[DEFEATED] Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation

[Untecna]

IC: "We, the delegation representing the Untecnan Empire, introduce to the assembly our draft for a bill, one on the issue of fragmentation within animal populations. We wish to hear opinions from our colleagues about this draft, and hopefully, we may create a bill that may further the diversity and livelihoods of species."

OOC: Yup, I'm back at it again, but this time, I have a draft about animal population fragmentation. I have read it and feel that something is missing with it, and so I ask you, the writers and voters of the WA, to help me figure that out. I also don't believe this is finished at all, and so I am open to opinions about it. Let me clear up one thing before I do, however. I received a comment about it from IA on the Ideas topic, and he believed it would be an issue to the evolution and natural selection of species. That is not the intention or result of this proposal. Ending fragmentation or creating solutions to it allows species to continue living and mating, increasing biodiversity all around. As we see in China in the modern-day, populations of pandas within the country are fragmented, and the animals are already endangered. The fragmentation seems to only continue being an issue and may end up with pandas being extinct in the wild. That threatens biodiversity where they live, since the bamboo they eat may grow without stopping, causing issues for the environment (unless humans come in to intervene, but that is a factor that may not come in). Real-world example over. There are, indeed, solutions to fragmentation, such as bridges for wildlife, as well as sectors being built for wildlife, expanding their habitat, and more among solutions. It matters what situation and what animal it is, though. The only reason this is not in the proposal itself is because, as it is written now, there is no real appropriate space to include solutions especially considering that not all subjects of fragmentation are the same.

Ending Animal Population Fragmentation
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Businesses-Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Understanding the previous legislation passed by the General Assembly on endangered animals, protecting them from harm,

Considering that it is not complete, and only protects from a small part of the entire problem,

Knowing that in that case, an enhancement may be needed to ensure that other reasons for endangerment are addressed, and

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to potential reduction of genetic diversity, limitation of population growth, increased danger of extirpation, lower carrying capacities in their areas of residence, loss of ability to reach resources in some cases, lower life expectancy, and potential extinction in the wild, among other issues,

Notes that, while natural changes may result in the change of a fragmented population to be able to be free of fragmentation, nature is not certain, and can not wholly be accounted for to any degree in the immediate time,

Understanding that, by the nature of the detrimental effects listed above, fragmentation of animal populations potentially reduces the diversity of species and the overall biodiversity of the land on which they reside and in the nation that is in,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. The following definitions are reviewed:
   
   1. “Animal population” is a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient wild animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area, excluding microscopic species.
      
   2. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers that may cause a net detriment on an animal population.
      
   3. “Fragmenters” is further defined as the barriers keeping animal populations fragmented.
      
   4. "Microscopic Species" is defined as a species of non-sapient wild animals at or below a measurement of 0.25 mm in length.
   
   
2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
   
   1. Research barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial,
   2. Collect and provide data and information on fragmented species for use by national efforts to end fragmentation, and
   3. Assess whether the species in question is both able to be assisted at the time and is in danger of detriment from fragmentation.
   
   
3. Member nations shall assist and cooperate with the WAESC in finding and researching said barriers.
   
   
4. All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC to increase the information database on fragmented populations.
   
   
5. All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to implement plans to mitigate or neutralize foreseeable fragmentation from the construction project.
   
   
6. All artificial fragmenters within an area of fragmentation must be reviewed and a decision made on the best course of action to assist the fragmented population, on non-microscopic populations.
   
   
7. All member nations are required to take action to mitigate and minimize the effects of fragmentation if the animal in question meets the guidelines and the fragmentation is caused by artificial barriers.
   
   
8. All member nations are encouraged to conduct programs to find and implement ways to mitigate fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.
   
   
9. Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to finance endeavors spawned from this resolution to member states who are unable to pay for such activities to occur.

Coauthored with Onionist Randosia

---

[Minskiev]

Just a heads up, it's generally agreed upon that using "On [topic]" as the title isn't a good thing, because it doesn't establish an actual position.

If you're trying to overcome the barriers, maybe "Ending Animal Population Fragmentation" is a better title.

[Hulldom]

If you really want to pursue this, my advice would be to create more of a hard and fast mandate on members. This is a worthwhile topic, and I'm a tad surprised no one has tackled it before, but as it is currently, I don't think it's strong enough either way for me to vote `For`.

