NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Preventing Species Extinction

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Preventing Species Extinction

Postby Ransium » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:40 am

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.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Wed May 08, 2019 9:41 pm, edited 33 times in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Democratic Republic Of Unified States
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 55
Founded: Dec 27, 2018
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Democratic Republic Of Unified States » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:42 am

I love this

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:42 am

Reserved for past drafts.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5083
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:06 am

“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.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:18 am

Kenmoria wrote:“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?
Last edited by Ransium on Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5083
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:31 am

Ransium wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“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.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3368
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:21 am

"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."
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
Stephanie Athena Zakalwe
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279



User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18544
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:38 am

(OOC: copy of draft taken to study while offline)
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
The Feylands
Envoy
 
Posts: 286
Founded: Jul 13, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Feylands » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:47 am

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

Hey there u! I'm Fey - the Celestial Fairy Princess! "Mᴀᴋɪɴɢ NS ᴄᴏsɪᴇʀ sɪɴᴄᴇ 2017!"® (◕‿◕)
, Vegetarian, Crazy Cat Lady, Dharmic Pagan, Metal, Fantasy, Elf/Fairy, Chinaboo, Yogi etc.
How can I be so cuddly and huggable? ♥♥♥ Because I exist to ease the suffering of this world! (⌒▽⌒) #TheBuddhaRocks
Little secret: I have a superpower called "ADHD". (^̮^)
♥Her Radiance's Celestial Thought♥
Neat: Essentialism, Monarchy, Difference Feminism, Animal rights, Green Conservatism, 中国, Beauty, Dignity of all life
ಠ~ಠ: Passive aggressive dorks, Abrahamic/Antropocentric world-view(s), the EU, celebrating ugliness..
I support Israel and everyone who suffer needlessly because of their own compassion.♥ (ಥ﹏ಥ)

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18544
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:52 am

The Feylands wrote: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.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1053
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Corporate Bordello

Postby Marxist Germany » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:57 am

The Feylands wrote:Quite shameful that something like this hasn't already been implemented...

OOC:This is a replacement.
Country represents RL views mostly. Not Marxist anymore.
Author of GA#461

Ex-delegate of The United Federations; citizen of 10000 Islands | Gaming User#0721(Discord)
RP name: Germany
The National Factbook (WIP)
Ambassador Klaus Schmidt
Political Compass
PolitiStates Result
Pro:Laissez-faire, Nationalism, Guns, Free speech, Christianity, Same-sex marriage, United Ireland.
Anti:Extreme Progressivism, Abortion, Socialism, Interventionism, Mass-migration.
A high school student aged 15 from Ireland, living in Co. Dublin. Interested in politics, gaming, and history.

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2447
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby United Massachusetts » Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:57 pm

Could this be titled "Preventing Species Extinction"?
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

Deputy Outreach Minister, The Rejected Realms
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

President, Right to Life
Author/Co-author: 7 GA, 2 SC resolutions

Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
Stat Crux dum volvitur orbis
The Cross stands steady, though the Earth is turning


User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:32 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"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.

United Massachusetts wrote: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.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13732
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:49 pm

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. :P
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5083
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:42 am

“In the first ‘notes’, there should be an apostrophe in ‘member nations’, since you are describing the conservation responsibilities thereof.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:19 am

Araraukar wrote: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.

Araraukar wrote: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. :P


Yeah, that was poorly worded. Changed.

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


Fixed.
Last edited by Ransium on Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:31 am, edited 5 times in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13732
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:41 pm

Ransium wrote:
Araraukar wrote: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:
Araraukar wrote: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.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:23 am

Araraukar wrote:
Ransium wrote: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:
Araraukar wrote: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.
Last edited by Ransium on Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:25 am, edited 3 times in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13732
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:13 pm

Ransium 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.

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."

Araraukar wrote: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?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:38 pm

Araraukar wrote: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:

Ransium wrote:depending on the risk of extinction, the protections could range from...
Last edited by Ransium on Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13732
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:17 am

Ransium wrote:You mean something like:
Ransium wrote: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. :)
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8880
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:03 pm

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.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:43 pm

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"

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13732
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:09 pm

Ransium wrote: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.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6072
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:56 pm

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

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads