[PASSED] Wetland Protection Protocol

[Separatist Peoples]

"If you are terraforming a world and destroy all the wetlands, that is going to have a significant ecological impact and would need to be addressed, but if you are, say, working on a world that is primarily swamp, or has massive tracts of wetland, the impact you make on a specific site, even something as large as a city, will be comparatively minor."

I fear you may not be thinking large enough - if they need to, for example, completely change the atmospheric gas content during the terraforming process, say, purge CO₂ and free more O₂ to make the planet habitable, they might destroy the entire wetlands (OOC: and possibly planetary) ecosystem, but then replace it with a different one. The proposal text as it now is, makes that punitively expensive.

"Replacing wetland is an inherently mitigating effort, and would be used in lieu of paying for credits. Such an action would not incur any expense, as the option is mitigate or pay, not mitigate and pay."

]Unless, of course, you're merely seeking to protect the wetland system itself, in which case a nation could, say, eradicate a poisonous plant species if they replaced it with another that worked fairly similarly in the ecosystem. And do the same with animal species - especially if any of either type are invasive species rather than domestic. That way you could still manage the wetland ecosystem while still keeping some kind of wetland ecosystem working. Species come and go naturally anyway, just over much longer timescales.

...and now you'll have to excuse me while I go find out what Neville poisoned me with, last time I was at the Bar. I wouldn't normally be so understanding of any sort of anti-environmentalist stance...

"If scientists can determine that to have no significant impact, and the poisonous species not be entirely eradicated as per other resolutions regarding endangered species, there is no reason to suspect such an impact would be especially concerning. However, introducing deliberately those species that are invasive might run afoul certain WA resolutions dealing with introduced and invasive species, so the example is a bit difficult to deal with."

[Wallenburg]

"I am sorry, Ambassador. I would normally agree immediately with a proposal to reduce harm to the environment, but in this case I must oppose your draft, as it stands. It is a well-intentioned proposal, to be sure, but it ignores a tough reality. If anyone within a member nation were to cause lasting harm to a wetlands area, your proposal would demand that they cause lasting harm to another area, simply for the sake of having wetlands. Other ecosystems are important too--and in my opinion, far more beautiful and monumental than a swamp--and this proposal just takes its ideals too far. Perhaps I would support a more mild version of this proposal, but for now, the Wallenburgian delegation will not be giving you any votes."

[Wallenburg]

I fear you may not be thinking large enough - if they need to, for example, completely change the atmospheric gas content during the terraforming process, say, purge CO₂ and free more O₂ to make the planet habitable, they might destroy the entire wetlands (OOC: and possibly planetary) ecosystem, but then replace it with a different one. The proposal text as it now is, makes that punitively expensive.

"Replacing wetland is an inherently mitigating effort, and would be used in lieu of paying for credits. Such an action would not incur any expense, as the option is mitigate or pay, not mitigate and pay."

OOC: Does your ambassador honestly not know that completely converting an area into a wetlands would take up enormous resources, including money?

[Separatist Peoples]

"I am sorry, Ambassador. I would normally agree immediately with a proposal to reduce harm to the environment, but in this case I must oppose your draft, as it stands. It is a well-intentioned proposal, to be sure, but it ignores a tough reality. If anyone within a member nation were to cause lasting harm to a wetlands area, your proposal would demand that they cause lasting harm to another area, simply for the sake of having wetlands. Other ecosystems are important too--and in my opinion, far more beautiful and monumental than a swamp--and this proposal just takes its ideals too far. Perhaps I would support a more mild version of this proposal, but for now, the Wallenburgian delegation will not be giving you any votes."

"Wetland resources are, from a scientific standard, less common and more productive than upland resources. They are used in flood control and drainage systems, so you could be placing these mitigation sites in productive areas with absurd ease. Local farms, for example, would be very well served to establish wetlands in and around their irrigation sources to prevent flooding and ensure the water remain relatively uncontaminated. Streams can have banks turned into riparian wetlands to satisfy this with shocking ease. But if that is a concern, the alternative to improving existing or creating new wetlands is paying a mitigation credit. If the protection of less-vulnerable habitats is worth the loss of habitat so incredibly sensitive, then I shall not miss your vote."

