[PASSED] Stopping Invasive Species [GAR #254 Replacement]

[Ceni]

It only bans the discharge of ballast water in coastal waters and internal waterways. Shippers are free to do so on the open ocean.

[Forestigan]

It only bans the discharge of ballast water in coastal waters and internal waterways. Shippers are free to do so on the open ocean.

Ballast water is typically discharged upon taking on cargo. As a nation with no direct ocean access, this would eliminate or severely restrict our ability to export goods by ship.

I suppose, however, that one could design a system by which ballast water is extracted from the ship directly into a treatment facility to avoid breach of this resolution.

[Sprawlville]

As representative of the Republic of Sprawlville, it is my duty to inform you of the opinions of Construct Wintermute and the Senate.

We find it somewhat humorous that members of some of the most invasive species in existence are writing a law to control invasive species. However, we understand the purpose of the law and, having already developed rudimentary procedures to protect our lands from such proliferation, we lend our support to the bill.

--Councilman Armitage, First Diplomat to the World Assembly, Republic of Sprawlville

[Ceni]

As a nation with no direct ocean access, this would eliminate or severely restrict our ability to export goods by ship.

I suppose that not having direct ocean access would do that to you, not the resolution.

[Forestigan]

As a nation with no direct ocean access, this would eliminate or severely restrict our ability to export goods by ship.

I suppose that not having direct ocean access would do that to you, not the resolution.

It would, in fact, not do that, but I thank you for your concern.

[OOC] My nation is based on Michigan--major shipping industry via the Great Lakes and eventually the St. Lawrence, and major invasive problems due to ballast water in those same lakes.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

I suppose that not having direct ocean access would do that to you, not the resolution.

It would, in fact, not do that, but I thank you for your concern.

[OOC] My nation is based on Michigan--major shipping industry via the Great Lakes and eventually the St. Lawrence, and major invasive problems due to ballast water in those same lakes.

As a nation with an inland waterway through which many foreign ships travel, you would be the among the most serious hurt by untreated ballast water discharges. Shouldn't you be in favor of this proposal, then?

[Bergnovinaia]

As a nation with no direct ocean access, this would eliminate or severely restrict our ability to export goods by ship.

I suppose that not having direct ocean access would do that to you, not the resolution.

OOC: in theory, one could have access. A canal could connect an inland lake or sea to a greater oceanic body. I would assume ballast water would have to be discharged on the ocean side as to not contaminate the inland body.

[Milograd]

I hate kudzu. For once, I will support a GA proposal such as this.

[Fennijer]

"PROHIBITS the transfer of invasive species from one nation to another - member nations shall work actively to prevent the transfer of invasive species across their borders through all means necessary except through closing national borders"

*Empress Jennifer Serpentine of Fennijer seems outraged*

"Ones sovereign borders are not for the World Assembly to dictate when One 'may' or 'may not' close, for whatever reason. If One wishes to close Ones borders, it will be done; be it for stopping an invasive species, a suspicious package or a shipment of pistachio ice-cream. Fennijer will vote against this preposterous proposal."

[Forestigan]

It would, in fact, not do that, but I thank you for your concern.

[OOC] My nation is based on Michigan--major shipping industry via the Great Lakes and eventually the St. Lawrence, and major invasive problems due to ballast water in those same lakes.

As a nation with an inland waterway through which many foreign ships travel, you would be the among the most serious hurt by untreated ballast water discharges. Shouldn't you be in favor of this proposal, then?

We would be, and are, among the most seriously affected indeed. However, the proposal "OUTLAWS [...] the discharge of ballast water in coastal waters or internal waterways" without making any distinction between treated and untreated water.

[Steve Jobs]

I say let nature be. I am against it.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I say let nature be. I am against it.

If you want to let nature be, then you should be the first one to vote for this proposal. Invasive species are, by their very definition, human interference with nature, and this resolution is an attempt to stop that.

IRL, I've seen forests being overrun with Japanese Knotweed, forests that were once covered in trees now filled with a "forest" of Knotweed. It's a sad site, and it's definitely something that should be prevented.

[Capitalist Producers]

Why oh why can't this waste of paperwork die and stay dead.

The biggest problem with this worthless piece of environmental tripe is this clause:

PROHIBITS the transfer of invasive species from one nation to another - member nations shall work actively to prevent the transfer of invasive species across their borders through all means necessary, except through closing national borders;

The way I read that, it requires Capitalist Producers to open and inspect sealed containers just passing through our nation. Aside from the diplomatic and legal problems, that goes against the very fiber of our nation. That part about minding our own business is really big here. Under no circumstances will we be searching freight that does not originate from or is destined for our nation.

But what the heck. If it passes, as with all the other WA tripe, we will simply find a way to cheat the system.

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We find our selves opposed to this new proposal, though we were in favour of the repealed one, despite its weaknesses. Our specific objections are the following."

DEFINES "invasive species" as any non-sapient species posing a serious risk of causing detrimental effects upon being introduced to a new environment;

"This is a very weak definition, not the least because it could be argued to apply to any and every non-native species. Additionally, it only refers to species - it is entirely possible to have, for example, a subspecies of an organism that has been modified by sapients for one purpose, to escape into the wild and wipe out the "native" type. The species - by the official definition of species - will still be the same, but only in the "unnatural" form."

Member nations shall treat ballast water on ocean going vessels to kill any invasive species that may be present,

"As mentioned by others, if you aren't allowed to discharge ballast water into the nature anyway, why require treating it? This is merely more costs to the shipping industry for no gain. It would only make sense if ballast water treatment was the alternative to needing to keep it in tightly sealed containers."

Member nations shall screen imported species to determine whether such species pose a risk of becoming an invasive species or spreading disease

"As we mentioned on the part about the definition, a member nation could declare any and all non-native species as hazardous and thus forbid importing them. Risk-assessing is a long and expensive process - would this be paid for by the member nation, the WA or the would-be-importer?"

Member nations shall develop specialized response units to eliminate or remove invasive species from the environment;

"Even if a particular member nation does not have any?"

PROHIBITS the transfer of invasive species from one nation to another

"But what if that "invasive species" is a native to one of the nations in question? They would not count it to be an invasive species. Again, is all responsibility and cost being put on the receiving nation?"

member nations shall work actively to prevent the transfer of invasive species across their borders through all means necessary except through closing national borders;

"We cannot accept the WA forbidding us from closing our national borders to imports from one or more of the other WA nations."

OUTLAWS practices of the shipping industry conducive to the accidental spread of invasive species, namely the discharge of ballast water in coastal waters or internal waterways and use of inadequate vessel-cleaning procedures;

"We already pointed out the absurdity of having two parts of the proposal targeting ballast water. Furthermore, wouldn't the "inadequacy" of vessel-cleaning procedures be proved only after the accidental spread of organisms has already happened. Up until then it might be considered perfectly adequate.

Additionally, why this focusing on shipping industry? Why no mention of tourists bringing souveniers that turn out to contain a deadly disease or be hiding viable organisms without their knowledge? Why no mention of railway, air travel or wheeled transport? If ballast water can transport waterborne organisms, then certainly airborne ones can be transported by a plane, or in the dirt or dust of a train or a truck? It would have been more constructive to make general guidelines to apply all transfer modes, rather than single out the water traffick."

[Slafstopia]

member nations shall work actively to prevent the transfer of invasive species across their borders through all means necessary except through closing national borders;

"We cannot accept the WA forbidding us from closing our national borders to imports from one or more of the other WA nations."

As I understand it, that doesn't ban you from closing your national borders to imports from any nations, unless you're using it as a measure to stop invasive species.

[Araraukar]

As I understand it, that doesn't ban you from closing your national borders to imports from any nations, unless you're using it as a measure to stop invasive species.

That's exactly the bit that makes no sense - why wouldn't you be allowed to close your borders to stop an invasive species? An extreme measure of course, but sometimes needed.