[Untecna]

Just a heads up, it's generally agreed upon that using "On [topic]" as the title isn't a good thing, because it doesn't establish an actual position.

If you're trying to overcome the barriers, maybe "Ending Animal Population Fragmentation" is a better title.

Agreed, and addressed.

If you really want to pursue this, my advice would be to create more of a hard and fast mandate on members. This is a worthwhile topic, and I'm a tad surprised no one has tackled it before, but as it is currently, I don't think it's strong enough either way for me to vote `For`.

Yes, I see now it is more relaxed on the members of the WA. What would you propose I add to make it a harder mandate?

[Onionist Randosia]

As I have said in the past, the category could be 'Environmental' subcategory 'Housing'.
And also add something like this:

Noting that animal population fragmentation is often caused by human activity and development

Urges nations to prevent this kind of activity, or at least establish means for animals to get around such activity or developement

[Tinhampton]

As I have said in the past, the category could be 'Environmental' subcategory 'Housing'.

...that category/AoE combination doesn't exist.

[Hulldom]

Just a heads up, it's generally agreed upon that using "On [topic]" as the title isn't a good thing, because it doesn't establish an actual position.

If you're trying to overcome the barriers, maybe "Ending Animal Population Fragmentation" is a better title.

Agreed, and addressed.

If you really want to pursue this, my advice would be to create more of a hard and fast mandate on members. This is a worthwhile topic, and I'm a tad surprised no one has tackled it before, but as it is currently, I don't think it's strong enough either way for me to vote `For`.

Yes, I see now it is more relaxed on the members of the WA. What would you propose I add to make it a harder mandate?

Think about it this way: "what actions should WA members have to take to ensure that animal populations aren't fragmented?"

As I have said in the past, the category could be 'Environmental' subcategory 'Housing'.

...that category/AoE combination doesn't exist.

There really isn't a good AoE for it. It definitely fits "Environmental", but hard to say exactly what this fits with.

[Untecna]

Agreed, and addressed.

Yes, I see now it is more relaxed on the members of the WA. What would you propose I add to make it a harder mandate?

Think about it this way: "what actions should WA members have to take to ensure that animal populations aren't fragmented?"

...that category/AoE combination doesn't exist.

There really isn't a good AoE for it. It definitely fits "Environmental", but hard to say exactly what this fits with.

I've edited the proposal with some mandates, and they leave it open to find the best solution for different species. Take a look, and tell me if there's anything still needed.

Edit: About the AoE, I am having trouble finding one myself. Perhaps before this one passes a new AoE will need to be made gameside specifically for this kind of thing. Either that or I have to completely rewrite this thing.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: It's 'Environmental: All Businesses', but whether that's the Mild version or [less probably] the Strong one will end up depending on how much you mandate. [/one-sixth of GenSec]

[Onionist Randosia]

As I have said in the past, the category could be 'Environmental' subcategory 'Housing'.

...that category/AoE combination doesn't exist.

Oh ok. For some reason I thought it did.

[Untecna]

OOC: It's 'Environmental: All Businesses', but whether that's the Mild version or [less probably] the Strong one will end up depending on how much you mandate. [/one-sixth of GenSec]

Added the "Mild" strength. Thanks for the help.

[Onionist Randosia]

OOC: It's 'Environmental: All Businesses', but whether that's the Mild version or [less probably] the Strong one will end up depending on how much you mandate. [/one-sixth of GenSec]

Added the "Mild" strength. Thanks for the help.

Also maybe we need to separate preventing specifically further development and redoing current development to reduce fragmentation

[Untecna]

Added the "Mild" strength. Thanks for the help.

Also maybe we need to separate preventing specifically further development and redoing current development to reduce fragmentation

Added.

Draft is now #2a.

[Apatosaurus]

IC: "We, the delegation representing the Untecnan Empire, introduce to the assembly our draft for a bill, one on the issue of fragmentation within animal populations. We wish to hear opinions from our colleagues about this draft, and hopefully, we may create a bill that may further the diversity and livelihoods of species."

