[PASSED] Ocean Noise Reduction

[Imperium Anglorum]

 

Ocean Noise Reduction
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Business

---

Whereas significant increases in the level of ocean noise have occurred over the last century due to the increasing use of oceanic sea routes, the expansion of navies, and fossil fuel exploration:

And whereas the oceans are international territory, meaning that protection thereof is a 'tragedy of the commons' issue which can only be solved by collective regulation:

And whereas it is the case that such noise,

1. massively reduces fish populations, thereby reducing catches, putting strain on fisheries and threatening many coastal fishing industries,
2. even when ambient, drowns out sonic communication, making it difficult for marine life to communicate food sources and locations, breed, etc. creating problems in survivability of adult specimens all whilst limiting marine life habitats,
3. can rupture swim bladders and kill zooplankton larvae, threatening the food sources of other populations along the food chain:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Member nations shall require that all maritime propulsion systems built or retrofitted after the passage of this resolution (a) include the addition of sound mufflers and (b) comply with international regulations on marine propulsion noise. Ships possessing propulsion systems which do not comply to these requirements shall be assessed a fine, consistent with their noise output, to be included in docking fees.
   
   
2. The World Assembly Nautical Commission shall keep records of data gathered from seismic airburst surveys of the ocean floor. Where necessary to avoid 'free rider' issues, member nations are permitted to grant time-limited exclusive drilling rights to areas in which firms explore in exchange (amongst other things) for data recovered from such surveys. It may also make regulations referenced in section 1, cognisant of trade-offs between economic feasibility and associated reductions in ocean noise.
   
   
3. Member nations shall prohibit blast fishing and the oceanic testing of weapons of mass destruction.
   
   
4. Member nations are encouraged to:
   
   1. refrain from the use of active military sonar outside of wartime,
   2. reduce the geographic distribution of shipping lanes and take actions to reduce the geographic spread of shipping so as to increase the area of marine life habitats, and
   3. take further actions to reduce the level of ocean noise.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Clearly a bit of a back-burner project. There are a number of different questions which I want to solve first, but this certainly could pop into the queue when you least expect it.

Anyway, a few notes.

The majority of my priorities vis-à-vis ocean noise sources are derived from research here, in Table 2.

Now, to deal with the militarists. The inclusion of the prohibition on explosive weapons was changed from a blanket ban to those areas where 'such a test could reasonably pose a threat to marine life'. The inclusion of the prohibition on oceanic testing of WMDs was included because UFoC's resolution on nuclear testing (stupidly, but what did you expect walking in with a guy who thought gamma rays weren't photons and make up radiation belts) only covers open atmospheric testing, space testing, and situations where people civilians or governmental personnel are harmed.

Section 1, in the sentence on fines assessed, deals with the problem of tying to extend WA regulations to non-WA member nations. It's basically an incentive structure for all ships entering WA jurisdiction. Furthermore, the regulations themselves are effective, as they would have a considerable effect on background ocean noise.

Section 2(a) talks primarily about the use of airburst equipment to survey areas for fossil fuels in preparation for offshore drilling. I thought about the possibility of simply handing all the information to a committee, before realising that would lead to a huge free rider problem in which nobody drills. That's there is a exclusive drilling grant, time-limited, of course.

There are problems with the use of military sonar in contributing to ocean noise. However, I don't think it would be possible to ask member nations to abandon technologies feasibly used to defend themselves, which is why there is an encouragement against overuse outside of wartime.

---

Whereas significant increases in the level of ocean noise have occurred over the last century due to the increasing use of oceanic sea routes, the expansion of navies, and fossil fuel exploration:

And whereas the oceans are generally considered to be international territory, protection of which is fundamentally a 'tragedy of the commons' issue, therefore requiring government regulation, as a solution through the distribution of property rights such that the internalisation of an externality is effected so as to minimise externality effects beyond the direct participants through rational agreement or limitation thereof is unacceptable to the many stakeholders:

And whereas it is the case that such noise,

1. massively reduces fish populations, thereby reducing catches, putting strain on fisheries and threatening many coastal fishing industries,
2. even when ambient, drowns out sonic communication, making it difficult for marine life to communicate food sources and locations, breed, etc. creating problems in survivability of adult specimens all whilst limiting marine life habitats,
3. kills zooplankton larvae, threatening the food sources of larger fish:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Member nations shall require that all ships built after the passage of this resolution include (a) the addition of sound mufflers on their propellers and propulsion systems and (b) compliance with international standards on marine propulsion noise. All ships built after the passage of this resolution which fail to comply to these requirements, shall be assessed a fine for that non-compliance, to be included in docking fees.
   