OOC: You do realize that this is an amalgam of the US/International standard for wetland protection, and is in many ways even less stringent than most jurisdictions, right? In the real world, development corporations pay tens of thousands of dollars in mitigation for individual projects, and it doesn't crowd out other, "just as important" habitats, because those other habitats exist in bloody spades by comparison.

"Replacing wetland is an inherently mitigating effort, and would be used in lieu of paying for credits. Such an action would not incur any expense, as the option is mitigate or pay, not mitigate and pay."

OOC: Does your ambassador honestly not know that completely converting an area into a wetlands would take up enormous resources, including money?

OOC: My ambassador is drawing off my OOC experience physically doing this as an environmental consultant and scientist. Doing so is expensive, but a whole shitload easier than you seem to think. One civic engineer and a four man labor team with backhoes and hand tools can accomplish this in a matter of days. Manmade wetlands are almost always built into areas where streams or springs are already re-diverted, or where the adjusted slope will cause overland flow to sustain the proper plant life. It requires technical know-how, but it doesn't break the bank. Put it back in the deck, buddy, because this was literally my job.

EDIT: For reference, most projects are designed to have only temporary impacts. Temporary impacts dont require mitigation, as they revert to wetlands again. Permanent impacts tend to account for significantly less. I've consulted for a 40 mile pipeline that had a grand total of 2 acres worth of permanent impact, while the temporary impact was something like 100 acres. You shouldn't mix up temporary and permanent impact for these sorts of projects, because, when well managed, these impacts are nearly nonexistent.

[Wallenburg]

"I am sorry, Ambassador. I would normally agree immediately with a proposal to reduce harm to the environment, but in this case I must oppose your draft, as it stands. It is a well-intentioned proposal, to be sure, but it ignores a tough reality. If anyone within a member nation were to cause lasting harm to a wetlands area, your proposal would demand that they cause lasting harm to another area, simply for the sake of having wetlands. Other ecosystems are important too--and in my opinion, far more beautiful and monumental than a swamp--and this proposal just takes its ideals too far. Perhaps I would support a more mild version of this proposal, but for now, the Wallenburgian delegation will not be giving you any votes."

"Wetland resources are, from a scientific standard, less common and more productive than upland resources. They are used in flood control and drainage systems, so you could be placing these mitigation sites in productive areas with absurd ease. Local farms, for example, would be very well served to establish wetlands in and around their irrigation sources to prevent flooding and ensure the water remain relatively uncontaminated. Streams can have banks turned into riparian wetlands to satisfy this with shocking ease. But if that is a concern, the alternative to improving existing or creating new wetlands is paying a mitigation credit. If the protection of less-vulnerable habitats is worth the loss of habitat so incredibly sensitive, then I shall not miss your vote."

OOC: You do realize that this is an amalgam of the US/International standard for wetland protection, and is in many ways even less stringent than most jurisdictions, right? In the real world, development corporations pay tens of thousands of dollars in mitigation for individual projects, and it doesn't crowd out other, "just as important" habitats, because those other habitats exist in bloody spades by comparison.

OOC: Does your ambassador honestly not know that completely converting an area into a wetlands would take up enormous resources, including money?

OOC: My ambassador is drawing off my OOC experience physically doing this as an environmental consultant and scientist. Doing so is expensive, but a whole shitload easier than you seem to think. One civic engineer and a four man labor team with backhoes and hand tools can accomplish this in a matter of days. Manmade wetlands are almost always built into areas where streams or springs are already re-diverted, or where the adjusted slope will cause overland flow to sustain the proper plant life. It requires technical know-how, but it doesn't break the bank. Put it back in the deck, buddy, because this was literally my job.

EDIT: For reference, most projects are designed to have only temporary impacts. Temporary impacts dont require mitigation, as they revert to wetlands again. Permanent impacts tend to account for significantly less. I've consulted for a 40 mile pipeline that had a grand total of 2 acres worth of permanent impact, while the temporary impact was something like 100 acres. You shouldn't mix up temporary and permanent impact for these sorts of projects, because, when well managed, these impacts are nearly nonexistent.