OOC: Yup, I'm back at it again, but this time, I have a draft about animal population fragmentation. I have read it and feel that something is missing with it, and so I ask you, the writers and voters of the WA, to help me figure that out. I also don't believe this is finished at all, and so I am open to opinions about it. Let me clear up one thing before I do, however. I received a comment about it from IA on the Ideas topic, and he believed it would be an issue to the evolution and natural selection of species. That is not the intention or result of this proposal. Ending fragmentation or creating solutions to it allows species to continue living and mating, increasing biodiversity all around. As we see in China in the modern-day, populations of pandas within the country are fragmented, and the animals are already endangered. The fragmentation seems to only continue being an issue and may end up with pandas being extinct in the wild. That threatens biodiversity where they live, since the bamboo they eat may grow without stopping, causing issues for the environment (unless humans come in to intervene, but that is a factor that may not come in). Real-world example over, now to the proposal itself.

Ambassador Scott jokingly says "Apatosaurus is voting against solely because the authoring delegation decided to write a wall of text in the OP." He laughs, before stating "In all seriousness, Apatosaurus is entirely for the principle, but believes that this draft needs some work. I have provided suggestions for improvement below:"

Ending Animal Population Fragmentation
Category: Environmental | Subcategory: All Businesses-Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Understanding the previous legislation passed by the General Assembly on endangered animals, protecting them from harm,

Considering that it is not complete, and only protects from a small part of the entire problem,

Knowing that in that case, an enhancement may be needed to ensure that other reasons for endangerment are addressed, and -- Usually best to end the second to last clause of the preamble with the word "and". Pretty small issue, yes, but helps the preamble read better.

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to reduction of genetic diversity, limitation of population growth, increased danger of extirpation, etc. among other issues, -- ending this with "etc." just seems unprofessional and informal in context. Though that may just be me.

Hereby enacts the following -- same as the ending clause with "and" above, nitpick but makes everything read better.:
Use [list] tags, coding on how to use them below:

Code: Select all

[list=1][*]This will
[*]Create a
[*]List numbered
[*]With 1) 2) 3) ...
[*]Numbering.[/list]
[list=a][*]And this
[*]Will use
[*]a) b) c) ... numbering.[/list][/list]

1. The following terms are defined for the purposes of this resolution:
1a. Defines “fragmentation” "Fragmentation" is defined as the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers. This should go after the definition of "animal population" in my opinion since you used that phrase in the definition.

1b. Defines “animal population” "Animal population" is defined as a group of individuals, classified as animals non-sapient animals -- So, I roleplay as a nation of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are "individuals, classified as animals" (and tbf so are humans), so is building a new road going to be illegal? Just change "individuals, classified as animals" to "non-sapient animals"., that make up the amount of that animal in a given area.

1c. Defines “fragmenters” "Fragmenters" are further defined as the barriers keeping animal populations fragmented.

2. Charges the The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) is charged with:
a. Researching barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial, and
b. Employing measures needed to assist fragmented populations.

3. Employs the assistance and cooperation of member nations with the WAESC to find and research said barriers. This is too vague for my liking? Possible rework of this clause: "Member nations are required to assist and cooperate with the WARSC in finding and researching said barriers.

4. Requires all member nations to take information from the WAESC about a species' natural food, environment, the distance between other populations of that species, and the barriers that separate them. Should go as a subsection of 2). Rework to make this plausible: "Providing information to member nations regarding a non sapient animal species' natural food, environment, the distance between other populations of that species, and the barriers that separate them."

5. Mandates all member nations All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC for evaluation and to increase the information database on fragmented populations; the WAESC also being required to complete research to check the research of the nations.

6. Mandates that It is further mandated that all construction plans within any area of the nation a member nation be reviewed by an independent environmental body to ensure that the construction will not further fragmentation or will affect the environment in the area.

7. Requires that all All member nations must conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

8. Mandates that all All member nations must conduct programs and implement strategies to eliminate fragmentation due to artificial barriers that already exist.

9. Allocates funding Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to give to nations unable to implement such actions due to lack of funds to do so.

Coauthored with Onionist Randosia The co-author part no longer needs to go in the proposal as co-authors are now added as an option during submission.

[Hulldom]

I'm not commenting on the content of what Apato said other than to say "ignore their tensing and put everything in active voice".

"He has been there yesterday" vs "He was there yesterday"

Or in the context of the draft:
"'Animal population' is defined as a group of non-sapient animals that make up the amount of that animal in a given area" vs. "'Animal population' is a group of non-sapient animals that make up the amount of that animal in a given area."*

Tl;dr for you and Apato: don't use the verb "to be" followed by the past tense of another verb, it's passive voice and passive voice in law = bad.