[Riasy]

As I understand it, that doesn't ban you from closing your national borders to imports from any nations, unless you're using it as a measure to stop invasive species.

That's exactly the bit that makes no sense - why wouldn't you be allowed to close your borders to stop an invasive species? An extreme measure of course, but sometimes needed.

It is a result of hasty correction of much greater problem with the previous version of this clause. Of course it would have been much better to completely rework it, but at least now this clause isn't outright fatal for member nations, but simply inconvenient:

PROHIBITS the transfer of invasive species from one nation to another - member nations shall work actively to prevent the transfer of invasive species across their borders through all means necessary;

I’m deeply sorry for spotting the potential problem only after you have already submitted the resolution, but this clause troubles me. I fear that it can force member-nations to completely shut their borders to exclude any possibility that invasive species will ever be transferred across their borders. After all, member-nations are obliged by this clause to use “all means necessary” for prevention of such transfers, and such closure probably will be the most reliable way to completely prevent them.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Araraukar]

Of course it would have been much better to completely rework it, but at least now this clause isn't outright fatal for member nations, but simply inconvenient:

PROHIBITS the transfer of invasive species from one nation to another - member nations shall work actively to prevent the transfer of invasive species across their borders through all means necessary;

And better yet would've been "through any and all means [the member nation in question] deems necessary". As it is, it's still a flaw, and one that should and will be brought up, unless changed.

[The Oan Isles]

OoC: I may not have not read the law clearly so do forgive me if I may seem ignorant of Ceni and Icamera's mission. I voted against this law because there weren't significant changes or more elaboration upon the more important definitions in the law which affected the articulation or lack thereof. I was going to say more but I suppose a summary of my points is better than a longwinded paragraph explaining each one individually.
EDIT: Considering the disappointment of the first paragraph I didn't bother reading the rest. I meant no disrespect though.
EDIT TWO: Money doesn't grow off trees you know. The measures presented (apart from contradicting domestic legislation) are inconvenient and expensive to implement and consequently will most likely be ignored. The WA has't created any means to finance it's projects and taxation is out of the question. HQ is already such a mess and in a state of disrepair.

[Riasy]

Of course it would have been much better to completely rework it, but at least now this clause isn't outright fatal for member nations, but simply inconvenient:

And better yet would've been "through any and all means [the member nation in question] deems necessary". As it is, it's still a flaw, and one that should and will be brought up, unless changed.

I don’t think that your wording would make much sense. Your version says that member nations will be allowed to do absolutely nothing against the transfers of invasive species. They simply need to claim that they consider absence of actions to be the only thing that is necessary for prevention of transfers of invasive species.

This issue demonstrates that it isn't easy task to formulate clauses accurately. Current version of resolution isn’t perfect, but at least it seems to be free from glaring loopholes or fatal mistakes.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Araraukar]

The WA has't created any means to finance it's projects and taxation is out of the question. HQ is already such a mess and in a state of disrepair.

Except, you know, the GAR #17, WA General Fund.

[Araraukar]

I don’t think that your wording would make much sense.

"Any and all means necessary" means the member nation would be allowed to do anything up to and including stopping every person on the border to search them and irradiate their belongings, closing their borders to imports from a member nation or nations known to have troubles with invasive species, or take a flamethrower at anything that moves outside of the carefully controlled border crossings.

[Riasy]

I don’t think that your wording would make much sense.

"Any and all means necessary" means the member nation would be allowed to do anything up to and including stopping every person on the border to search them and irradiate their belongings, closing their borders to imports from a member nation or nations known to have troubles with invasive species, or take a flamethrower at anything that moves outside of the carefully controlled border crossings.

And the current wording actually obliges member-nations to do all these things... I start to experience some doubts about this resolution. Sigh...

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Araraukar]

And the current wording actually obliges member-nations to do all these things...

The current wording forbids the closing of borders.

[Riasy]

True, but the use of flamethrowers is still obligatory. Shudder...

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.