OOC: You are infuriatingly good at your job.
IC: "You are infuriatingly good at your job, dear Ambassador. I'll have to speak with my staff and Madame Keegan at home, but in this case I have a question: would irrigation systems, designed to mimic wetlands, serve as acceptable mitigation?"

[Araraukar]

OOC: Does your ambassador honestly not know that completely converting an area into a wetlands would take up enormous resources, including money?

OOC: I was talking about another nation that can actually terraform actual planets. Araraukar can't, but then Araraukar doesn't have access to FTL spacetravel either, and yet my ambassador accepts that as being possible for other nations, just not her own.

And also I wasn't talking about converting another area into a wetlands. I was talking about wiping out an entire ecosystem - whether in one go or one species at a time - and replacing it with another.

Like this:

Swamp on Dagobah? Not a good place to live. Solution: Terraform Dagobah, replacing all Dagobahian species with Terran species. Swamp on Terra-like Dagobah? Much nicer place to live. Except for the crocodiles and mosquitoes, but eh, can't have everything.

OOC: You do realize that this is an amalgam of the US/International standard for wetland protection, and is in many ways even less stringent than most jurisdictions, right? In the real world, development corporations pay tens of thousands of dollars in mitigation for individual projects, and it doesn't crowd out other, "just as important" habitats, because those other habitats exist in bloody spades by comparison.

OOC: *throws you with a pillow that has "NS =/= RL" stamped on it*

OOC: Doing so is expensive, but a whole shitload easier than you seem to think. One civic engineer and a four man labor team with backhoes and hand tools can accomplish this in a matter of days. Manmade wetlands are almost always built into areas where streams or springs are already re-diverted, or where the adjusted slope will cause overland flow to sustain the proper plant life.

OOC: They're doing just that, literally 2km from where I live. It's a way to stop rainwater from the drainage system in the area near the lake from getting dumped into the lake in one big go during summer (all sorts of things get swept along with the water, including nutrients, causing algal explosions, and the lake is the 2nd-most important recreational use one in the city area), and instead filtering through the manmade wetland first. They're doing this now, because the past couple of decades they built over the actual wetlands that did exist there previously. Of course this being Finland, they only got the landscaping done before nature went into hibernation mode, so they'll plant the plantlife next year, and direct the rainwater drains the one after that, hoping to have the whole thing working by summer 2018.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Does your ambassador honestly not know that completely converting an area into a wetlands would take up enormous resources, including money?

OOC: I was talking about another nation that can actually terraform actual planets. Araraukar can't, but then Araraukar doesn't have access to FTL spacetravel either, and yet my ambassador accepts that as being possible for other nations, just not her own.

And also I wasn't talking about converting another area into a wetlands. I was talking about wiping out an entire ecosystem - whether in one go or one species at a time - and replacing it with another.

Like this:

Swamp on Dagobah? Not a good place to live. Solution: Terraform Dagobah, replacing all Dagobahian species with Terran species. Swamp on Terra-like Dagobah? Much nicer place to live. Except for the crocodiles and mosquitoes, but eh, can't have everything.

OOC: Umm...that post wasn't addressed to you. At all.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Umm...that post wasn't addressed to you. At all.

OOC: I noticed that after. Brain not connecting things normally atm. I'll leave my reply up anyway, cause it explains a bit better what I meant the first time I tried to reply to the original post about terraforming.

EDIT: I'm honestly heading off now. Sleep well. I hope to.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: You are infuriatingly good at your job.
IC: "You are infuriatingly good at your job, dear Ambassador. I'll have to speak with my staff and Madame Keegan at home, but in this case I have a question: would irrigation systems, designed to mimic wetlands, serve as acceptable mitigation?"

OOC: That may be one of the highest compliments I've received on this forum. Thank you!

IC: "I don't see why not. So long as they do the same jobs as a wetland had have the same criteria: hydrology, hydric Soils, and hydrophytic vegetation, they will be able to serve the same role as natural wetlands, and would count. There are a lot of specific details critical to that determination that I could go into, but doing so would be a game of hypothetical that wouldn't actually help this debate, and those would be hashed out by your environmental consulting groups and WHAMO, as the need arose."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: You are infuriatingly good at your job.
IC: "You are infuriatingly good at your job, dear Ambassador. I'll have to speak with my staff and Madame Keegan at home, but in this case I have a question: would irrigation systems, designed to mimic wetlands, serve as acceptable mitigation?"

