[DEFEATED] Mitigating Fragmentation

[Goobergunchia]

OOC: Here are some of the changes made:

• Clause 9 was removed in its entirety, but a General Fund clause may be added back should it be deemed necessary.
• The former Clause 5 is now a subsection under the new Clause 5, and has been revised.

This is the thread for the redraft of "Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation", now with the revised title of "Mitigating Fragmentation". The previous draft can be found here, for reference by any individual.

Mitigating 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,

Noting that these resolutions have been focused on sapient-caused extinction to activities such as agriculture and hunting, and avoided fragmentation,

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

Establishes that animal population fragmentation may be 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, and

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,
   3. Set guidelines to find what exactly may constitute a fragmented species and a detrimental fragmentation, and
   4. 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 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.
   
   1. Construction plans of a magnitude that is able to cause detrimental fragmentation, as determined by the WAESC, will be reviewed by an independent body hired in collaboration of the member nation and the WAESC to determine the level of damage that may occur and what solutions may be made to the plans to mitigate issues.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. 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.

[Xanthorrhoea]

A few quick things, I’ll have a more thorough look later.

First, your definition of ‘fragmentation’ and your preamble are a bit contradictory. You define fragmentation as separation that may cause detriment to a population I clause 1b, however in your preamble you establish that it simply is detrimental, no “may” about it. Which is it?

Second, you don’t need to include the reference to “microscopic populations” in clause 5, they’re already excluded in your 1d definition.

Lastly, it’s been raised before on the previous thread, but clause 6’s reference to guidelines is confusing. You don’t explicitly state which guidelines you’re referring to, and it’s the first use of the term in the proposal. Either explicitly label whatever you’re referring to as a guideline, or re-phrase clause 6 (or both).

[Untecna]

A few quick things, I’ll have a more thorough look later.

First, your definition of ‘fragmentation’ and your preamble are a bit contradictory. You define fragmentation as separation that may cause detriment to a population I clause 1b, however in your preamble you establish that it simply is detrimental, no “may” about it. Which is it?

Second, you don’t need to include the reference to “microscopic populations” in clause 5, they’re already excluded in your 1d definition.

Lastly, it’s been raised before on the previous thread, but clause 6’s reference to guidelines is confusing. You don’t explicitly state which guidelines you’re referring to, and it’s the first use of the term in the proposal. Either explicitly label whatever you’re referring to as a guideline, or re-phrase clause 6 (or both).

Changes made, all as requested. Thanks for the feedback, even if just preliminary.

Edit: Also made a slight change in the preamble, moving the "and" down to the second to last line instead of the third.

[Team Leo]

A few quick things, I’ll have a more thorough look later.

First, your definition of ‘fragmentation’ and your preamble are a bit contradictory. You define fragmentation as separation that may cause detriment to a population I clause 1b, however in your preamble you establish that it simply is detrimental, no “may” about it. Which is it?

Second, you don’t need to include the reference to “microscopic populations” in clause 5, they’re already excluded in your 1d definition.

Lastly, it’s been raised before on the previous thread, but clause 6’s reference to guidelines is confusing. You don’t explicitly state which guidelines you’re referring to, and it’s the first use of the term in the proposal. Either explicitly label whatever you’re referring to as a guideline, or re-phrase clause 6 (or both).

Changes made, all as requested. Thanks for the feedback, even if just preliminary.

Edit: Also made a slight change in the preamble, moving the "and" down to the second to last line instead of the third.

bro ur guna try again after ur past resolution faild. just quit plz.

[Untecna]

Changes made, all as requested. Thanks for the feedback, even if just preliminary.

Edit: Also made a slight change in the preamble, moving the "and" down to the second to last line instead of the third.

bro ur guna try again after ur past resolution faild. just quit plz.

Lennox, to be clear, this proposal has its worth. Issues were raised and I am working to fix them and try again. My perseverance is not an excuse for you to be an ass.

If you have nothing to say in feedback to the proposal, go find someone else to harass.

[Outer Sparta]

Changes made, all as requested. Thanks for the feedback, even if just preliminary.

Edit: Also made a slight change in the preamble, moving the "and" down to the second to last line instead of the third.

bro ur guna try again after ur past resolution faild. just quit plz.

What's there to say that a proposal cannot be improved after initial failure?

[Onionist Randosia]

Hello! I’ll help with drafting again this time

[Untecna]

Hello! I’ll help with drafting again this time

I'm gonna be honest, I've pulled you from being Co-Author, not only because I didn't really need one the first time and I don't feel like you are the one I'd be looking for. I don't mean it to be rude, I'm just stating my thought process, though any feedback is appreciated.

[Onionist Randosia]

OOC: Here are some of the changes made:

• Clause 9 was removed in its entirety, but a General Fund clause may be added back should it be deemed necessary.
• The former Clause 5 is now a subsection under the new Clause 5, and has been revised.

This is the thread for the redraft of "Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation", now with the revised title of "Mitigating Fragmentation". The previous draft can be found here, for reference by any individual.

Mitigating 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,

Establishes that animal population fragmentation may be 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, and

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,
   3. Set guidelines to find what exactly may constitute a fragmented species and a detrimental fragmentation, and
   4. 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 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.
   
   1. Construction plans of a magnitude that is able to cause detrimental fragmentation, as determined by the WAESC, will be reviewed by an independent body hired by the WAESC to determine the level of damage that may occur and what solutions may be made to the plans to mitigate issues.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. 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.

Maybe replace ‘Considering that it is not complete… etc’ with ‘Noting that these resolutions are primarily aimed at protecting species from endangerment and extinction by placing restrictions on hunting and human usage of habitat, but not addressing the pressing problem of population fragmentation’.

Also maybe add something that differentiates natural fragmentation (which is a major driver of speciation) from artificial fragmentation, like maybe ‘Acknowledging that natural fragmentation is not actually a bad thing and should not require mitigation’.

[Onionist Randosia]

Hello! I’ll help with drafting again this time

I'm gonna be honest, I've pulled you from being Co-Author, not only because I didn't really need one the first time and I don't feel like you are the one I'd be looking for. I don't mean it to be rude, I'm just stating my thought process, though any feedback is appreciated.

That’s perfectly fine, I did not do anywhere near as much work as you

[Untecna]

OOC: Here are some of the changes made:

• Clause 9 was removed in its entirety, but a General Fund clause may be added back should it be deemed necessary.
• The former Clause 5 is now a subsection under the new Clause 5, and has been revised.

This is the thread for the redraft of "Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation", now with the revised title of "Mitigating Fragmentation". The previous draft can be found here, for reference by any individual.

Mitigating 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,

Establishes that animal population fragmentation may be 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, and

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,
   3. Set guidelines to find what exactly may constitute a fragmented species and a detrimental fragmentation, and
   4. 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 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.
   
   1. Construction plans of a magnitude that is able to cause detrimental fragmentation, as determined by the WAESC, will be reviewed by an independent body hired by the WAESC to determine the level of damage that may occur and what solutions may be made to the plans to mitigate issues.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. 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.

Maybe replace ‘Considering that it is not complete… etc’ with ‘Noting that these resolutions are primarily aimed at protecting species from endangerment and extinction by placing restrictions on hunting and human usage of habitat, but not addressing the pressing problem of population fragmentation’.

Also maybe add something that differentiates natural fragmentation (which is a major driver of speciation) from artificial fragmentation, like maybe ‘Acknowledging that natural fragmentation is not actually a bad thing and should not require mitigation’.

Your first suggestion is off, for the sole reason of saying "human".

The second one is a no. Natural fragmentation is still a bad thing, but is harder to solve, therefore solutions are encouraged and not required, unlike artificial fragmentation. Your proposed statement is incorrect.

[Onionist Randosia]

Maybe replace ‘Considering that it is not complete… etc’ with ‘Noting that these resolutions are primarily aimed at protecting species from endangerment and extinction by placing restrictions on hunting and human usage of habitat, but not addressing the pressing problem of population fragmentation’.

Also maybe add something that differentiates natural fragmentation (which is a major driver of speciation) from artificial fragmentation, like maybe ‘Acknowledging that natural fragmentation is not actually a bad thing and should not require mitigation’.

Your first suggestion is off, for the sole reason of saying "human".

The second one is a no. Natural fragmentation is still a bad thing, but is harder to solve, therefore solutions are encouraged and not required, unlike artificial fragmentation. Your proposed statement is incorrect.

