NationStates Jolt Archive

It's back from the dead.

NOTING that despite the potential for sustainable exploitation of wildlife for commercial and subsistence purposes, there is an increasing unsustainable and often illegal commercial trade in “meat and other products derived from wild animals for human consumption” (hereafter defined as bushmeat)

ASSERTING that the Bushmeat trade is one of the greatest threats to wildlife in some parts of the world, especially endangered wildlife;

MINDFUL of the likelihood of diseases being passed to humans via Bushmeat, and concerned by the threat to public health;

AWARE of the international trade in illicit Bushmeat;

DETERMINED that the international trade in illicit Bushmeat should be eradicated, especially of endangered species;

MINDFUL of the reliance some have on the Bushmeat trade for subsistence;

AWARE of the broad cultural practices present within the membership of the United Nations, and expressing an intent to respect those practices;

ADVOCATES the need for a global response to reduce and eliminate the unsustainable and illigal trade in bushmeat.

§ INVITES member states to collaborate with one another to bring the major benefactors of the illicit international Bushmeat industry to justice through legal means;

§ URGES member states to adopt of strengthen legislation where appropiate to make the practice of supplying illicit Bushmeat illegal, especially Bushmeat associated with endangered species;

§ URGES international co-operation to monitor and improve food standards over borders, especially focusing on combating the international Bushmeat trade of illegal meats;

§ URGES member states to implement educational programs to highlight to their local populace the threats posed by Bushmeat to health and ecology;

§ PROPOSES member states strongly consider implementing legislative action to tighten controls for the purposes of monitoring the standards of meat imported into their state, Bushmeat or otherwise.

Category? Could be enviromental, Moral Decency - and has some elements which suggest education and creativity and social justice - but I suspect the former pair are more likely than the last two.

Several times, the proposal mentions "illicit" Bushmeat. The logical conclusion is that there is such a thing as legitimate Bushmeat. The proposal needs to state specifically what is "illicit" or it is interpretable to the point of being unenforceable. Other than that, this looks like something we could support.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: Good point, Auss. I'd also like to see it actually do something, aside from describing the issue and doing a lot of urging.

Since the definition is “meat and other products derived from wild animals for human consumption” I would say that there is plenty of letigimate cases of legal "bushmeat." (Is consumption properly defined so that the fur industry is not included?) There are many places where wild animal populations are sufficient, natural preditators are significantly reduced, and thus the use of hunting to control the population is encouraged. In some cases the meat of the hunting is sold commerically. If you want a blatently obvious example, wild fish would be one.

Since the definition is “meat and other products derived from wild animals for human consumption” I would say that there is plenty of letigimate cases of legal "bushmeat." (Is consumption properly defined so that the fur industry is not included?) There are many places where wild animal populations are sufficient, natural preditators are significantly reduced, and thus the use of hunting to control the population is encouraged. In some cases the meat of the hunting is sold commerically. If you want a blatently obvious example, wild fish would be one.

I concur. Your definition essentially defines all wild game and meats as bushmeat. That could have negative effects on legitimate hunting and meat processing.

Could we possibly define bushmeat at illegal meat? Largely derived from wild animals?

Could we possibly define bushmeat at illegal meat? Largely derived from wild animals?

We respectfully submit that redefining a term, albeit an uncommon one, is a recipe for misunderstanding. We fear that the confusion in this resolution stems in large part from the use of the word "illicit" in some manner that is clearly intended to have a distinct meaning from the word "illegal", although the abuse of the verb "to define" which has persisted through this debate does not assist matters.

We respectfully submit that redefining a term, albeit an uncommon one, is a recipe for misunderstanding. We fear that the confusion in this resolution stems in large part from the use of the word "illicit" in some manner that is clearly intended to have a distinct meaning from the word "illegal", although the abuse of the verb "to define" which has persisted through this debate does not assist matters.

I feel that defining a term for a UN resolution tends to reduce confusion, except among those representatives who insist that an outside definition still applies. As it stands now, "bushmeat" could mean any number of things. However, if the proposal author defined it for the purposes of this proposal, it would limit the number of interpretations. At least, that is my finding.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar

Thank you for the feedback thus far - it's been very constructive.

Legal vs Illicit Bushmeat.

The key word, and one which I feel needs to be expanded upon is unsustainable.