*Re: this though, I'd suggest having that definition be: "'Animal population' is the amount of a specific species of non-sapient animals in a given area."

[Untecna]

IC: "We, the delegation representing the Untecnan Empire, introduce to the assembly our draft for a bill, one on the issue of fragmentation within animal populations. We wish to hear opinions from our colleagues about this draft, and hopefully, we may create a bill that may further the diversity and livelihoods of species."

OOC: Yup, I'm back at it again, but this time, I have a draft about animal population fragmentation. I have read it and feel that something is missing with it, and so I ask you, the writers and voters of the WA, to help me figure that out. I also don't believe this is finished at all, and so I am open to opinions about it. Let me clear up one thing before I do, however. I received a comment about it from IA on the Ideas topic, and he believed it would be an issue to the evolution and natural selection of species. That is not the intention or result of this proposal. Ending fragmentation or creating solutions to it allows species to continue living and mating, increasing biodiversity all around. As we see in China in the modern-day, populations of pandas within the country are fragmented, and the animals are already endangered. The fragmentation seems to only continue being an issue and may end up with pandas being extinct in the wild. That threatens biodiversity where they live, since the bamboo they eat may grow without stopping, causing issues for the environment (unless humans come in to intervene, but that is a factor that may not come in). Real-world example over, now to the proposal itself.

Ambassador Scott jokingly says "Apatosaurus is voting against solely because the authoring delegation decided to write a wall of text in the OP." He laughs, before stating "In all seriousness, Apatosaurus is entirely for the principle, but believes that this draft needs some work. I have provided suggestions for improvement below:"

Ending Animal Population Fragmentation
Category: Environmental | Subcategory: All Businesses-Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Understanding the previous legislation passed by the General Assembly on endangered animals, protecting them from harm,

Considering that it is not complete, and only protects from a small part of the entire problem,

Knowing that in that case, an enhancement may be needed to ensure that other reasons for endangerment are addressed, and -- Usually best to end the second to last clause of the preamble with the word "and". Pretty small issue, yes, but helps the preamble read better.

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to reduction of genetic diversity, limitation of population growth, increased danger of extirpation, etc. among other issues, -- ending this with "etc." just seems unprofessional and informal in context. Though that may just be me.

Hereby enacts the following -- same as the ending clause with "and" above, nitpick but makes everything read better.:
Use [list] tags, coding on how to use them below:

Code: Select all

[list=1][*]This will
[*]Create a
[*]List numbered
[*]With 1) 2) 3) ...
[*]Numbering.[/list]
[list=a][*]And this
[*]Will use
[*]a) b) c) ... numbering.[/list][/list]

1. The following terms are defined for the purposes of this resolution:
1a. Defines “fragmentation” "Fragmentation" is defined as the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers. This should go after the definition of "animal population" in my opinion since you used that phrase in the definition.

1b. Defines “animal population” "Animal population" is defined as a group of individuals, classified as animals non-sapient animals -- So, I roleplay as a nation of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are "individuals, classified as animals" (and tbf so are humans), so is building a new road going to be illegal? Just change "individuals, classified as animals" to "non-sapient animals"., that make up the amount of that animal in a given area.

1c. Defines “fragmenters” "Fragmenters" are further defined as the barriers keeping animal populations fragmented.

2. Charges the The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) is charged with:
a. Researching barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial, and
b. Employing measures needed to assist fragmented populations.

3. Employs the assistance and cooperation of member nations with the WAESC to find and research said barriers. This is too vague for my liking? Possible rework of this clause: "Member nations are required to assist and cooperate with the WARSC in finding and researching said barriers.

4. Requires all member nations to take information from the WAESC about a species' natural food, environment, the distance between other populations of that species, and the barriers that separate them. Should go as a subsection of 2). Rework to make this plausible: "Providing information to member nations regarding a non sapient animal species' natural food, environment, the distance between other populations of that species, and the barriers that separate them."

5. Mandates all member nations All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC for evaluation and to increase the information database on fragmented populations; the WAESC also being required to complete research to check the research of the nations.

6. Mandates that It is further mandated that all construction plans within any area of the nation a member nation be reviewed by an independent environmental body to ensure that the construction will not further fragmentation or will affect the environment in the area.

7. Requires that all All member nations must conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

8. Mandates that all All member nations must conduct programs and implement strategies to eliminate fragmentation due to artificial barriers that already exist.