   
2. The World Assembly Nautical Commission shall
   
   1. keep records of data gathered from seismic airburst surveys of the ocean floor. Where necessary to avoid free rider issues, member nations are permitted to grant time-limited exclusive drilling rights to areas in which firms explore, in exchange (amongst other things) for data recovered from such surveys.
   2. create the international standards in section 1, with reference to the economic feasibility of such standards and associated reductions in ocean noise.
3. Member nations shall prohibit blast fishing, the test of explosive weapons in areas in which such a test could reasonably pose a threat to marine life, and the oceanic testing of weapons of mass destruction.
   
   
4. Member nations are encouraged to
   
   1. refrain from the use of active sonar pulses outside of wartime,
   2. reduce the geographic distribution of shipping lanes and take actions to reduce the geographic spread of shipping so as to increase the area of marine life habitats,
   3. take further actions to reduce the level of ocean noise.

[Aclion]

Celice: Hmm I see a few issues, subsection 1.b could be separated into two subsections-
Adrianne: I think that might be a typographical error...
Celice: Well regardless I'd like to propose a revision since I also notice ships docking in our ports are fined for non-compliance regardless of whether they are compliant.

1. Member nations shall require that all ships built after the passage of this resolution include (a) the addition of sound mufflers on their propellers and propulsion systems and (b) compliance with international standards on marine propulsion noise. (c) All ships built after the passage of this resolution which are not in compliance with international standards which dock in member nation ports will be assessed a fine for non-compliance with these regulations, to be included in docking fees.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie MW: I hope the changes to section 1 are satisfactory.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Give up on 'whereas.' And the be it enacted as follows crap. Totally unnecessary frivolity."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Give up on 'whereas.' And the be it enacted as follows crap. Totally unnecessary frivolity."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/1917

BE IT ENACTED by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :

[Separatist Peoples]

"Give up on 'whereas.' And the be it enacted as follows crap. Totally unnecessary frivolity."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/1917

"Unnecessary frivolity."

[Imperium Anglorum]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/1917

"Unnecessary frivolity."

Universal jurisdiction. EDIT: And to quote the President of the United States of America, 'It just got 10 feet taller'.

[Aclion]

"Give up on 'whereas.' And the be it enacted as follows crap. Totally unnecessary frivolity."

edit as needed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Seconds ago: The United Commonwealth of Imperium Anglorum withdrew a proposal from the WA General Assembly titled "Length Test".
Seconds ago: The United Commonwealth of Imperium Anglorum submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Environmental Board entitled "Length Test".

A short dump into Pages, it seems to currently be at 2 688 characters.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Two queries for GA Secretariat members:

And whereas the oceans are generally considered to be international territory, protection of which is fundamentally a 'tragedy of the commons' issue, therefore requiring government regulation, as a Coasian solution with the suitable allocation of property rights is unacceptable to the many stakeholders:

Real life reference? It's a term used in economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Metagaming to reference Delegates? It is used in this context in 1 GA, and others.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=312&hilit=delegate#p312
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=347352&hilit=delegates#p347352
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=5466214&hilit=delegates#p5466214

[Bakhton]

"We support as written, however, we wonder what amount the fine would be and what organization would do the fining. The WACC? The WANC?"

[Aclion]

"We support as written, however, we wonder what amount the fine would be and what organization would do the fining. The WACC? The WANC?"

We were under the impression that member nations would be doing the fining. They are our ports afterall, and it's our water that are affected by non-compliant vessels traveling in them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We support as written, however, we wonder what amount the fine would be and what organization would do the fining. The WACC? The WANC?"

We were under the impression that member nations would be doing the fining. They are our ports afterall, and it's our water that are affected by non-compliant vessels traveling in them.

I was to say something of this sort, as that is the idea.

[Bears Armed]

Two queries for GA Secretariat members:

And whereas the oceans are generally considered to be international territory, protection of which is fundamentally a 'tragedy of the commons' issue, therefore requiring government regulation, as a Coasian solution with the suitable allocation of property rights is unacceptable to the many stakeholders:

Real life reference? It's a term used in economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

I think so. The general guideline is "Is it normally written [in English] with upper-case first letter?"

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Metagaming to reference Delegates? It is used in this context in 1 GA, and others.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=312&hilit=delegate#p312
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=347352&hilit=delegates#p347352
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=5466214&hilit=delegates#p5466214

Although I think that mention of Delegates (and also of Regions, therefore) should be allowed, because of the delegates' recognized importance in approving & voting on proposed resolutions, official consensus currently seems to say 'Meta-gaming'.
Re your examples, in my opinion GA#1 is so sui generis that it can't be regarded as a precedent for anything: Do you know offhand whether the other two were actually challenged on that point, in which case they would set a precedent for legality, or simply slipped through without the matter being questioned?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think so. The general guideline is "Is it normally written [in English] with upper-case first letter?"

