NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi Everyone
We at Muffuddsville have submitted the following proposal and would really like some support.
please let me know what you think
May your towel always be in reach
Muffudd (official rep of Muffuddsville)

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


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Muffuddsville

Description: Given that fauna (i.e. aquatic, terrestrial and airborne animals)have no concept of international boundaries,
further considering certain species in one country may be considered a 'pest' in another
Taking in account resolutions # 215, 216, 217, 222, 235

it is necessary to protect trans migratory species in order to maintain ecosystems and biodiversity worldwide
it is proposed that;
1. UN members should conduct surveys (as per resolution #217) to a)establish migratory species that either cross or remain temporarily within their respective borders and b) develop strategies in order to establish 'pest' control
2. this information should be despatched to all un members in order that their citizens be made aware
3.it shall be an offence to intentially or deliberately interfere/hinder with any species on any part of their migratory journey (referring to resolution #215,222, 235)
4. it shall be an offence to intentionally or deliberately cause damage to any type of nest, lodge, lair, roost or any other type of shelter which migratory species utilize as shelter (referring to resolutions #216, 222, 235)

It is recognised however that some species may temporarily reside within an industrial area and it would be impractible to expect industry to stop completely
therefore it is suggested that where possible, protected sites are established nearby in order to encourage migratory species to reside close to their original pathways.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 105 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 29 2008

migratory animals we can't mess with but wandering animals we can?

Well who's to say what's wandering and what's migratory?

We venture to suggest that a proposal so replete with external references is begging to be struck down for violating the "House of Cards" rule. We also personally think the underlying proposal overly forceful, but then we do spend a great deal of our holidays indulging in the pastime of hunting.

migratory animals we can't mess with but wandering animals we can?

Well who's to say what's wandering and what's migratory?

Hi there
agreed that animals etc do wander (especially when hunting / searching for food mates etc), but these return to an area of residence throughout the year, and local governments would recognise their own 'resident' species whereas a migratory species is one that temporarily resides in other areas on a regular / seasonal basis

We venture to suggest that a proposal so replete with external references is begging to be struck down for violating the "House of Cards" rule. We also personally think the underlying proposal overly forceful, but then we do spend a great deal of our holidays indulging in the pastime of hunting.

Hi there
there is no attempt to undermine other UN resolutions, in fact this proposal is designed to work alongside the resolutions mentioned and acknowledges their purpose.
the listing of the other resolutions is intended to demonstrate that from these frameworks further enhancements can be made without the need to ammend or repeal
there is no intention to appear forceful, it is just written in a 'matter of fact' style (pretty much the same way this response is written)
without wishing to appear sarcastic, we here in muffuddsville have a great sense of humour
one of our nations favourite jokes is:
my dog's got no dictionary
how does he spell?
terrible!!! (it looses a bit in translation but you get the idea)

Mikitivity is in strong support of the concept, but feels the proposal could stand a few minor changes.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Muffuddsville

Description: Given that fauna (i.e. aquatic, terrestrial and airborne animals)have no concept of international boundaries,
further considering certain species in one country may be considered a 'pest' in another
Taking in account resolutions # 215, 216, 217, 222, 235

it is necessary to protect trans migratory species in order to maintain ecosystems and biodiversity worldwide
it is proposed that;
1. UN members should conduct surveys (as per resolution #217) to a)establish migratory species that either cross or remain temporarily within their respective borders and b) develop strategies in order to establish 'pest' control
2. this information should be despatched to all un members in order that their citizens be made aware
3.it shall be an offence to intentially or deliberately interfere/hinder with any species on any part of their migratory journey (referring to resolution #215,222, 235)
4. it shall be an offence to intentionally or deliberately cause damage to any type of nest, lodge, lair, roost or any other type of shelter which migratory species utilize as shelter (referring to resolutions #216, 222, 235)

It is recognised however that some species may temporarily reside within an industrial area and it would be impractible to expect industry to stop completely
therefore it is suggested that where possible, protected sites are established nearby in order to encourage migratory species to reside close to their original pathways.

First, why are migratory species referred to as trans migratory species and not just migratory? The point behind the resolution is that biodiversity is a common resource and that migratory species do not respect boundaries. It is my assumption that trans migratory are species that travel across boundaries, but I would go ahead and open up the resolution to all migratory species as is suggested in clause 1.

With that in mind, I'd break clause 1 up and remove the reference to UN resolution 217. Your preamble actually supports the justification for action, so you do not need to repeat it.

Here is what I think might work for your first two clauses:

1. REQUESTS that UN member states conduct surveys to identify migratory species within their national territory and also to the amount, location, and quality of critical habitat used by these species as they migrate within each nation's territory;

2. ASKS that nations provide the results of these surveys to the UN and other member states, particularly other nations in which these migratory species are believed travel;

3. FURTHER CALLS UPON states to identify invasive species that have entered their national territory and pose an economic or ecological threat to native species or critical infrastructure;

4. ENCOURAGES nations that have invasive species mitigation practices to share these techniques with other nations and also work with other nations to control the spread of invasive species;

I think you'll still want to really incorporate your original clause 3 & 4 into a format similar to what I have, but I recognized that your original 1b) is an appeal to nations to control the spread of dangerous fauna. Calling them invasive species, separates natural migratory species, which we wish to protect, from those that are in reality spreading due to anthropogenic (?) activities.

Howie T. Katzman

Hm. Lotta back references...

Hi there
there is no attempt to undermine other UN resolutions, in fact this proposal is designed to work alongside the resolutions mentioned and acknowledges their purpose.
The potential problem (OOC: which is what Hack's pointing out as a Mod) is not that your proposal undermines the listed resolutions, but that any future repeal of one or more of those resolutions could undermine your proposal. It is not, for example, safe to refer to the surveying practices of resolution 217 if resolution 217 no longer exists. Even the references in your justificatory preamble are not entirely safe to use; it is better for a proposal to stand on its own merits than to try to borrow merits from other proposals that may be pulled from under it.

Mikitivity is in strong support of the concept, but feels the proposal could stand a few minor changes.



First, why are migratory species referred to as trans migratory species and not just migratory? The point behind the resolution is that biodiversity is a common resource and that migratory species do not respect boundaries. It is my assumption that trans migratory are species that travel across boundaries, but I would go ahead and open up the resolution to all migratory species as is suggested in clause 1.

With that in mind, I'd break clause 1 up and remove the reference to UN resolution 217. Your preamble actually supports the justification for action, so you do not need to repeat it.

Here is what I think might work for your first two clauses:



I think you'll still want to really incorporate your original clause 3 & 4 into a format similar to what I have, but I recognized that your original 1b) is an appeal to nations to control the spread of dangerous fauna. Calling them invasive species, separates natural migratory species, which we wish to protect, from those that are in reality spreading due to anthropogenic (?) activities.

Howie T. Katzman

Hi there Howie
greatly appreciate the constructive critism and i must admit that i had overlooked the reporting back and the anthropogenic influnces (and the grammatical slip!)

unfortunately (in my naiveity) i had already submitted this as a proposal and i expect it to fail (1st try at a proposal - so much to learn)
if i had submitted this as a prelim before the proposal i would certainly include your recommendations (with your approval first of course)

may your towel always be in reach
muffudd

Hm. Lotta back references...

indeed , but only to show that proposals can work with 'links' without the need for repeal or ammendment
it also displays respect to other nations in that the work that they have done has been recognised and considered
and finally to demonstrate this proposal has been thought about, and researched so as not to waste the UN's and its delegate's valuable time

may your towel always be in reach

Muffudd

indeed , but only to show that proposals can work with 'links' without the need for repeal or ammendment
it also displays respect to other nations in that the work that they have done has been recognised and considered
and finally to demonstrate this proposal has been thought about, and researched so as not to waste the UN's and its delegate's valuable time

may your towel always be in reach

Muffudd

The big question, which you have conveniently ignored so far, is, can your proposal stand on its own without those back links? If those resolutions are repealed will your proposal still have any effect or will it be more useful as toilet paper?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Pretending that everything else gets Repealed, we'd be left with...

1. UN members should conduct surveys (as per resolution #217) to a)establish migratory species that either cross or remain temporarily within their respective borders and b) develop strategies in order to establish 'pest' control
2. this information should be despatched to all un members in order that their citizens be made aware Both of these are gone. Since the surveys must follow a now non-extant Resolution, they can't be done. Since there are no surveys, there's no information to disseminate.

3.it shall be an offence to intentially or deliberately interfere/hinder with any species on any part of their migratory journey (referring to resolution #215,222, 235)This is okay, even if "intentially[sic] or deliberately" is redundant and repetitive.

4. it shall be an offence to intentionally or deliberately cause damage to any type of nest, lodge, lair, roost or any other type of shelter which migratory species utilize as shelter (referring to resolutions #216, 222, 235)Also okay, even though gobs of details would cease to exist.

The rest would be okay, too. The biggest problem is that half of your action clauses would be useless. Section 1 needs work, and 3 and 4 should be fleshed out on their own, too.

indeed , but only to show that proposals can work with 'links' without the need for repeal or ammendment
it also displays respect to other nations in that the work that they have done has been recognised and considered
and finally to demonstrate this proposal has been thought about, and researched so as not to waste the UN's and its delegate's valuable time

may your towel always be in reach

MuffuddMay we suggest you request your proposal be removed from the submitted list for further work? The recommendations of Mr. Katzman are worth their weight in gold; you can demonstrate respect and reveal your research without flirting with a HoC violation and possible deletion of your proposal.

We believe with minimal work, your proposal can indeed stand on its own and will make a good contribution to the body of international law.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Hi there Howie
greatly appreciate the constructive critism and i must admit that i had overlooked the reporting back and the anthropogenic influnces (and the grammatical slip!)

unfortunately (in my naiveity) i had already submitted this as a proposal and i expect it to fail (1st try at a proposal - so much to learn)
if i had submitted this as a prelim before the proposal i would certainly include your recommendations (with your approval first of course)

may your towel always be in reach
muffudd

Hi Muffudd,

The proposal and idea are yours, so naturally I would encourage you to pick and choose what any of us are saying and applying our comments into the next draft of your proposal as you see fit. :)

Proposals are difficult to write, but the hardest part is finding a topic that your government is dedicated enough to that they are OK with you, as their representative to the UN, spending days to months building political support for your idea.

My government is still silently pursuing international agreements focused on lifting restrictions to the trade of beer (obviously beer is an important commodity in Mikitivity).

I have one general suggestion / tip: when writing a proposal, print out a hard copy before submitting your final draft and try reading it out loud.

I reread my own suggestions and found them to sound awkward. This is fine. :)

Finally, if you are comfortable with including invasive species, I think making this distinction between other migratory species will actually win your proposal strong support from the large number of moderate nations in the UN. The small economic benefit from reducing the negative impacts of invasive species is actually a powerful argument on domestic fronts, that will make it very easy for us to win the approval of our governments -- and in so doing, we should be better able to actually protect the species you are talking about.

(NOTE: Mikitivity actually has signed a number of migratory bird and fish treaties with nations in the International Democratic Union. I suspect that many other nations have similar bi-lateral agreements, as this is a most important topic.)

Thanks,
Howie T. Katzman