9. Allocates funding Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to give to nations unable to implement such actions due to lack of funds to do so.

Coauthored with Onionist Randosia The co-author part no longer needs to go in the proposal as co-authors are now added as an option during submission.

Thanks for the suggestions. They have been implemented and considering that was mostly wording changes for clarity, draft is now #2b.

[Untecna]

Most recent edit made due to a slight mix up-edits suggested by Apato were placed in the former Draft 2. Recent edit corrected this.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC:
I would have listened to Hulldom over the dinosaur on this one. Use the present tense, active voice, indicative mood when drafting legislation along with the singular form of nouns unless a plural is entirely unavoidable.

IC:

Ambassador, the Alps are a natural feature separating Gallia Cis-Alpina from Gallia Trans-Alpina and Germania that serves to create fragmentation of numerous animal populations. Why, in the name of Iupiter Pater, should our government waste time and money on the plainly impossible task of overcoming the fragmentation effects of our continent's largest mountain range?

[Untecna]

OOC:
I would have listened to Hulldom over the dinosaur on this one. Use the present tense, active voice, indicative mood when drafting legislation along with the singular form of nouns unless a plural is entirely unavoidable.

IC:

Ambassador, the Alps are a natural feature separating Gallia Cis-Alpina from Gallia Trans-Alpina and Germania that serves to create fragmentation of numerous animal populations. Why, in the name of Iupiter Pater, should our government waste time and money on the plainly impossible task of overcoming the fragmentation effects of our continent's largest mountain range?

OOC: *sigh* Delete Draft 2b, replace it with Draft 2? Look, I'm confused. I don't want to make many more wording changes at this point. I'm happy with whatever the wording is as long as it serves the same purpose.

IC: "Would you rather extinction and lower biodiversity in your nation? My god Ambassador, listen to how selfish you sound! Those animals should be given a way through, even if it is more challenging than most."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: *sigh* Delete Draft 2b, replace it with Draft 2? Look, I'm confused. I don't want to make many more wording changes at this point. I'm happy with whatever the wording is as long as it serves the same purpose.

You may wish to review something like https://le.utah.gov/documents/LDM/draftingManual.html for conventions on drafting legislation. IA may have other resources as well. (Of note, I linked Utah because it is agreeably presented and has easy navigation, but in substance it is very similar to the US House manual, just easier to use).

That said, a large number of wording changes is almost certainly still necessary for this to be a good proposal. Such as rewriting the provision I referred to IC ;p Good luck over the next few weeks to months on drafting.

IC: "Would you rather extinction and lower biodiversity in your nation? My god Ambassador, listen to how selfish you sound! Those animals should be given a way through, even if it is more challenging than most."

Ambassador, at some point, we are no longer responsible for the reality of the geography of the universe and the will of the Gods. A mountain range is a mountain range. Why is it rational for our government to try circumvent such a natural feature? Are you going to next suggest we should find some method for lions from Nubia to cross the Mare Nostrum despite the fact that our government clearly neither controls the formation or size of said sea?

OOC: If you are not getting, the objection is to mandating attempts at reuniting populations that have become separated due to natural processes/geography/etc is entirely different in moral and hubristic chutzpah than humans fixing their own fuckups.

[Apatosaurus]

OOC:
I would have listened to Hulldom over the dinosaur on this one. Use the present tense, active voice, indicative mood when drafting legislation along with the singular form of nouns unless a plural is entirely unavoidable.

Hulldom raised a good point actually, just replace "... is defined as ..." with just "... is ...", "is charged with", "are required to" with "shall" etc.

[Untecna]

Hulldom raised a good point actually, just replace "... is defined as ..." with just "... is ...", "is charged with", "are required to" with "shall" etc.

Ah, that makes far more sense. Implemented, and since they are only small wording changes and not like the ones you suggested, the draft is still 2b.

OOC: *sigh* Delete Draft 2b, replace it with Draft 2? Look, I'm confused. I don't want to make many more wording changes at this point. I'm happy with whatever the wording is as long as it serves the same purpose.

You may wish to review something like https://le.utah.gov/documents/LDM/draftingManual.html for conventions on drafting legislation. IA may have other resources as well. (Of note, I linked Utah because it is agreeably presented and has easy navigation, but in substance it is very similar to the US House manual, just easier to use).