OOC: That may be one of the highest compliments I've received on this forum. Thank you!
IC: "I don't see why not. So long as they do the same jobs as a wetland had have the same criteria: hydrology, hydric Soils, and hydrophytic vegetation, they will be able to serve the same role as natural wetlands, and would count. There are a lot of specific details critical to that determination that I could go into, but doing so would be a game of hypothetical that wouldn't actually help this debate, and those would be hashed out by your environmental consulting groups and WHAMO, as the need arose."

OOC: De nada.
IC: "In that case, I shall deliver my plan to the National Assembly immediately! It'll cost a pretty penny, but tax rates are low right now, so I doubt the people will mind much."

[Separatist Peoples]

IC: "In that case, I shall deliver my plan to the National Assembly immediately! It'll cost a pretty penny, but tax rates are low right now, so I doubt the people will mind much."

"Up front costs do wonders on environmental quality, natural filtration for water, species diversity, reduced capacity for flooding and freshwater retention. It is rather like buying insurance: expensive up front, but a spectacular investment."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: *throws you with a pillow that has "NS =/= RL" stamped on it*

OOC: The scientific principals and economic requirements are the same! Unless one has totally ineffective civil engineers, of course, but thats hardly my fault.

OOC: They're doing just that, literally 2km from where I live. It's a way to stop rainwater from the drainage system in the area near the lake from getting dumped into the lake in one big go during summer (all sorts of things get swept along with the water, including nutrients, causing algal explosions, and the lake is the 2nd-most important recreational use one in the city area), and instead filtering through the manmade wetland first. They're doing this now, because the past couple of decades they built over the actual wetlands that did exist there previously. Of course this being Finland, they only got the landscaping done before nature went into hibernation mode, so they'll plant the plantlife next year, and direct the rainwater drains the one after that, hoping to have the whole thing working by summer 2018.

OOC: They're fantastic about that. There's a rest station in Vermont that I've visited that has a completely biological wastewater treatment center attached inside a greenhouse. In more temperate climates, this can be outdoors and contribute to the local environment. The water from the toilets and taps goes right back into the groundwater, fresh as a daisy, and it counts as a series of wetlands. Natural filtration pools for recreational use rely on estuary-style vegetation and microvegetation to provide filtration without any energy costs and keep the water as clean as a chlorine pool. Peat bogs are some of the best terrestrial carbon and methane greenhouse gas sinks ever. Man-made wetlands are just incredibly useful, even ignoring the benefits to the environment itself. Kum-ba-yah, man.

[Wrapper]

We're not sure exactly what "national industry" in paragraph 5 means. Are you talking about the top industry in each nation? If so, what if it's something that would not encroach on wetlands, such as Information Technology or Pizza Delivery? If not, then it should say "all industry". Therefore....

(Ari points to his assistant, who lets out a loud and proud "HARRRRRUMPH!")

Thank you, Ahume. Other than that--

(Ahume continues with a "Grub grub grub grub....")

THANK you, Wad Ahume. Other than that, none of this seems objectionable to us. Good luck.

"The intention was to have it apply to industry within the nation. Thus national industry. I'm hoping to streamline that language considerably. I hope that appeases Wad Ahume, if only a little."

(Wad Ahume pops his head into the room.)

Paragraph 5? "National industry"? Grub grub grub?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Got it."

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan will support this fine proposal."

- Ted Hornwood

OOC: Easier to do these comments OOC rather than IC.

1) Is there a reason you refer to members rather than member states or member nations? I think it just doesn't look right but it's obviously not very important.

2) Re: 2b. I don't really get your meaning. Does the committee "Issue and enforce best management practices for research ... on wetlands .... " as well as "Issue and enforce best management practices for ... industry impact on wetlands .... "? Why is research included? Otherwise, why is it limited to only industry impact?

3) 2e starts with a misplaced "D". Also the first part of the text appears to repeat clause 2a.

4) 3b starts with a misplaced "ii ."

5) Is clause 4 just a repetition of 3b?

6) Clause 5 seems to a necessary clarification that members must follow the enforced "practices" of clause 2b. I think it's a good idea to keep it in to avoid creative compliance.

7) If you are tight for space, clause 8 is probably superfluous. If the proposal doesn't otherwise say that members can't do it, then it is implicit that they can.

[Separatist Peoples]

1) Is there a reason you refer to members rather than member states or member nations? I think it just doesn't look right but it's obviously not very important.

OOC: Saves characters. I'm up against the wall.

2) Re: 2b. I don't really get your meaning. Does the committee "Issue and enforce best management practices for research ... on wetlands .... " as well as "Issue and enforce best management practices for ... industry impact on wetlands .... "? Why is research included? Otherwise, why is it limited to only industry impact?[/quote]

It handles both. Dealing with non-industrial impact would require about a thousand extra characters. Agricultural impact alone is very nearly its own field of study.

3) 2e starts with a misplaced "D". Also the first part of the text appears to repeat clause 2a.

4) 3b starts with a misplaced "ii ."

Will adjust. Bloody damn coding...

5) Is clause 4 just a repetition of 3b?

Sort of...4 deals with mitigation efforts, while 3b deals with new wetland construction. Different, but similar.

6) Clause 5 seems to a necessary clarification that members must follow the enforced "practices" of clause 2b. I think it's a good idea to keep it in to avoid creative compliance.

Ok.

7) If you are tight for space, clause 8 is probably superfluous. If the proposal doesn't otherwise say that members can't do it, then it is implicit that they can.

That was one of the first complaints I received: that national governments would be required to foot the bill for private industry.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Ok, so the rest of the last week went down the "I need more hours in a day!" drain, so I didn't get back to this before. It looks good now, except you should totally make the committee name be "Waterbody Health and Mitigation Management Organization" aka WHAMMO.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Ok, so the rest of the last week went down the "I need more hours in a day!" drain, so I didn't get back to this before. It looks good now, except you should totally make the committee name be "Waterbody Health and Mitigation Management Organization" aka WHAMMO.

Parsons: The leader should be called Environmental Mitigation Supremo.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Ok, so the rest of the last week went down the "I need more hours in a day!" drain, so I didn't get back to this before. It looks good now, except you should totally make the committee name be "Waterbody Health and Mitigation Management Organization" aka WHAMMO.

Parsons: The leader should be called Environmental Mitigation Supremo.

Well, being called EMS as a title, might not be too bad in this context.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

We're quite happy with our environmental protection system and have no interest in giving an international body the unilateral authority to replace it.

OOC: though it's almost worth supporting just to have an international body called WHAMO

[Separatist Peoples]

We're quite happy with our environmental protection system and have no interest in giving an international body the unilateral authority to replace it.

OOC: though it's almost worth supporting just to have an international body called WHAMO

"This will not replace your management system, simply from an international one."

[Araraukar]

"This will not replace your management system, simply from an international one."

Well, in a way it does...

Issue and enforce best management practices for research and industry impact on wetlands

and

Members shall adopt, at minimum, the best management standards issued by WHAMO for their development industry.

You're requiring member nations to change their management system, if the supranational committee decides it isn't the best possible at their tech level.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This will not replace your management system, simply from an international one."

Well, in a way it does...

Issue and enforce best management practices for research and industry impact on wetlands

and

Members shall adopt, at minimum, the best management standards issued by WHAMO for their development industry.

You're requiring member nations to change their management system, if the supranational committee decides it isn't the best possible at their tech level.

"Which doesn't replace their management system, just the standards by which it operates. The national authority can still operate as a national authority."

[Araraukar]

"Which doesn't replace their management system, just the standards by which it operates. The national authority can still operate as a national authority."

Except this bit...

Issue and enforce best management practices for research and industry impact on wetlands

...speaks of practices (action), rather than just standards (quality).

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

"Which doesn't replace their management system, just the standards by which it operates. The national authority can still operate as a national authority."

Except this bit...

Issue and enforce best management practices for research and industry impact on wetlands

...speaks of practices (action), rather than just standards (quality).

Essentially. we have no objection with WHAMO setting reasonable standards, or even giving recommendations and assistance.