[PASSED] Marine Debris Accord

[Discoveria]

"Your navy still uses depth charges?"

Sadly our defence budget has been cut to fund compliance with General Assembly resolutions.

OOC: But I think the objection still applies to anti-sub missiles and more generally this resolution prohibits most forms of naval warfare.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Your navy still uses depth charges?"

Sadly our defence budget has been cut to fund compliance with General Assembly resolutions. :(

"There are no WA resolutions banning the use of anti-submarine missiles."

[Bears Armed]

'Against', reluctantly.
This proposal really could have benefited from a longer drafting process.

For example, what about emergency situations where jettisoning some cargo is necessary in order to keep the ship afloat, and that cargo (for example, a 'deck cargo' of chemically-untreated timber) would not pose a serious environmental threat: As written, this proposal would forbid that process even if the ship sinking instead would result not only in that cargo entering the sea anyhows but potentially also -- in addition to any loss of life and economic losses directly involved -- a worse environmental problem than that potentially-jettisoned cargo alone?

[Mundiferrum]

Member nations must enact legislation to deter the loss of fishing nets, lines, and other hazardous fishing-related equipment

The issue at that point is less an issue of the fishermen being inherently stupid or ignorant, and more their fishing equipment being permanently hazardous. Instead of telling member nations to be all "make laws to stop this", would it not have been better to tell them to clean up their acts, and use nets that degrade relatively easily, or would just fall into the ocean and stay there (not move around and be a practical fish-mower, that is)?
Also, I just realized that the whole net problem might very well fall into the purview of "Endangered Species Protection". Actually, this whole resolution could literally be seen as being part of WA#66, plus maybe the other resolutions regarding habitat protection (like "Protecting Migratory Animals", the oceans being a massive medium of migration)

Member nations must enact minimal legislation barring citizens from littering or otherwise leaving debris in coastal areas--primarily beaches.

Better to have termed this so that the coastal areas are areas which, when littered upon, will have a specific impact on the environment; this doesn't exactly exclude areas from which the oceans can be easily accessed by people, but can also be easily protected from actual debris.

Member nations must enforce a ban on all intentional discharges of debris from ships, save for the discharge of properly treated sewage.

I refer to the Bears' note above. Also, what if the debris is itself meant to help the environment (since debris doesn't seem to be that well defined here, one could assume that marine probes used in monitoring the oceans were debris...yes, pretty far out, but to dispose of could mean to arrange into an orderly way, and an especially mean-spirited nation could be a big butthole and all that)

"There are no WA resolutions banning the use of anti-submarine missiles."

I just realized that this effectively could, though, since by the resolution's vague definition, depth charges could be counted as debris (and even if marine debris was defined more strictly, since the resulting catastrophes would lead to the creation of marine debris....)

[New DeCapito]

I like it, but didn't we just have something very like this?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"There are no WA resolutions banning the use of anti-submarine missiles."

I just realized that this effectively could, though, since by the resolution's vague definition, depth charges could be counted as debris (and even if marine debris was defined more strictly, since the resulting catastrophes would lead to the creation of marine debris....)

"As I already said I would be surprised to find modern navies using depth charges. And anti-submarine missiles don't meet the definition of debris, because they are not being 'discarded'. There is no ban on creating debris in the resolution, merely on discharging it from a ship, so blowing up a submarine would also not be illegal.

"We don't think the terms of this proposal are completely practical or advisable, but have decided to support it and look forward to its passage."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

How important is the forum?

Not very.

[Elke and Elba]

I assure you that Fisherman don't need laws telling them not to lose the nets that cost them into the hundreds of bits,

