International Biodiversity Conservation Aid Act

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Talleyrand

[Talleyrand]

This bill is pretty self-explanatory. The U.S. has done a great job of protecting endangered species within our own borders, and for the reasons I outlined in a campaign post I made back in January, I think it would be good for global biodiversity if we outlined a program to bring funds to foreign countries for the conservation of their flora and fauna.

Pictured above are a Sumatran rhinoceros and her calf; less than a hundred of these gentle giants exist today, confined to treacherous mountain terrain in the islands of Indonesia and the Malay Peninsula.
Besides their innate majesty and imposing bulk, rhinoceroses serve as keystone mega-herbivores in the all ecosystems to which they are native. In the Malay Peninsula, Sumatran rhinoceros create pathways through the thick forest brush, which may then be utilized by smaller fauna such as tapir and deer. The African rhinoceroses feed exclusively on higher grasses, and thus allow the lower grasses necessary to the integrity of the savannas to grow; in lieu of their presence, the loss of up to half of all ground cover has been observed. The rhinoceros, in both continents, has been a hallmark of ecotourism, and produces billions in economic benefit to indigenous communities, and those tasked with ensuring their survival. These leviathans of land have endured twenty times as long as the human race; we have a duty to preserve them, or face drastic environmental and economic consequences.

In Atlasia we're fortunate to live in an environmentally conscious nation where we've taken many steps to protect the flora and fauna within our borders, while working to stop the spread of invasive species at the same time. On a regional level, we accomplished this during my last term as Governor, and a similar bill on a national scale was passed by Senator Polnut during the opening days of President Lumine's term. We have strict animal welfare laws, and have been proactive in stopping whaling abroad for many years. However, as dozens of species go extinct a day (an unprecedented number in modern human history, and one comparable to the Devonian and Cretaceous mass extinctions), we have a duty to expand what we have already done.

I propose the creation of an agency within the Department of External Affairs to be called the International Biodiversity Aid Agency, which will work in tandem with preexisting foreign aid agencies such as the International Development body. With an annual budget of 5-10 billion dollars, we can provide aid abroad as grants for organizations (governmental and non-governmental) which show a commitment to preserving the biodiversity of their lands. We can also create individual programs via a joint operation with the Peace Corps to create U.S. led programs in various conservation efforts (such as working with amphibians in Panama or elephants in Kenya).

With such an ambitious, well-funded program on a global scale, we might be able to inspire more individuals and nations to partake in the preservation of their native flora and fauna, while protecting biodiversity. With enough time and resources, we may be able to make a serious dent in the disappearance of life across the planet.

[Blair]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10958695

Would you be happy to introduce something like this into the scheme?

[Talleyrand]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10958695

Would you be happy to introduce something like this into the scheme?

Certainly! That's a fantastic idea.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This Bill has my support.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would the process of convincing a foreign gov't who does not prioritize such conservation nor allows/cooperates with NGOs at present, to change such policies and pursue a better approach? Does that have to go through normal diplomatic channels? Can the IBCB play a roll in that process and if so, what does it look like?

[Blair]

How would the process of convincing a foreign gov't who does not prioritize such conservation nor allows/cooperates with NGOs at present, to change such policies and pursue a better approach? Does that have to go through normal diplomatic channels? Can the IBCB play a roll in that process and if so, what does it look like?

Well sorry to hijack this but it can go through several different channels. Either face to face diplomacy with our team, or through the various UN groups if they've signed any treaties. As long as the ICBC falls under the wider branch of the office of external affairs they should be able to reach deals with other nations.

The issues with biodiversity came into it when you have a country like the Democratic republic of congo because the central government give approval to these projects when in fact they only have control of about 10% of the country

[Türkisblau]

How will promoting international biodiversity help the Atlasians who are funding this endeavor?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would the process of convincing a foreign gov't who does not prioritize such conservation nor allows/cooperates with NGOs at present, to change such policies and pursue a better approach? Does that have to go through normal diplomatic channels? Can the IBCB play a roll in that process and if so, what does it look like?

