NationStates

I am hoping to submit a General Assembly resolution, but I've never done this before, and I'm not incredibly experienced with NationStates--Ive only been here for a few months. I was hoping to get the help of the forum community in reviewing and revising my proposal, Marine Debris Accord.

Marine Debris Accord
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Manufacturing
Proposed by: Wilorin

Defines marine debris as being any material unable of rapid degradation having been intentionally or unintentionally disposed of or discarded in any marine environment;

States that intentional debris discharge is the result of deplorable environmental apathy;

States that unintentional debris abandonment is the result of preventable negligence;

Recognizes the threat that marine debris poses to aquatic species, primarily through reduced body weight, clogging of gizzards (in seabirds), increased risk of disease, starvation by digestive tract blockage, gut ulceration, perforation by sharp debris, and death;

Recognizes the threat that marine debris poses to the marine ecosystem, through the elimination of key species, the interference with natural processes, and the general disturbance of the health of the seas.

Recognizes the threat of marine debris on human safety and health through the transportation of bio-hazards, or the ingestion, entrapment, or physical injury caused by dangerous substances;

Notes the longevity of plastic, microplastics, polystyrene, rubber, sanitary and sewage-related materials, metal, cigarette filters, glass, ceramics, wood, cloth, cardboard, and fishing gear or equipment.

Notes that marine debris can travel many thousands of miles and spread to every local region, regardless of any amount of environmental protection that that local area may employ;

Suggests that marine debris is a global issue that requires a coordinated global effort;

Hereby requires that member nations implement the following policies for the betterment of the health of the marine ecosystems:

1. Member nations must require of all private and public industries minimal waste disposal procedures, so as to ensure that debris does not intentionally or unintentionally enter the marine ecosystem.
2. Member nations must enact minimal legislation barring citizens from littering or otherwise leaving debris in coastal areas--primarily beaches.
3. Member nations must enact legislation to deter the loss of fishing nets, lines, and other hazardous fishing-related equipment.
4. Member nations must maintain basic sewage and waste-water management facilities which do not allow for discharge of untreated waste into oceans or waterways.
5. Member nations must enforce a ban on all intentional discharges of debris from ships, save for the discharge of properly treated sewage.
6. Member nations must take appropriate steps to avoid the escape of debris and waste from coastal landfills.

Hereby forms the International Marine Debris Management Commission (IMDMC), and tasks it with the following duties:

1. Analysis of the current state of the marine environment, and quantification of the current status of the oceans, specifically relating to marine debris.
2. Provide available consultation to member nations for implementation of required policies.
3. Establish basic outreach programs to inform the global public of the dangers of marine debris.
4. Encourage member nations to collaborate and coordinate efforts in the prevention of intentionally and unintentionally discharged marine debris.
5. Implement comprehensive and continually adaptive action plans to protect the marine environment from marine debris.

Interesting concept; it's too late in the day for me to offer anything substantive but I will read-through further.

One thought: committee-averse as I am, could the duties of the International Marine Debris Management Commission (IMDMC) not be folded into those of the Joint Water Resources Management Panel (JWRMP)?

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:2) FORMS the Joint Water Resources Management Panel (JWRMP) to establish sustainable water use policies, cooperation protocols, and other regulations necessary to protect transboundary water resources,

Aligned Planets wrote:Interesting concept; it's too late in the day for me to offer anything substantive but I will read-through further.

One thought: committee-averse as I am, could the duties of the International Marine Debris Management Commission (IMDMC) not be folded into those of the Joint Water Resources Management Panel (JWRMP)?

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:2) FORMS the Joint Water Resources Management Panel (JWRMP) to establish sustainable water use policies, cooperation protocols, and other regulations necessary to protect transboundary water resources,

You bring up an excellent point, regarding the use of the JWRMP as the management committee rather than the IMDMC. I had reviewed all environmental resolutions while drafting this proposal, and I had thought--only for a second--about tasking this panel with the management of marine debris, but because the committee is essentially regulating the use of resources, it seemed illogical to task it with regulatory duties of marine ecosystem health.

