[GA] Trade Of Endangered Organisms [Complete]

[Sil Dorsett]

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Ransium
Onsite Topic

The World Assembly,

Applauding its members' continued efforts on the preservation of endangered organisms,

Concerned that illegal collection and smuggling of endangered organisms could undermine preservation efforts,

Noting the loss of endangered species has the potential to cause extreme harm to member nations populations via the destruction or deterioration of ecosystem services, for example: hindering natural water and air filtration, hindering natural erosion control, destroying or causing a decline in the availability of food and other wild raw materials, and hindering the possible development of life saving medicines and industrial materials,

Hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, including the fact that trade involving certain groups of organisms may already be covered separately by such legislation:

1. Instructs the World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) and WA member nation's governments to cooperate with each other in creating and maintaining up-to-date lists of the populations of species and subspecies that qualify as 'Endangered';

2. Bans the international import and export into or from member nations of all organisms from endangered species or subspecies, and of goods derived wholly or in part from said organisms, unless any of the following exemptions applies:

They are specimens or goods that are being collected or being returned as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;

They are specimens or goods derived from specimens that originate from a non-wild source such as a farm, laboratory, or nursery, and are birthed, grown, or hatched from seeds, spores, eggs or other material, that itself was collected from a non-wild source or as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;

They are commercial, scientific, or other goods that were derived from specimens under the guidance of a species restoration program and collected in a manner which does not further endanger the species;

They are durable goods such as lumber, which can be historically or scientifically proven to have been processed before the species was first noted as being endangered by WAESC;

They are unintentionally distributed reproductive or other microscopic materials such as seeds, pollen, eggs or spores in trace amounts that are in or on other trade goods;

3. Requires member nations to ardently enforce measures designed to stop the illegal collection and international trade of endangered species and products derived from them, within their jurisdictions;

4. Urges member nations to pass legislation preventing transporting and profiting from endangered species and products derived from them, within their own borders.

Co-authored by Bears Armed

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

Spoiler: Regional Vote

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2017_06_24_trade_of_endangered_organisms_[/wavote]

Spoiler: World Vote

[wavote=world,ga]2017_06_24_trade_of_endangered_organisms_[/wavote]

 

[Sil Dorsett]

The resolution focuses on economic efforts to preserve a species, with specific provisions focused in on the prohibition of poaching and over-harvesting, even if not explicitly stated in that way. The resolution permits economic incentives for keeping a species extant, not to destroy it, but we must remind ourselves that us that survival of a species depends on either the adaptability of the species, habitat preservation, or human intervention, which the resolution does not interfere with in any way. Scientific efforts from conservation groups should stand alone, but the resolution permits economic incentives that can provide an additional bonus to speed up the recovery of an endangered species.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote for this resolution.

 

[Owenstacey]

Against.

Clause 2b allows species that have are endangered but have been breed multiple times to be imported/exported which could cause this to be abused. If you are going to stop them from being imported/exported just completely ban them.

 

[Mystery Player]

Against.

Clause 2b allows species that have are endangered but have been breed multiple times to be imported/exported which could cause this to be abused. If you are going to stop them from being imported/exported just completely ban them.

Yeah, this was what I was thinking.

Against.

 

[QuietDad]

Against.

 

[abc]

I would go for though after thinking of abuse (as Owenstacey said) I vote against.

 

[Secretary to The Committee]

Against - meaning of endangered not defined

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Against - meaning of endangered not defined

World Assembly Resolution #66: Endangered Species Protection, technically does not explicitly define it either.

 

[Egalotir]

Clause 2b needs fixing. Against.

 

[Rocketdog]

Against
AS people said above, 2b does need fixing

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Against.

Clause 2b allows species that have are endangered but have been breed multiple times to be imported/exported which could cause this to be abused. If you are going to stop them from being imported/exported just completely ban them.

Could you elaborate about the potential for abuse? Seems like others are latching on to your argument, but I'm not sure about it.

 

[Owenstacey]

Against.

Clause 2b allows species that have are endangered but have been breed multiple times to be imported/exported which could cause this to be abused. If you are going to stop them from being imported/exported just completely ban them.

Could you elaborate about the potential for abuse? Seems like others are latching on to your argument, but I'm not sure about it.

The potential for abuse would be through some species of animal being imported/exported after being bred numerous times with the sole purpose to be slaughtered/sold for profit. Yes this would short term slightly boost the population of the species but when prices go down, they will stop breeding them, so they will die out. This is abusing the animals for the sole purpose of making a little money.

 

[Kodiak and Kamchatka]

Against.

Clause 2b allows species that have are endangered but have been breed multiple times to be imported/exported which could cause this to be abused. If you are going to stop them from being imported/exported just completely ban them.

That clause helps you to spread endangered species so that they're less vulnerable in future than they would be if they remained confined to a single nation, and to reintroduce them to other countries where they used to live but have been wiped out.
For a RL example, look at how the Wollemi Pine -- found naturally in a single valley in Australia, where a single disaster could have wiped it completely -- has now been spread to botanical gardens in other countries such as the UK as well.

(Disclaimer: I'm the proposal's co-author, Bears Armed.)

 

[Darcania]

For.

 

[Dabum17]

Against.

Clause 2b allows species that have are endangered but have been breed multiple times to be imported/exported which could cause this to be abused. If you are going to stop them from being imported/exported just completely ban them.

That clause helps you to spread endangered species so that they're less vulnerable in future than they would be if they remained confined to a single nation, and to reintroduce them to other countries where they used to live but have been wiped out.
For a RL example, look at how the Wollemi Pine -- found naturally in a single valley in Australia, where a single disaster could have wiped it completely -- has now been spread to botanical gardens in other countries such as the UK as well.

(Disclaimer: I'm the proposal's co-author, Bears Armed.)

It doesn't matter so much as what the clause means in your opinion, it matters what is actually written.
Based on my reading, I can collect the original specimen for scientific purposes, breed it, and sell the offspring to others who want some 'valuable part'. This will be legal under the amendment.

Against

 

[Sil Dorsett]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

They are specimens or goods derived from specimens that originate from a non-wild source such as a farm, laboratory, or nursery, and are birthed, grown, or hatched from seeds, spores, eggs or other material, that itself was collected from a non-wild source or as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;

Now I see where the argument against lies. The problem though is that at least it creates an economic incentive for the survival of the species if one could exist, whereas a total ban creates no incentive to keep the species extant. A conservation effort, the scientifically run species restoration program, should be capable and willing to preserve the species even if there is no financial incentive, otherwise, it's not really scientific. The economic incentive is just a bonus to help with the speed of regrowth.

For.

 

[Egalotir]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

They are specimens or goods derived from specimens that originate from a non-wild source such as a farm, laboratory, or nursery, and are birthed, grown, or hatched from seeds, spores, eggs or other material, that itself was collected from a non-wild source or as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;

Now I see where the argument against lies. The problem though is that at least it creates an economic incentive for the survival of the species if one could exist, whereas a total ban creates no incentive to keep the species extant. A conservation effort, the scientifically run species restoration program, should be capable and willing to preserve the species even if there is no financial incentive, otherwise, it's not really scientific. The economic incentive is just a bonus to help with the speed of regrowth.

For.

This is a good point, the only issue I see the economic benefit being an illegal one, like buying/selling organisms for their parts for profit, such as the trading or hunting of rhino horns. That would fall under other Resolutions.

I will be changing my vote to for.

 

[Atlae]

I agree, and would vote for if I could put a WA account on Nordpazifik.

Even if I don't, I encourage others to vote for.

 

[Rocketdog]

Ill will be changing it my vote also to For

 

[Rocketdog]

-snip-

 

[Imperium Anglorum]

The presence and funding of conservation projects is generally exogenous from market forces. Poaching or other forms of over-harvesting is what this proposal tries to tackle. It doesn't even tackle the most important driver of population decline, habitat destruction. The section 2 provisions eliminate many of the incentives for poaching, or at least drive them underground, attenuating those incentives.

Section 2(b) allows incentives for more endangered species members, as there are also market forces which would lead to people breeding or growing endangered plants and animals. This increases the chances of having more of them. The idea that market forces would suddenly go away for the provision of that good misunderstands, misrepresents, or simply ignores, (1) the general persistence of demand over large markets, (2) the exogenous nature of conservation funding, (3) the exogenous nature of habitat destruction, and (4) the regulations already provided for in s 2(b).

The idea that animals or plants will die out should incentives disappear is both absurd, as conservation efforts at the same funding and support levels still exist, and would be no different from how it would be if such trade were banned. In fact, given that any fall in the number of breeding or living subjects has massive negative effects on the gene pool and the chances for long-term survival, any increase in population numbers ought be applauded, as it reduces the chances of an extreme population bottleneck or extinction.

The comparative is between a world with breeding and higher population numbers and a world which has no added incentives to stop downward population pressures. As a natural re-growth is not plausible, due to habitat destruction or other long-term trends, the least-worst option is a world with breeding.

And if the argument is made that animal abuse is bad, that is (1) immaterial, as extinction outweighs any questions of animal abuse; (2) a bad argument to oppose the 2(b) provisions, because (a) as success massively reduces with abuse, unless (b) the animals are understood to such a level that something like artificial insemination is possible, which makes the question just irrelevant, because acting on that knowledge would easily increase population levels to such a point where it is no longer endangered and then no longer falls into the realm of this resolution; and (3) much better addressed in a resolution on animal abuse, especially in the realm of agriculture, not in the realm of endangered species.

 

[Kodiak and Kamchatka]

Me again.
I forgot to point out yesterday: This proposed resolution wouldn't actually cover trade in endangered animals yet, anyway, only trade in endangered plants/fungi/mcrobes/etc.
While the existing resolution 'Sensible Limits on Hunting' is still in effect, which hopefully will be for as long as the WA itself lasts, its rules on trade in endangered animals & animal products -- which don't include the particular exception that's been bothering some people here -- will still take priority over this proposal's rules in that respect.

 

[Dabum17]

Me again.
I forgot to point out yesterday: This proposed resolution wouldn't actually cover trade in endangered animals yet, anyway, only trade in endangered plants/fungi/mcrobes/etc.
While the existing resolution 'Sensible Limits on Hunting' is still in effect, which hopefully will be for as long as the WA itself lasts, its rules on trade in endangered animals & animal products -- which don't include the particular exception that's been bothering some people here -- will still take priority over this proposal's rules in that respect.

Sensible Limits on hunting: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=267/council=1

"Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through hunting" Does this mean A,B,C obtained through hunting, or A,B, and C obtained through hunting?

 

[Kodiak and Kamchatka]

Me again.
I forgot to point out yesterday: This proposed resolution wouldn't actually cover trade in endangered animals yet, anyway, only trade in endangered plants/fungi/mcrobes/etc.
While the existing resolution 'Sensible Limits on Hunting' is still in effect, which hopefully will be for as long as the WA itself lasts, its rules on trade in endangered animals & animal products -- which don't include the particular exception that's been bothering some people here -- will still take priority over this proposal's rules in that respect.

Sensible Limits on hunting: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=267/council=1

"Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through hunting" Does this mean A,B,C obtained through hunting, or A,B, and C obtained through hunting?

A, B, and C.

 

[Imperium Anglorum]

This proposed resolution wouldn't actually cover trade in endangered animals yet, anyway, only trade in endangered plants/fungi/mcrobes/etc.

While the existing resolution 'Sensible Limits on Hunting' is still in effect, which hopefully will be for as long as the WA itself lasts, its rules on trade in endangered animals & animal products -- which don't include the particular exception that's been bothering some people here -- will still take priority over this proposal's rules in that respect.

Those rules only have to do with meat, captives, and other goods obtained through hunting. And thus, wouldn't apply to something like, say, wool.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Hmm... why didn't I lock this earlier? Show's over folks.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.