Well sorry to hijack this but it can go through several different channels. Either face to face diplomacy with our team, or through the various UN groups if they've signed any treaties. As long as the ICBC falls under the wider branch of the office of external affairs they should be able to reach deals with other nations.

The issues with biodiversity came into it when you have a country like the Democratic republic of congo because the central government give approval to these projects when in fact they only have control of about 10% of the country

I would be correct to assume that any deals would have to achieve standard approval process, that is they cannot act independently from the wider foreign policy of the country?

The reason I bring it up is because a good number of places either like the Congo where the country is in turmoil or in places where the gov't is openly hostile or indifferent either because the gov't is bought by companies who have a vested interest in mining or extraction to name one example, or just generally prioritize economic growth would pose a significant impediment to progress and many of these countries would likely have significant problems of habitat destruction, pollution and so forth.

[Talleyrand]

The deals would still be done the same way as the DoEA currently does. With the IBCB within that Department, they would definitely be involved in negotiations though or be given clearance by higher-ups to perhaps pursue some diplomacy of their own.

Turkisblau, here's a good link for why promoting biodiversity abroad is good for pretty much everyone in the long-run.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

How will promoting international biodiversity help the Atlasians who are funding this endeavor?

Nature doesn't respect national boundaries. There are a lot natural processes that are not only  of international concern, but impacts, such as the movement of invasive species and bird migrations that play parts in plant life-cycles.

[Türkisblau]

Ah, alright. I'd just some listed benefits before we pass this

I'm in full support.

[Blair]

I offer this amendment to the bill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Talleyrand]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[Boston Bread]

I support both the act and amendment.

[Senator Cris]

I'm supporting this proposal. Preserve global ecosystems is our duty.

[Talleyrand]

The amendment has been adopted.

Does anyone else have any proposals or is it okay if we take this to a final vote?

[Blair]

Apologies I'll propose an amendment when I get back from college in about 4 hours 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

[Blair]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

Who the hell said anything about France and Britain. I am talking about banana republics and Zimbabwe. Countries with the least councern and most desire to take advantage of such a mechanism. I applauded the addition of this mechanism, but it comes with its own risks and if we don't limit their ability to wipe out debts, they will load up on debts spending years worth in a single year before participating in this program, hence my point.

[Blair]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

Who the hell said anything about France and Britain. I am talking about banana republics and Zimbabwe. Countries with the least councern and most desire to take advantage of such a mechanism. I applauded the addition of this mechanism, but it comes with its own risks and if we don't limit their ability to wipe out debts, they will load up on debts spending years worth in a single year before participating in this program, hence my point.

Okay, can we stop this idiotic idea that African and latin American countries don't care about biodiversity. Why do people seem to purport this myth that they're hell bent on environmental destruction?

They don't have the least concern for biodiversity-that honour goes to the countries that are preparing to begin oil drilling in the arctic, or the country that spilled an entire oil rig on the gulf of mexico,

The programs aren't designed to wipe out debts-all the schemes done in the last 5 years have been on a really really small scale.

I'll agree to a cap, but I don't want it to basically reduce the fact that debt for conservation swaps can be effective

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

Who the hell said anything about France and Britain. I am talking about banana republics and Zimbabwe. Countries with the least councern and most desire to take advantage of such a mechanism. I applauded the addition of this mechanism, but it comes with its own risks and if we don't limit their ability to wipe out debts, they will load up on debts spending years worth in a single year before participating in this program, hence my point.

Okay, can we stop this idiotic idea that African and latin American countries don't care about biodiversity. Why do people seem to purport this myth that they're hell bent on environmental destruction?

They don't have the least concern for biodiversity-that honour goes to the countries that are preparing to begin oil drilling in the arctic, or the country that spilled an entire oil rig on the gulf of mexico,

The programs aren't designed to wipe out debts-all the schemes done in the last 5 years have been on a really really small scale.