That said, a large number of wording changes is almost certainly still necessary for this to be a good proposal. Such as rewriting the provision I referred to IC ;p Good luck over the next few weeks to months on drafting.

IC: "Would you rather extinction and lower biodiversity in your nation? My god Ambassador, listen to how selfish you sound! Those animals should be given a way through, even if it is more challenging than most."

Ambassador, at some point, we are no longer responsible for the reality of the geography of the universe and the will of the Gods. A mountain range is a mountain range. Why is it rational for our government to try circumvent such a natural feature? Are you going to next suggest we should find some method for lions from Nubia to cross the Mare Nostrum despite the fact that our government clearly neither controls the formation or size of said sea?

OOC: If you are not getting, the objection is to mandating attempts at reuniting populations that have become separated due to natural processes/geography/etc is entirely different in moral and hubristic chutzpah than humans fixing their own fuckups.

"Ambassador, you need not think I intend to make you destroy your national environments. That is a misconception. My intention is that fragmented populations may be united once again, by any means as long as it does not harm the environment to any extreme amounts."

OOC: I understand that, but if you want to keep the world alive, you need to focus on fixing your own screw-ups and the problems of the environment and animals. All life depends on each other to live.

[Apatosaurus]

Cool, might give a bit more feedback later, but for now:

Ending Animal Population Fragmentation
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Businesses-Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Understanding the previous legislation passed by the General Assembly on endangered animals, protecting them from harm,

Considering that it is not complete, and only protects from a small part of the entire problem,

Knowing that in that case, an enhancement may be needed to ensure that other reasons for endangerment are addressed, and

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to reduction of genetic diversity, limitation of population growth, increased danger of extirpation, among other issues,

Hereby enacts the following:
1. For this resolution, the following definitions are reviewed:
1a. “Animal population” is a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area.

1b. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers.

1c. “Fragmenters” is further defined as the barriers keeping animal populations fragmented.

2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
a. Researching barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial,
b. Employing measures needed to assist fragmented populations, and Could also use more detail, I think
c. Collecting and providing data and information on fragmented species for use by national efforts to end fragmentation

3. Member nations shall assist and cooperate with the WARSC in finding and researching said barriers.

4. All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC for evaluation and to increase the information database on fragmented populations; the WAESC also being required to complete research to check the research of the nations.

5. It is further mandated that all All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to ensure that the construction will not further fragmentation or will affect the environment in the area.

6. All member nations must conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

7. Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to give to nations unable to implement such actions due to lack of funds to do so.

Coauthored with Onionist Randosia

[Untecna]

Cool, might give a bit more feedback later, but for now:

Ending Animal Population Fragmentation
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Businesses-Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Understanding the previous legislation passed by the General Assembly on endangered animals, protecting them from harm,

Considering that it is not complete, and only protects from a small part of the entire problem,

Knowing that in that case, an enhancement may be needed to ensure that other reasons for endangerment are addressed, and

Establishes that animal population fragmentation is detrimental to affected species due to reduction of genetic diversity, limitation of population growth, increased danger of extirpation, among other issues,

Hereby enacts the following:
1. For this resolution, the following definitions are reviewed:
1a. “Animal population” is a group of individuals, classified as non-sapient animals, that make up the amount of that animal in a given area.

1b. “Fragmentation” is the separation of animal populations by natural or artificial barriers.

1c. “Fragmenters” is further defined as the barriers keeping animal populations fragmented.

2. The World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) shall:
a. Researching barriers between animal populations, both natural and artificial,
b. Employing measures needed to assist fragmented populations, and Could also use more detail, I think
c. Collecting and providing data and information on fragmented species for use by national efforts to end fragmentation

3. Member nations shall assist and cooperate with the WARSC in finding and researching said barriers.

4. All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC for evaluation and to increase the information database on fragmented populations; the WAESC also being required to complete research to check the research of the nations.

5. It is further mandated that all All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to ensure that the construction will not further fragmentation or will affect the environment in the area.

6. All member nations must conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

7. Funding shall be allocated from the General Fund to give to nations unable to implement such actions due to lack of funds to do so.

Coauthored with Onionist Randosia

Removed 2b, changed 2c to 2b, and added the clarity words.

[Apatosaurus]

Removed 2b, changed 2c to 2b, and added the clarity words.

I don't think 2b should be removed, just add a lot more detail on it and what the institution is required to do.