Yes, they do. Ghost nets are a major environmental concern.

~~~ AQ ~~~

Do you happen to be Wilorin?

It's suspicious that you've suddenly appeared after a long silence - and Wilorin the author has the same modus operandi of submitting drafts as fast as you do, without concern of the forums.

[The Two Jerseys]

'Against', reluctantly.
This proposal really could have benefited from a longer drafting process.

For example, what about emergency situations where jettisoning some cargo is necessary in order to keep the ship afloat, and that cargo (for example, a 'deck cargo' of chemically-untreated timber) would not pose a serious environmental threat: As written, this proposal would forbid that process even if the ship sinking instead would result not only in that cargo entering the sea anyhows but potentially also -- in addition to any loss of life and economic losses directly involved -- a worse environmental problem than that potentially-jettisoned cargo alone?

Indeed, this scenario was the first thing we thought of when reading this proposal.

Also, this appears to prohibit burials at sea.

[Defwa]

'Against', reluctantly.
This proposal really could have benefited from a longer drafting process.

For example, what about emergency situations where jettisoning some cargo is necessary in order to keep the ship afloat, and that cargo (for example, a 'deck cargo' of chemically-untreated timber) would not pose a serious environmental threat: As written, this proposal would forbid that process even if the ship sinking instead would result not only in that cargo entering the sea anyhows but potentially also -- in addition to any loss of life and economic losses directly involved -- a worse environmental problem than that potentially-jettisoned cargo alone?

Indeed, this scenario was the first thing we thought of when reading this proposal.

Also, this appears to prohibit burials at sea.

A body may be considered waste, so a body properly treated (which has no definition) would be okay to bury at sea.
But I suppose not with possessions.

[Chester Pearson]

Indeed, this scenario was the first thing we thought of when reading this proposal.

Also, this appears to prohibit burials at sea.

A body may be considered waste, so a body properly treated (which has no definition) would be okay to bury at sea.
But I suppose not with possessions.

Human bodies are some of the most toxic substances in existence.....

[Defwa]

A body may be considered waste, so a body properly treated (which has no definition) would be okay to bury at sea.
But I suppose not with possessions.

Human bodies are some of the most toxic substances in existence.....

But under the proposal, spraying air freshener on feces makes it good to go. Basically just making a note for future drafting. I look forward to supporting it later.

[The Two Jerseys]

Indeed, this scenario was the first thing we thought of when reading this proposal.

Also, this appears to prohibit burials at sea.

A body may be considered waste, so a body properly treated (which has no definition) would be okay to bury at sea.
But I suppose not with possessions.

But usually they bury the body stitched up in canvas, so it would still be a no-no.

[Chester Pearson]

A body may be considered waste, so a body properly treated (which has no definition) would be okay to bury at sea.
But I suppose not with possessions.

But usually they bury the body stitched up in canvas, so it would still be a no-no.

Coat that canvas in biological material and it is totally legal.

OOC: The reason I campaigned for this one is so Universal Jurisdiction would get held up. I seriously did not expect this one to pass, and dearly hope someone is working on a repeal, so this can be replaced by a better resolution....

[Pastiothea]

I think, if more proposals of this kind, which try to destroy small economics, then i will think about make a dualistic system, which try to Opposite to the World Assembly. I will not listen to people, which only vote, not read the Props or do not read Between lines. I think, this Prop must be at least edited about it funding, because this is total bull.... decidem what is it. It is on you. As i say it previous.

People are very mad, that WA will accept this proposal. I am not declarating, that People of Pastiothea will remanin Peacefull and Friendly. They do not wanna let goverment use their Taxes for this kind of useless Prop.

Yours Pastiothea

[Defwa]

I think, if more proposals of this kind, which try to destroy small economics, then i will think about make a dualistic system, which try to Opposite to the World Assembly. I will not listen to people, which only vote, not read the Props or do not read Between lines. I think, this Prop must be at least edited about it funding, because this is total bull.... decidem what is it. It is on you. As i say it previous.

People are very mad, that WA will accept this proposal. I am not declarating, that People of Pastiothea will remanin Peacefull and Friendly. They do not wanna let goverment use their Taxes for this kind of useless Prop.

Yours Pastiothea

Was that english? Ambassador, speak directly into the universal translator.
Also this proposal has a pretty low cost relatively. I look forward to a speedy repeal and replace.

[Eldridge Crossings]

I hate to say this, I understand this proposal but this proposal is very dangerous due to key error in its definition. It can used for the wrong reason. Here are the problems.
1)Defines marine debris as being any material unable of rapid degradation having been intentionally or unintentionally disposed of or discarded in any marine environment;......Humans and living things can now be considered as debris because they dont degrad fast enough and nations can therefore use this law as a weapon or defense.

2) Since the industry is paying for this they can have someone killed at their expense if they dont like them.

[The Dolphin Isles]

How does this proposal affect artificial reefs? Some nations place decommissioned public utilities and vehicles like old subway trams and old battleships underwater so that their debris can provide the base for a coral reef. According to this bill, this process would be outlawed even everything potentially harmful was taken off of the artificial reef.

[Gepartia]

What about wrecked ships and other items used to create reefs?

[Bears Armed]

Coat that canvas in biological material and it is totally legal.

There's usually some kind of weight added, too, so that the body actually sinks instead of just floating around until it washes ashore somewhere... and those weights seem unlikely to qualify as legal, especially as the people conducting the burial obviously wouldn't want to use quickly-degraded materials for that purpose.

_____________________________________________________

Also, wouldn't the wording of the clause that requires member nations to pass "minimal" legislation on one aspect of this overall topic block them from passing anything more than "minimal" legislation on that aspect?

[Imperium Anglorum]

How about the fact that the thing says 'All Businesses' when it's clearly a marine-related thing. Sure, there will be indirect costs, but they will not be major.

[Defwa]

How about the fact that the thing says 'All Businesses' when it's clearly a marine-related thing. Sure, there will be indirect costs, but they will not be major.

OOC: system limitations. There is not a Marine area of effect

[Imperium Anglorum]

How about the fact that the thing says 'All Businesses' when it's clearly a marine-related thing. Sure, there will be indirect costs, but they will not be major.

OOC: system limitations. There is not a Marine area of effect

OOC: Solid. No issue there. Then, I have nothing really to say other than what has already been said. This bill really just overdoes the green beans.

[Rossiania]

The Rossianian democratic government agree with this bill as we advertised it on our network across the country. The people want this change for the better now that we live in a world that wants to protect special resources and landmarks. This international law is going to help all of us, even if the corrupted lands that exist. We know for a fact that our island is going to advocate for more renewable alternatives for the future. We approve this law.

The Democratic States of Rossiania

[Separatist Peoples]

The Rossianian democratic government agree with this bill as we advertised it on our network across the country. The people want this change for the better now that we live in a world that wants to protect special resources and landmarks. This international law is going to help all of us, even if the corrupted lands that exist. We know for a fact that our island is going to advocate for more renewable alternatives for the future. We approve this law.

The Democratic States of Rossiania

"If you believe that, you suffer from serious reading impediments, ambassador..."

[Eldridge Crossings]

The Rossianian democratic government agree with this bill as we advertised it on our network across the country. The people want this change for the better now that we live in a world that wants to protect special resources and landmarks. This international law is going to help all of us, even if the corrupted lands that exist. We know for a fact that our island is going to advocate for more renewable alternatives for the future. We approve this law.

The Democratic States of Rossiania

I truly dont understand how its protecting anything when it legally give the ability to destory anything that doesnt rot away fast enough such as humans...