I'll agree to a cap, but I don't want it to basically reduce the fact that debt for conservation swaps can be effective

But most everyone of those counties would acknowledge environmental concerns and work to mitigate the problem or seek to prevent it. We can argue over how this is occuring and you are right, there have been lapses, but there is a far greater society concern for the environment in welathy, democratic counties then in dictatorial, impoverised ones.

For the third time, I think debt swaps are going to be an effective tool, my point once again is that if you aren't careful, it will be taken advantage of at our expense, for not environmental gain.

[Blair]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

Who the hell said anything about France and Britain. I am talking about banana republics and Zimbabwe. Countries with the least councern and most desire to take advantage of such a mechanism. I applauded the addition of this mechanism, but it comes with its own risks and if we don't limit their ability to wipe out debts, they will load up on debts spending years worth in a single year before participating in this program, hence my point.

Okay, can we stop this idiotic idea that African and latin American countries don't care about biodiversity. Why do people seem to purport this myth that they're hell bent on environmental destruction?

They don't have the least concern for biodiversity-that honour goes to the countries that are preparing to begin oil drilling in the arctic, or the country that spilled an entire oil rig on the gulf of mexico,

The programs aren't designed to wipe out debts-all the schemes done in the last 5 years have been on a really really small scale.

I'll agree to a cap, but I don't want it to basically reduce the fact that debt for conservation swaps can be effective

But most everyone of those counties would acknowledge environmental concerns and work to mitigate the problem or seek to prevent it. We can argue over how this is occuring and you are right, there have been lapses, but there is a far greater society concern for the environment in welathy, democratic counties then in dictatorial, impoverised ones.

For the third time, I think debt swaps are going to be an effective tool, my point once again is that if you aren't careful, it will be taken advantage of at our expense, for not environmental gain.

But the debt swaps are always under our control-we agree how much money is going to be swapped, as I wrote into the bill we only let the swap happen if the criteria is reached and they actually meet conservation targets. We're not giving them a blank state, and we have the controls. How are we going to be taken for a ride when we have full control over the process?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a broad oversimplification, look at India and it's widespread pollution of the ganges, and compare it with Cuba

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

Who the hell said anything about France and Britain. I am talking about banana republics and Zimbabwe. Countries with the least councern and most desire to take advantage of such a mechanism. I applauded the addition of this mechanism, but it comes with its own risks and if we don't limit their ability to wipe out debts, they will load up on debts spending years worth in a single year before participating in this program, hence my point.

Okay, can we stop this idiotic idea that African and latin American countries don't care about biodiversity. Why do people seem to purport this myth that they're hell bent on environmental destruction?

They don't have the least concern for biodiversity-that honour goes to the countries that are preparing to begin oil drilling in the arctic, or the country that spilled an entire oil rig on the gulf of mexico,

The programs aren't designed to wipe out debts-all the schemes done in the last 5 years have been on a really really small scale.

I'll agree to a cap, but I don't want it to basically reduce the fact that debt for conservation swaps can be effective

But most everyone of those counties would acknowledge environmental concerns and work to mitigate the problem or seek to prevent it. We can argue over how this is occuring and you are right, there have been lapses, but there is a far greater society concern for the environment in welathy, democratic counties then in dictatorial, impoverised ones.

For the third time, I think debt swaps are going to be an effective tool, my point once again is that if you aren't careful, it will be taken advantage of at our expense, for not environmental gain.

But the debt swaps are always under our control-we agree how much money is going to be swapped, as I wrote into the bill we only let the swap happen if the criteria is reached and they actually meet conservation targets. We're not giving them a blank state, and we have the controls. How are we going to be taken for a ride when we have full control over the process?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a broad oversimplification, look at India and it's widespread pollution of the ganges, and compare it with Cuba

The IBCB will be in control of regulating this though and forming the argeements. Unless, each agreement is brought before the Senate individually, then my concern, which is a mass runup in debt prior to making such a deal will only be met with an appropriate standard provided it is made by the agency in its internal guidelines. I think the bill should include language requiring a standard to be formed, if not directly stating said standard, limiting the ability of countries to engage in these irresponsbile practices prior to engagement with the IBCB on a debt swap.