Ugh, the Wetland Protection Protocol is a nightmare because it’s essentially a much better-written version of Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands in that it protects one specific type of biome it says is at risk while ignoring all other IC and OOC endangered habitats. It faces the same core issue as the Prairies resolution in my view because that unnecessary specificity makes it part of the one biome-one resolution group but I fear it will be much, much harder to repeal if a more general all endangered habitats-one resolution approach is desired. Part of me thinks Separatist Peoples just wanted to use the acronym “WHAMMO” 😅.
Preventing Species Extinction in theory protects habitats, but I don’t like the top-down approach where a species is designated endangered and the habitat is protected around them. We know that ecosystems are a complex web, not a chain, so it’s not enough to say “well, we’ll plant more of this type of tree” or “well, we’ll remove this species”. It’s far better to take a more holistic approach where human (“sapient”) interference is actually lowered wherever possible instead of increased. Clause 2(i) actually requires member nations to “[prevent] all possible actions that are likely to negatively impact the at-risk species in any manner” when necessary, which is kind of bizarre - just imagine the level of human interference required to protect a species to that extent. The disruption to the ecosystem could be catastrophic, even if such interventions were done with the best of intentions. Clause 6(iv) doesn’t cover this because the other species within the ecosystem web are not endangered - at least, not yet. In my eyes, it’s certainly not the way to go about protecting whole ecosystems.
Apart from anything else, and I don’t like pulling apart Ransium’s proposals, this idea of “documenting all known species and genetically distinct sub-species which are native to the territories of member nations” is insanity, even by GA resolution standards. There is no distinction between animal species, plant species, fungal organisms, protists or even prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea). I don’t know if WA committees worry themselves with this sort of thing, but is literally an impossible job. We have basically no idea how many species of bacteria even exist, never mind what those species are. More than 99% of them cannot be grown in a lab, and while DNA sequencing has progressed in leaps and bounds since the turn of the century we’re pretty much no closer to understanding the true level of microbial diversity around us. It’s crazy to even imagine a WA committee trying to record every single species in every single member nation, never mind being required to do so. The poor WA gnomes are still digging up soil in Uan aa Boa, Daarwyrth and Terrabod but are no closer to their goal than they were when the resolution was passed two years ago.
Whew, I digress. On the question of “why x biome is good” in the context of a general “all ecosystems” approach, one case definitely worth considering is something like Sites of Special Scientific Interest, a RL designation that basically protects areas scientists are interested in preserving (for any number of reasons). This can be because the site is home to a specific unusual species or a diverse group of species (of interest to zoologists, microbiologists, botanists), the site is a rare example of a particular geographic feature or process (of interest to earth scientists) etc. It might not be the only specification of an ecosystem worth preserving that we use, but “scientists need to preserve it for important studies that benefit both us and the ecosystem” is a very strong argument for preserving some unique sites - but it isn’t suitable for all at-risk sites.