This is a very interesting and important aspect! You have my full support. However, is it very necessary to use member nations since WA legislation applies to all nations whether they are in the WA or not

William Empire wrote:However, is it very necessary to use member nations since WA legislation applies to all nations whether they are in the WA or not

Really? Since when? First you waste time trying to condemn your own puppet, and then you come in here and completely change the rules of the WA. Will your achievements never cease?

William Empire wrote:This is a very interesting and important aspect! You have my full support. However, is it very necessary to use member nations since WA legislation applies to all nations whether they are in the WA or not

You're only slightly mistaken. WA resolutions only apply to WA members. Because of this, I thought using "member nations" was a helpful clarification in the resolution, though not completely necessary, as many WA members recognize that it would apply only to them.
I'm glad to hear that you would support my resolution, when I submit it in the next few weeks!

Chester Pearson wrote:

William Empire wrote:However, is it very necessary to use member nations since WA legislation applies to all nations whether they are in the WA or not

Really? Since when? First you waste time trying to condemn your own puppet, and then you come in here and completely change the rules of the WA. Will your achievements never cease?

I was mistaken on my understanding of the WA FAQ's, my apologies, and Orbilium is not my puppet nation, which your eyes are clearly too small to see.

William Empire wrote:

Chester Pearson wrote:
Really? Since when? First you waste time trying to condemn your own puppet, and then you come in here and completely change the rules of the WA. Will your achievements never cease?

I was mistaken on my understanding of the WA FAQ's, my apologies, and Orbilium is not my puppet nation, which your eyes are clearly too small to see.

I do find it interesting that you should chose to insult people based on their eyesight, where others might have insulted intelligence or competence.
I should ask you to move this conflict to another vehicle of communication, so that the forum can be used to discuss WA resolutions.

OOC: This is a very interesting draft, my compliments. However, there's no such thing as "Environment, Significant". You have to choose an "Industry Affected": Manufacturing or Fishing would be the most likely here, if you want to avoid the dreaded All Businesses. You also have a few typos, such as "herby" instead of "hereby", that a spellchecker won't necessarily pick up.

IC:

"Our delegation would support legislation on waste dumping at sea. However, we feel environmental laws should have an international focus. If one nation wants to litter their beaches, that is less of a problem than if that nation wants to pollute another nation's waters, or international waters. Therefore, we would prefer the focus be concentrated on prohibiting dumping of debris in international waters or in a manner likely to affect other nations (whether by flowing into their waters, disrupting migratory populations, or creating unstable biohazards). Ocean currents mean in many cases these laws would need to be quite sweeping, of course, so it wouldn't significantly water down the proposal to retain such a focus."

~ Carmelo Van Ploppington
Environmental Attache

Wilorin wrote:Herby requires that member nations implement the following policies for the betterment of the health of the marine ecosystems....

Herby forms the International Marine Debris Management Commission (IMDMC)....

Well now. It's been awhile since I've been asked to do anything. Still... no thank you.

I have now submitted my proposed resolution, and it can be approved here:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=wilorin_1420696417
This is an important resolution which should absolutely be brought to quorum, and I thank you for your support.

Wilorin wrote:I have now submitted my proposed resolution, and it can be approved here:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=wilorin_1420696417
This is an important resolution which should absolutely be brought to quorum, and I thank you for your support.

"Drafting can take weeks or even months. You submitted this far too soon. It shan't have my support, certainly not without considerable further drafting."

"This is an interesting proposal that would have benefited from much more thorough drafting and I do hope you'll reconsider submitting it and return it for further drafting. That said, we will judge it on its merits should it go to vote."

~ Carmelo Van Ploppington
Environmental Attache

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Our delegation would support legislation on waste dumping at sea. However, we feel environmental laws should have an international focus. If one nation wants to litter their beaches, that is less of a problem than if that nation wants to pollute another nation's waters, or international waters. Therefore, we would prefer the focus be concentrated on prohibiting dumping of debris in international waters or in a manner likely to affect other nations (whether by flowing into their waters, disrupting migratory populations, or creating unstable biohazards). Ocean currents mean in many cases these laws would need to be quite sweeping, of course, so it wouldn't significantly water down the proposal to retain such a focus."

~ Carmelo Van Ploppington
Environmental Attache

The Nation of McMatter agrees with this proposal and support the general purpose of this proposal, however do share the same concerns as the honourable Carmelo Van Ploppington of The Dark Star Republic. Coastal beaches should not be the only concern as many rivers are shared waterways with other nations or feed directly into the oceans. Perhaps a rewording that point along the lines of "Member nations must enact minimal legislation barring citizens from dumping or otherwise leaving debris in or near international waterways"

I have approved this proposal even though I believe it could benefit from a week or two more of drafting.

When i read this, i can say, that Pastiothea, even if the Proposal will pass in Vote will not accept it, and will do it in the same way, as it is now. We have no funds, to create this kind of mechanism. If WA will donate small countries with Weak Economics, then we will do it. But Before accepting it, please, create an Enviromental Fund.

People of Pastiothea are Against.

OOC: Last minute telegram push by your buddy to get it to quorum, nice.

IC: Clover groaned "This is nothing more than feel good nonsense. I assure you that Fisherman don't need laws telling them not to lose the nets that cost them into the hundreds of bits, and further question why you feel littering on the beach is a concern yet ignore other waterways.

In any case, standing orders from the Princess require me to vote against job-killing environmental legislation, and there is nothing here that will allow me to convince her otherwise on this issue. Opposed and voted as such"

Normlpeople wrote:OOC: Last minute telegram push by your buddy to get it to quorum, nice.

OCC: Actually that was me. I only pushed it to keep Auralia's proposal from going to vote.

Chester Pearson wrote:

Normlpeople wrote:OOC: Last minute telegram push by your buddy to get it to quorum, nice.

OCC: Actually that was me. I only pushed it to keep Auralia's proposal from going to vote.

OOC: Thnk you for that

Normlpeople wrote: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 ~~~

The People's Republic of Chostea applauds this resolution!

It would also like to draw attention to microplastics, which are extremely dangerous as they are toxic and can land in individuals that eat seafood. Microplastics are consumed by smaller creatures, where the plastic eventually works its way up the food chain.

Kohlandia is voting against this motion. It is a violation of our basic principles of law to prosecute someone for unintentional destruction of the environment, potentially thousands of miles away from whatever action caused the unintentional damage, where the likelihood is that they are simply the latest in a long line of causes. Put simply, we won't prosecute the straw that broke the camel's back when others people put other straws on the camel over time.

Furthermore, we see no way this law can be used properly, as there can only be a clear chain of events leading from the unintentional violation to the damage in specific, limited circumstances. In all other cases, it will be a case of trial by media; trial because there's no clear culprit but the defendant looks the most guilty; or no trial at all, which renders the law useless.

If the law had been limited to intentional destruction of the environment, this may have been a different story.

Somewhere in the South China Sea

"Sir! We've detected a Bigtopian submarine closing on our position! Torpedoes fired! Should we retaliate with depth charges?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"We're prohibited from discarding our non-biodegradable depth charges in this marine environment. Don't you know that those things pose a hazard to the gizzards of seabirds? We have to wait for the enemy submarine to surface and then hit it. Possibly with lasers, in case bullets fall into the water... At least until our Treated Sewage Launcher is ready for deployment..."

Discoveria wrote:"We're prohibited from discarding our non-biodegradable depth charges in this marine environment

Oh I wish there was a "like" button.

Discoveria wrote:Somewhere in the South China Sea

"Sir! We've detected a Bigtopian submarine closing on our position! Torpedoes fired! Should we retaliate with depth charges?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"We're prohibited from discarding our non-biodegradable depth charges in this marine environment. Don't you know that those things pose a hazard to the gizzards of seabirds? We have to wait for the enemy submarine to surface and then hit it. Possibly with lasers, in case bullets fall into the water... At least until our Treated Sewage Launcher is ready for deployment..."

"Your navy still uses depth charges?"