Bushmeat can include relatively common animals, such as (in RL at least), the average common rabbit. As long as they are not hunted to extinction then it's could be considered sustainable.

On the other end of the spectrum. Animals which are close to extinction already, (such as, in RL, the Hispid Hare (http://www.animalinfo.org/species/caprhisp.htm)) have a population numbering around 100, and any bushmeat hunting of species with those limited numbers is unsustainable.

Therefore, if you needed to make a simplified distinction between illicit and legitimate bushmeat, that I'd argue that the legality is subject to the sustainability. I certainly agree a definition might need to place more emphasis on sustainability.

OOC: Good point, Auss. I'd also like to see it actually do something, aside from describing the issue and doing a lot of urging.You know I prefer doing things old school.:)

"for the purposes of this proposal"Good point, and that'll be added.

I see that you're willing to make changes, but I don't think the definition is enough. In colloquial terms, bushmeat is usually used to refer to simian meat. I'm sure it can be extended further, but why not just make this a proposal about simple illegal hunting? That would make your point clearer.

It's a very simple thing for the UN to mandate that certain species not be hunted. It's another thing for the UN to create a definition that is unfamiliar to most nations.

We are most grateful for the representative from Hiroto's clarifications. Would it be helpful to establish a committee whose sole duty would be the creation and maintenance of a list of those animals the hunting of which is deprecated by this resolution? Assuming such a committee's terms of reference are adequately enshrined in the resolution, this would avoid much tedious legal argument as to what trade and other activities is and is not covered.

Rather than engage in equine necroflagellation, I'll just make one suggestion- that you change "Bushmeat" to "Wild meat." Bushmeat, to me, largely refers to subtropical and tropical meats.

It's not a large distinction, but I think it's one that will appeal to the large NS world. It's unlikely that many nations will immediatly associate the word Bushmeat with all wild game, regardless of your definition. Wild Meat, on the other hand, is nearly universal.

That's my only suggestion. I am more than happy to support this proposal with the adjusted language.

Most courteously,

Bushmeat can include relatively common animals, such as (in RL at least), the average common rabbit. As long as they are not hunted to extinction then it's could be considered sustainable.

On the other end of the spectrum. Animals which are close to extinction already, (such as, in RL, the Hispid Hare (http://www.animalinfo.org/species/caprhisp.htm)) have a population numbering around 100, and any bushmeat hunting of species with those limited numbers is unsustainable.
Animals cannot be hunted to extinction in the NSUN, thanks to UNCoESB (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120):
Article 7: Full Escalation.

Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.

Yelda - I agree there is a degree of overlap with this.

The best response to the question is to note that at the moment there is nothing stopping non-states importing bushmeat (or wild meat) into UN states. This would therefore need to be redrafted to tackle the illicit trade of wildmeat, rather than perhaps the actual production of wildmeat.

This might sit better with the other possible angle that is possible to take for arguing for legislation regarding wild meat - that of public health interests. Wild meat in RL is responsible for many of the illnesses in the world today. The most obvious example is HIV, which is known to originate in african primates.

Allech-Atreus - thank you for the suggestion, it will be actioned.

I wish I had more to add to what appears to be a very civil drafting process, but the only thing I can think of is that the term "bushmeat" conjures up all kinds of wacky images in my mind, none of which have anything to do with the illicit trade of wild game......well, not in the sense that is being discussed.

*puts hands in pockets and shuffles away, whistling to himself*

I wish I had more to add to what appears to be a very civil drafting process, but the only thing I can think of is that the term "bushmeat" conjures up all kinds of wacky images in my mind, none of which have anything to do with the illicit trade of wild game......well, not in the sense that is being discussed.

*puts hands in pockets and shuffles away, whistling to himself*

I really don't think this proposal is attempting to affect pink tacos.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I really don't think this proposal is attempting to affect pink tacos.


As long as my mind isn't the only one still stuck on the Sexual Privacy Act.;)

As long as my mind isn't the only one still stuck on the Sexual Privacy Act.;)

Nah, I think Sheik Nadnerb is more stuck on the possibility that repealing "Sexual Freedom" will mean that he'll have to pay for sex.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Nah, I think Sheik Nadnerb is more stuck on the possibility that repealing "Sexual Freedom" will mean that he'll have to pay for sex.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I already do. You should see my CPESL (http://z8.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise/index.php?showtopic=23) tab... :(

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN