NationStates Jolt Archive

Could all environmentally minded Delegates please take a look at the very short proposal called "Protecting Biodiversity". I believe that it provides a clear approach to the internationally important environmental issue of loss of world species diversity. I would ask that you endorse it, in order that it can be debated in the United Nations. The last I looked it required over 100 additional endorsements.

Average Zebras.

Could you please post the text here?

Here it is.
Protecting Biodiversity

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses


Proposed by: Average Zebras

Description: All nations will be the poorer if current trends in loss of world species continue. Animals and plants that were common just 20 years ago are now becoming rare. In another 20 years will our skies be empty of birds, our seas be devoid of fish?

The protection of biodiversity is no longer a purely national issue and must be the subject of international rules and regulations.

The United Nations therefore agrees to help member states to take actions which prevent the destruction of pristine, species rich environments.

It is agreed that the UN will set up a biodiversity protection unit (BPU) to urgently define Biodiversity Havens in each member country, being habitats for a range of important wildlife.

It will be illegal to damage or destroy the wildlife interest of a designated Biodiversity Haven.

It's pretty good, and while it's good not to be too scientific for the average delegate it may have been an idea to actually define "Biodiversity" since you're protecting it.

I mean are we talking species diversity, ecosystem diversity, genetic diversity or even cultural diversity (in the case of certain tribes of the same species having different adaptive behaviours handed down which are called "cultures" - e.g. different tool use in chimps)??

It may also be worthwhile to point out the benefits of maintaining a high biodiversity (especially the economic and health ones for the ardent capitalists)
1 - as insurance against ecosystem collapse (in case one species is a "rivet" on which others depend, if originally there are two species that can do this, it'd be better to keep both in case some freak accident were to wipe out one cause if that's the only one left then the entire ecosystem collapses - I know there's a decent example with sea otters and killer whales off the Aleutian Islands in the States but perhaps someone more in the know can find/explain it). Anyways economically ecosystem collapse is a big no-no. Lots of nasty stuff happens because of the collapse of ecosystems, everything from "that plant your cow ate when it was sick isn't there anymore, and now it's gonna cost you 200 bucks everytime it gets indigestion" to landslides and soil erosion.
2 - the more biodiverse generally the better the nutrient cycling - thus many biodiverse ecosystems can act as carbon sinks -bogs + rainforest + mangroves. Again with ecosystem impoverishment or collapse people are gonna be asking why they suddenly have to keep buying artificial fertiliser to get a half decent crop, etc.
3 - the there's the fact that each species is the sum product of millions of years of evolution to deal with countless obstacles biologically, and how we haven't even scrathed the tip of the iceberg in figuring out how useful these are to us - medicines, industrial applications, etc.
4- lastly there is of course the intrinsic value to biodiversity - I mean for me the mere existance of a species is evidence enough to conserve it - a bit harder to argue to ardent capitalists though


Anyways it may also be an idea to wait cause there's a resolution for wildlife protection which while only protecting animals, and approaching it from a hunting quota point of view, will be lodged in your average delegates mind as "hey didn't i just endorse an environmental proposal???"

I wonder if this one (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=species) is related? Both nations are from the same region, with similar names.

A resolution dealing with the matter is right now in quarom, to be voted on in 10 days. You're about 2 weeks too late.

A resolution dealing with the matter is right now in quarom, to be voted on in 10 days. You're about 2 weeks too late.


Nope - read my post - last time I checked your proposal does nothing to protect plants, fungi, other non-aimal kingdoms, communities (unless they're all endangered animals, or merely as a side-effect of protecting one animal species) nor the rest of the diversity I mentioned in my post.

These are quite different issues that work differently too
yours looks at conservation from a species by species approach (OOC No offense but if this proposal wasn't from a hunting quota point of view and was from a conservation point of view, I'd be a bit more brutal criticising it - a species-based conservation approach is, in general, a very piecemeal approach and open to all kinds of biases, unless you use lots of flagship species...anyways)

Your proposal monitors animal levels and sets quotas depending on how well they're fairing up to and including a full moratorium.

This proposal aims to protect levels of biodiversity and sets aside protected areas of land for this purpose (oh and don't get me started on the single large vs. several small debate:D)

Nope - read my post - last time I checked your proposal does nothing to protect plants, fungi, other non-aimal kingdoms, communities (unless they're all endangered animals, or merely as a side-effect of protecting one animal species) nor the rest of the diversity I mentioned in my post.

These are quite different issues that work differently too
yours looks at conservation from a species by species approach (OOC No offense but if this proposal wasn't from a hunting quota point of view and was from a conservation point of view, I'd be a bit more brutal criticising it - a species-based conservation approach is, in general, a very piecemeal approach and open to all kinds of biases, unless you use lots of flagship species...anyways)

Your proposal monitors animal levels and sets quotas depending on how well they're fairing up to and including a full moratorium.

This proposal aims to protect levels of biodiversity and sets aside protected areas of land for this purpose (oh and don't get me started on the single large vs. several small debate:D)
As I suspect you have not read the proposal fully! (It is My Proposal!) There were two reasons for the proposed resolution currently awaiting ratification.
1, to remove the need to have multiple resolutions for conservation purposes, Which has a greater cost effect to the nations in the UN.
2, to promote awareness of and protect against extinction of a species of Animal.

It was never meant to encompass fungi or plantlife, unless it was a dolphin called fungi! :D

As I suspect you have not read the proposal fully! (It is My Proposal!) There were two reasons for the proposed resolution currently awaiting ratification.
1, to remove the need to have multiple resolutions for conservation purposes, Which has a greater cost effect to the nations in the UN.
2, to promote awareness of and protect against extinction of a species of Animal.

It was never meant to encompass fungi or plantlife, unless it was a dolphin called fungi! :D


Yes I'm well aware of your proposal and have read it (multiple times - just so I don't trip up - i did that once in the general forum and gave another poster a valid reason to lay the smack down - however you're not like that guy was (you don't reply calling someone completely ignorant (grrr), and I like your proposal in its own way)

right - here's the thing - you said that this proposal was analagous to yours

A resolution dealing with the matter is right now in quarom, to be voted on in 10 days. You're about 2 weeks too late

I said it wasn't

because yours DOESN'T include plants and animals...etc, like THIS proposal (i.e.the one this thread is about) cause biodversity is a catch all.

Secondly your method of working differs also - your proposal works with quotas, this one works with protected areas.

ergo they are not the same thing, nor are they analagous.
(it would be like telling someone their Prevent Climate Change proposal was useless cause you have a proposal against the Hole in the Ozone Layer in quorum - two completely separate things)

-And that's what I was saying

right - here's the thing - you said that this proposal was analagous to yours

Originally Posted by Venerable libertarians
A resolution dealing with the matter is right now in quarom, to be voted on in 10 days. You're about 2 weeks too lateI said it wasn't
VL didn't make that quote, Forgottenlands did (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9476701&postcount=6).

OOC:

You know Greece use to be this lush, diverse country. Full of animals and plants to eat, trees to build and marble to to cut.


But then someone thought "Hey let's take over the world"


So they chopped and chopped and chopped until they built the largest Armada in the world.


But as all wars...boats were lost, so more chopping.


More boats lost so more chopping...


Chopping and chopping and chopping...


They chopped until the land was barren. And when the land went barren, so did their superiority.



And you want to know what? 2,500 years later. It's still barren.

VL didn't make that quote, Forgottenlands did (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9476701&postcount=6).

Aggh!!!!! You're completely right! Apologies if anyone was offended - FL or VL by my mix-up!


Anyways all I wanted to do was point out that the two proposals were different which I stand by :D

Adios
T.