Yes. You could probably get rid of the ‘human’ bit, or replace it with ‘sapient’ lol

As for the second one, it could be rephrased as something about speciation, such as ‘noting that the purpose of this resolution is in no way to prevent speciation by natural means, rather to prevent detrimental artificial speciation’ (or at least recognising artificial speciation as one of the things this resolution aims to prevent). I say this because I read a dispatch about the defeated proposal and one of the problems the author of said dispatch had with it is that it did not protect natural speciation or mention artificial speciation. I’ll try to find said dispatch if you want.

[Untecna]

Your first suggestion is off, for the sole reason of saying "human".

The second one is a no. Natural fragmentation is still a bad thing, but is harder to solve, therefore solutions are encouraged and not required, unlike artificial fragmentation. Your proposed statement is incorrect.

Yes. You could probably get rid of the ‘human’ bit, or replace it with ‘sapient’ lol

As for the second one, it could be rephrased as something about speciation, such as ‘noting that the purpose of this resolution is in no way to prevent speciation by natural means, rather to prevent detrimental artificial speciation’ (or at least recognising artificial speciation as one of the things this resolution aims to prevent). I say this because I read a dispatch about the defeated proposal and one of the problems the author of said dispatch had with it is that it did not protect natural speciation or mention artificial speciation. I’ll try to find said dispatch if you want.

Please, do find that dispatch; I would aim to see if it is from a larger region or just a personal opinion.

[Onionist Randosia]

Yes. You could probably get rid of the ‘human’ bit, or replace it with ‘sapient’ lol

As for the second one, it could be rephrased as something about speciation, such as ‘noting that the purpose of this resolution is in no way to prevent speciation by natural means, rather to prevent detrimental artificial speciation’ (or at least recognising artificial speciation as one of the things this resolution aims to prevent). I say this because I read a dispatch about the defeated proposal and one of the problems the author of said dispatch had with it is that it did not protect natural speciation or mention artificial speciation. I’ll try to find said dispatch if you want.

Please, do find that dispatch; I would aim to see if it is from a larger region or just a personal opinion.

Ok
I think it was this one, not sure though, quite a small region:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1637699

Again, I’m not certain if it was this one because it looks like it just got edited. It looked like a personal opinion by the nation which made the dispatch tbh, but it isn’t there now.

EDIT: Probably doesn’t matter that much. It’s not from a big region.

[Untecna]

Please, do find that dispatch; I would aim to see if it is from a larger region or just a personal opinion.

Ok
I think it was this one, not sure though, quite a small region:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1637699

Again, I’m not certain if it was this one because it looks like it just got edited. It looked like a personal opinion by the nation which made the dispatch tbh, but it isn’t there now.

EDIT: Probably doesn’t matter that much. It’s not from a big region.

I see. They do make a point, but I don't see that as much of a concern, so I will place it in a pile of "maybe I'll think about this later".

[Onionist Randosia]

Ok
I think it was this one, not sure though, quite a small region:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1637699

Again, I’m not certain if it was this one because it looks like it just got edited. It looked like a personal opinion by the nation which made the dispatch tbh, but it isn’t there now.

EDIT: Probably doesn’t matter that much. It’s not from a big region.

I see. They do make a point, but I don't see that as much of a concern, so I will place it in a pile of "maybe I'll think about this later".

Yeah good idea. I’m thinking about writing a resolution along the lines of ‘Protecting Migration Corridors’ by the way so try not to make this resolution a blocker

[Untecna]

I see. They do make a point, but I don't see that as much of a concern, so I will place it in a pile of "maybe I'll think about this later".

Yeah good idea. I’m thinking about writing a resolution along the lines of ‘Protecting Migration Corridors’ by the way so try not to make this resolution a blocker

I don't see any way this resolution would be a blocker to protecting migration corridors...

[Onionist Randosia]

Yeah good idea. I’m thinking about writing a resolution along the lines of ‘Protecting Migration Corridors’ by the way so try not to make this resolution a blocker

I don't see any way this resolution would be a blocker to protecting migration corridors...

Yeah, just in case

[Untecna]

Clause 5a has had a bit of a tweak, as it appeared that I was assuming bad faith from nations.

[Untecna]

/bump

This is still alive... somehow.

[Untecna]

This has been submitted.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Mitigating Artificial Fragmentation.
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Untecna]

Alright, honestly, I'm not seeing this working out. No redrafts are planned - likely, I'll find someone to collaborate with on another GA project, someone who will spearhead it instead of me, me being a co-author, at least to put my feet on the ground and in front of me.

I'll probably also start researching other topics, but keep this one here and waiting, in case I decide I can try again...

[Unibot III]

While the debate on "Mitigating Fragmentation" rages on....

A pack of journos and tabloid photographers stalked the lobby of the Unibotian delegation, pointing their cameras at the corner office. Ms. Montebello, terror-ridden, sat under the front desk, clicking the panic button ad nauseum ... "does this thing even work??" ... rediscovering, in rather regrettable circumstances, that her country's corporate leadership is tremendously cheap.

"ARE REPORTS TRUE - YOU'VE FILED FOR BANKRUPCY, MS. WAGER!?" calls out a tv journalist.
"DID YOU REALLY SPEND $50 MILLION ON CHEESE?" yells veteran newscaster, Paulsgrave Nicholls.
"WILL YOUR HUSBAND SURVIVE AS CEO?" says another.
"WAS THE CHEESE ANY GOOD? THE PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW!" shouts a vlogger.
"WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AN ISOSCELES TRIANGE?" says Dale from IT who just felt like chiming in.

Inside her office, Ambassador Marguerite Wager-Freeman paces nervously in near captivity with a plume of cigarette smoke trailing her.

"My lawyers won't work on a statement until I pay up front, even Josie has stopped responding to me - ungrateful, low-born swine," said Marguerite, wounded, despair in her voice. "I have nothing left."
"Errr.... well, if we can't get you to the GA Chamber, you're going to have attend virtually - you're scheduled to deliver your remarks to the GA on 'Mitigating Fragmentation' in fifteen minutes," said Hugo.
"What is that? Are we for or against that?" said Marguerite.
"It's an environmental proposal - against, of course," said Hugo.
"Ugh, this organization is really going to the birds," she said.

Moments later...

Ambassador Wager-Freeman appears on the center screen, addressing the General Assembly by satellite link. She is hanging from a gargoyle, seven stories above ground - the wind rushing through her hair.

"Greetings, fellow ambassadors!" says Marguerite to her iPhone. "I regret the lengths I have had to take to find wifi today. And I must thank the Imperium Anglorum delegation for its poor password security. 'Password123.' Really? This evening, we have convened to address the GA proposal, 'Mitigating Fragmentation.' Our delegation must oppose this resolution, although we sympathize with its spirit and environmental agenda. In general, we raise issue with both the terms of reference applied to the WAESC, it appears too broad of a research scope, but also the way in which the resolution requires the duplication of public research by member-nations."

An albatross landed on Marguerite's head, squawking. She paused, then continued under considerable duress... "Our delegation also anticipates that without it being plainly stated who determines what is a natural cause and what is an artificial cause, that member-nations will try to contest these claims and fund their own junk studies ..." the albatross pecked Marguerite's hair, "... in the hopes of attributing animal fragmentation to natural causes, like dormant volcanoes and swamp gases, to avoid paying the bill."

The albatross, now violently pecking at Marguerite, is undeterred by Marguerite's offering of exotic cheese, which she pulled from her handbag, and wafted desperately in front of its beak. "It's gourmet! Please!" Her grip on the gargoyle slips.

Smelling the raw, sour tones of a blue cheese, the albatross squealed and fanned its great wings. It attacks the senior ambassador until she lets go of the gargoyle once and for all, plunging through the air in total freefall.

She screams! "I can't die now, I'm poor, I can't die poor!!" she calls out. Flashing before her eyes is every cover of every magazine she had ever graced with her visage: every pose, every power dress. 30 Under 30. Heiress. The Magnate 500. Glamorous. The Power List. Bettencourt. 40 Under 40. Rosé. 50 Under 50. L'Héritage. Woman of the Year. Truly, what a life lived.

Fortunately for Ms. Wager-Freeman, the ACME^TM Transmogrifier, had opened up a giant inflatable to break her fall. Unfortunately for her, she had already died from shock. Her heart, compounded no doubt by her lifetime of chain smoking, having given out.

[Imperium Anglorum]

And I must thank the Imperium Anglorum delegation for its poor password security. 'Password123.' Really?

Please don't god-mod my delegation, which doesn't use WiFi.