This seems thorough and proper. I wonder if you could give an example of a necessary protection that would cause 'a massive, systemic economic downturn?' To my knowledge, any such massive protection necessarily leads to what parasites and bankers call 'creative destruction,' where new industries arise to take over for obsolete ones - as when they finally built enough nuclear reactors to halt the carbonation of Urrth's atmosphere and just barely kept polar bears from dying out. Oil magnates didn't like it, but tough shit. Everyone else prospered and thrived. So I'm unclear how the scenario you make exception for could come to pass."

Fair enough, I've pulled that part of the sentence.

Could this be titled "Preventing Species Extinction"?

Sure, I've changed the title.

I've made other tweaks based on my own volition and comments by Uan aa Boa on Forest's forums.

[Araraukar]

OOC: As written, this will empty WA's bank accounts. Keywords "all species" cause that. We don't even have a proper ballpark estimate in RL for how many different species of living things (especially when you go for the microscopic ones) there are in the one world we live in, and you want a WA committee to document all species and genetically distinct subspecies of everything in all the WA nations??? That money comes from the WA nations, you know.

Also, please number your main clauses.

And it looks like the "charges member nations to - develop - 1" clause (this is why I suggested numbering, as your current system makes referring to the subclauses a nightmare) seems to okay a nation just monitoring a species that slowly goes extinct due to sapient actions, as there's no requirement to do more than that. In the second sub-subclause of that, are you sure that "contain" is the word you meant to use, instead of "include" or similar? Because my first reading (I admit, sleepy brain) of it was to keep the WAESC-supported actions from getting in the way.

[Kenmoria]

“In the first ‘notes’, there should be an apostrophe in ‘member nations’, since you are describing the conservation responsibilities thereof.”

[Ransium]

OOC: As written, this will empty WA's bank accounts. Keywords "all species" cause that. We don't even have a proper ballpark estimate in RL for how many different species of living things (especially when you go for the microscopic ones) there are in the one world we live in, and you want a WA committee to document all species and genetically distinct subspecies of everything in all the WA nations??? That money comes from the WA nations, you know.

Alright, I get it. I'll change it to all known species.

I accidentally deleted your text about the numbering but I've changed that too.

And it looks like the "charges member nations to - develop - 1" clause (this is why I suggested numbering, as your current system makes referring to the subclauses a nightmare) seems to okay a nation just monitoring a species that slowly goes extinct due to sapient actions, as there's no requirement to do more than that.

This 100% not what the resolution says. It Is laying out a range of potential actions "depending on the risk of extinction". Continued monitoring would be a possible action of only the lowest level of risk. If the monitoring revealed that the risk of extinction had increased, the conservation plan would have to change based on the "charges WAESC and member nations" clause 2 (now point 5).

In the second sub-subclause of that, are you sure that "contain" is the word you meant to use, instead of "include" or similar? Because my first reading (I admit, sleepy brain) of it was to keep the WAESC-supported actions from getting in the way.

Yeah, that was poorly worded. Changed.

“In the first ‘notes’, there should be an apostrophe in ‘member nations’, since you are describing the conservation responsibilities thereof.”

Fixed.

[Araraukar]

And it looks like the "charges member nations to - develop - 1" clause (this is why I suggested numbering, as your current system makes referring to the subclauses a nightmare) seems to okay a nation just monitoring a species that slowly goes extinct due to sapient actions, as there's no requirement to do more than that.

This 100% not what the resolution says. It Is laying out a range of potential actions "depending on the risk of extinction". Continued monitoring would be a possible action of only the lowest level of risk. If the monitoring revealed that the risk of extinction had increased, the conservation plan would have to change based on the "charges WAESC and member nations" clause 2 (now point 5).

OOC: The resolution says, and I quote, "the protections could range from the continued monitoring of the at-species' population level to preventing all possible actions that are likely to negatively impact the at-risk species in any manner, or any level of protection in between". If you want it to say something else, then write something else there. Or perhaps leave that whole thing out, as I can't see it as anything else but loophole-creator.

Also, your not-to-do-with-committee clauses are currently encouragement ones, so if you want to keep the All Businesses - Strong, you'll have to do better than that. Or you can change it to Mild instead and it'll be fine. If you do want to keep it as Strong, then try rewriting the proposal without the committee at all. Giving all the tasks you give to the committee, to the member nations instead, you'd create a much stronger (not just language-and-legality-wise) proposal to begin with. If you must have the committee, then make it only act when protecting a species requires transboundary cooperation between WA nations.

Like clause 4, why should the WAESC be the one to fork money over (which, again, comes from all WA nations) to compensate something happening to a single landowner in a single WA nation?

And while I can't think of a good wording for it right now, clause 6's last subclause should probably have something about "if two species' interests conflict, the one that's more important to the ecosystem should be saved".

Now, what about extirpation? The WA resolutions are only for WA nations, I understand that, but... reposting my RL example from another thread:

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creative genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population.

[Ransium]

This 100% not what the resolution says. It Is laying out a range of potential actions "depending on the risk of extinction". Continued monitoring would be a possible action of only the lowest level of risk. If the monitoring revealed that the risk of extinction had increased, the conservation plan would have to change based on the "charges WAESC and member nations" clause 2 (now point 5).

OOC: The resolution says, and I quote, "the protections could range from the continued monitoring of the at-species' population level to preventing all possible actions that are likely to negatively impact the at-risk species in any manner, or any level of protection in between". If you want it to say something else, then write something else there. Or perhaps leave that whole thing out, as I can't see it as anything else but loophole-creator.

I feel like we're talking past each other here. Yes, I know what I wrote. But the phrase right before that is "depending on the risk of extinction," meaning, no, you can't monitor species that are close to extinction. If the species risk of extinction state starts super low and then becomes higher "Charges WAESC and member nations to periodically update and improve conservation plans based on new information, conditions, or novel findings of the best available science;" would mean you can't continue to monitor the species if it grows closer to extinction.

The reason having monitoring as possible action is important and a general sliding scale to actions is it reduces the perverse incentive of property owners removing a species that who's risk is currently being evaluated, for fear of losing the rights to their property.

Also, your not-to-do-with-committee clauses are currently encouragement ones, so if you want to keep the All Businesses - Strong, you'll have to do better than that. Or you can change it to Mild instead and it'll be fine. If you do want to keep it as Strong, then try rewriting the proposal without the committee at all. Giving all the tasks you give to the committee, to the member nations instead, you'd create a much stronger (not just language-and-legality-wise) proposal to begin with. If you must have the committee, then make it only act when protecting a species requires transboundary cooperation between WA nations.

Like clause 4, why should the WAESC be the one to fork money over (which, again, comes from all WA nations) to compensate something happening to a single landowner in a single WA nation?

Your legality opinion is not shared by GenSec. My GHG proposal used a committee in a very similar way, was also strong and GenSec members dismissed it as being a strength violation. I'll consider re-writing next weekend but I will not due so for legality reasons.

And while I can't think of a good wording for it right now, clause 6's last subclause should probably have something about "if two species' interests conflict, the one that's more important to the ecosystem should be saved".

That's a super subjective call. More important to whom?

Now, what about extirpation? The WA resolutions are only for WA nations, I understand that, but... reposting my RL example from another thread:

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creative genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population.

I think the mention of genetically distinct subspecies is as far I need to go. I don't think the EU's standards are the most efficient use of conservation resources as your post details.

[Araraukar]

But the phrase right before that is "depending on the risk of extinction," meaning, no, you can't monitor species that are close to extinction.

OOC: If you want it to say that, then say that. You know "resolution only does what resolution says it does". If you want it to say something about a sliding scale with the scale of action depending on severity of threat of extinction, then write that in there.

The reason having monitoring as possible action is important and a general sliding scale to actions is it reduces the perverse incentive of property owners removing a species that who's risk is currently being evaluated, for fear of losing the rights to their property.

...exactly how? I mean, these things presumably have to be posted somewhere publicly, if they're WA resolution stuff, how would the property owners not be able to go "Oh, that red flower in my backyard is an at-risk thing? I'll just get rid of that before anyone else notices."

And while I can't think of a good wording for it right now, clause 6's last subclause should probably have something about "if two species' interests conflict, the one that's more important to the ecosystem should be saved".

That's a super subjective call. More important to whom?

Underlined.

I think the mention of genetically distinct subspecies is as far I need to go. I don't think the EU's standards are the most efficient use of conservation resources as your post details.

...you're completely missing the point.

If a species exists over half the globe, but is growing scarcer in the local population in a WA nation, does that nation have to use EU-esque measures and treat it as though it was about to go extinct globally, or can they let it go extinct in their nation's area?

[Ransium]

If you want it to say something about a sliding scale with the scale of action depending on severity of threat of extinction, then write that in there.

You mean something like:

depending on the risk of extinction, the protections could range from...

[Araraukar]

You mean something like:

depending on the risk of extinction, the protections could range from...

OOC: Now you're just being dense on purpose.

I mean rewording something like "Provide protections designed to prevent the probability of at-risk species becoming extinct from increasing; depending on the severity of risk of extinction, the protections can range from the continued monitoring of the species' population level for the mild end of the scale, to preventing all possible actions that are likely to negatively impact the species in any manner for the severe end of the scale, or any level of protection in between, as is appropriate for the level of risk;". Additions/changes (other than omissions) underlined. Just changing from "could" to "can" would help a lot, but the "as appropriate for the level of risk" should be included in some way. In fact, you probably should separate the sliding scale into its own subclause, so you'd have an easier time referring to it. And out of the interest, why not just create a "No/Low/Moderate/Severe/Extreme Risk" tiered scale instead?

And you didn't reply to the EU-esque situation of extirpation being or not being treated as global extinction. I think that's a pretty relevant one, given how much grief the RL one is causing.

All of ^that aside, I'd like to know what happens if you repeal the existing one and pass this, and a nation has tighter protections than what WAESC thinks is appropriate for a given species?

EDIT: So this isn't completely just criticism, thank you for numbering and lettering your clauses.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's be clear. Ransium isn't being dense. Nor are his remarks dense. In fact, they are quite ethereal. The current wording already does all the things you think the changes would require, even as you seemingly cannot understand the structure of Ransium's writing to see that it already does those things. I would advise the author, as many have already done on the Discord, to ignore highly stylistically-founded remarks masquerading as substantive wording changes.

[Ransium]

RE: varying the protection levels - I have changed 'could' to 'can' and identified which ends the spectrum applies where to prevent some bad-faith interpretation. I'd very much prefer to move on from this point as I don't think anyone is convincing anyone else of anything further.

RE: extirpation - EU law has no relevancy to this proposal as you well know. Under my reading of the proposal if the species is common in Country A, and there are 3 specimens in country B, if those specimens are at risk of death in B this proposal offers no specific protections (provided it is not a genetically unique sub-population). Under the wording of this proposal, a species gains protection only if a whole species or genetically unique subpopulation is at-risk of going extinct. National borders have no relevancy (beyond WA-jurisdiction). Are you arguing for something different? Is there anything in the proposal that makes you think the proposal is doing something different?

RE: "more important to the ecosystem" - My point is this an extremely subjective call. I was told a story once of Jaguars eating endangered sea turtles in Costa Rica while they are laying. How do you scientifically value the importance of those two species to an ecosystem? Ecosystems are complex interconnected systems. The exact tangles of every little edge of the web of ecology are unlikely to ever be fully understood. To put an exact value on every species accurately simply isn't possible. The only sensible thing is to let the experts sort out what should be done on a case by case basis, as I've allowed here.

RE: committees - I removed WAESC from 4) and clarified their role in 5. Other changes I disagree with.

RE: tigher protections than the proposal - I've added a clarifying clause.

I've made some other minor changes based on others recommendations, most notably I've removed 8 (on the collection of genetic materials) as I feel it is already covered by "Researching Unique Ecosystems"

[Araraukar]

RE: extirpation - EU law has no relevancy to this proposal as you well know.

OOC: Actually the situation is very similar - like the WA, the EU can only legislate for its own member states and place requirements for protection of species only within the borders of its member states. It has chosen to basically look at transboundary species only within EU as if they didn't exist elsewhere. If (and it looks like you're choosing that road) the proposal isn't that nearsighted, then that's great!

The only sensible thing is to let the experts sort out what should be done on a case by case basis, as I've allowed here.

Well actually you're making the WA committee make that decision, but close enough.

RE: tigher protections than the proposal - I've added a clarifying clause.

Thank you. Even if "impacts" makes me think of road accidents... but that's probably just my brain's word association being weird.

All in all, it looks much better now, and the removal of the genetic material collection removed the last bone of contention in terms of "money and time waste (for WA/member nations)", too. Well done!

Tiny psst, you've typoed "industries" in the AoE spot.

[Ransium]

I'm still fishing for further thoughts or feedback on this as well.