Then a Watt, Joule, and other SI units named after people would be violations. Furthermore, I think it'd be absurd that concepts cannot be referred to by their actual names, as the idea that – under certain circumstances, the distribution of property rights such that the internalisation of an externality is effected so as to minimise externality effects beyond the direct participants, and that where there are low transaction costs, such a state is reached both without reference to initial property right distributions and out of rational actions – doesn't have another term.

Re your examples, in my opinion GA#1 is so sui generis that it can't be regarded as a precedent for anything: Do you know offhand whether the other two were actually challenged on that point, in which case they would set a precedent for legality, or simply slipped through without the matter being questioned?

No mention of the topic in either discussion thread. However, the doctrine of legal construction should apply here – delegate can apply both to Delegates such as, currently, myself and to those ambassadors dispatched to the World Assembly.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Then a Watt, Joule, and other SI units named after people would be violations.

OOC: Actually, watts and joules are lowercase.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Then a Watt, Joule, and other SI units named after people would be violations.

OOC: Actually, watts and joules are lowercase.

OOC: Ditto coulombs, farads, ohms, amperes, volts, newtons (but not Fig Newtons), kelvins...

I'm a bit more on the hardliner side of the regions/delegates question, obviously. Most violations of the delegate bit tend to be explicitly and intentionally referencing gameside matters; I suppose one could interpret "delegates" as (more or less) "ambassadors," but I would personally have to do some pretty uncomfortable mental contortions to do so.

(My colleagues may not necessarily agree with my take, so if you have an argument that persuades them, more power to you.)

[Ransium]

Alright, this isn't exactly my area of environmental expertise, but I'll try to help as I can and be honest about my shortcomings in knowledge:

And whereas the oceans are generally considered to be international territory, protection of which is fundamentally a 'tragedy of the commons' issue, therefore requiring government regulation, as a solution through the distribution of property rights such that the internalisation of an externality is effected so as to minimise externality effects beyond the direct participants through rational agreement or limitation thereof is unacceptable to the many stakeholders:

I really feel like this is a critical part of your resolution. In the past why environmental resolutions are of international scope seems to be a reoccurring question among opposition even when the answer seems self-evident (to me). This really dense and really baroquely worded. I've had several college level classes on environmental policy/economics and although your overall thrust I could deduce on a first read, it took me several to completely grasp what you were driving at. Although this may fall on deaf ears (ha!) I highly recommend you rewrite this for great accessibility.

Also, one of the most compelling reasons to me that this is an international issue is the incredibly vast distances acute noise events like sonar and soundings can travel and still be dangerous to wildlife (more than 500 km!). I really think this needs to be more emphasized in your preamble, especially since most of your restrictions pay no regard to whether the noise generation happens in national or international waters.

I was also a bit surprised to see aquatic marine life that uses sound communication was omitted from your preamble since this is one of the most commonly cited impacted life forms and are highly charismatic and therefore likely to be helpful in the persuasiveness of your arguments.

Member nations shall require that all ships built after the passage of this resolution include (a) the addition of sound mufflers on their propellers and propulsion systems and (b) compliance with international standards on marine propulsion noise. All ships built after the passage of this resolution which fail to comply to these requirements, shall be assessed a fine for that non-compliance, to be included in docking fees.

I would think it would be:

...this resolution which fail to comply with these requirements shall be assessed a fine for that noncompliance, to be included in docking fees.

Also, it seems like this would create a perverse economic incentive to keep retrofitting existing ships rather than building news ones depending on the extensiveness of these requirements.

Finally, I like this way of enforcement, however, I would prefer something like "all ships build after the passage of this resolution that dock within their ports". My problem is the current wording to me reads as if the requirement is applied to ships, but in reality, it is a requirement that is applied to member nations ports and the ports intern apply it to the ships.

keep records of data gathered from seismic airburst surveys of the ocean floor. Where necessary to avoid free rider issues, member nations are permitted to grant time-limited exclusive drilling rights to areas in which firms explore, in exchange (amongst other things) for data recovered from such surveys.

This is a HUGE source of oceanic noise IRL. I wonder if what is suggested here may mean multiple nations will survey the same area at the same time just to prevent the other nation for having a competitive advantage. Also, I may be mistaken, but in capitalist societies, I would think this sort of surveying would generally be undertaken by individual companies not national goverments, some language reflecting this reality may be preferable.

Member nations shall prohibit blast fishing, the test of explosive weapons in areas in which such a test could reasonably pose a threat to marine life, and the oceanic testing of weapons of mass destruction.

I think you need to be explicit that 1 and 2 apply to oceans as opposed to national lakes and other non-oceanic water bodies where the need for international regulation is not so clear. Also, the phrase "which such a test could reasonably pose a threat to marine life" seems so incredibly broad to me you might as well make it a blanket ban.

refrain from the use of active sonar pulses outside of wartime,

My (tentative) understanding is not all active sonar pulses are equally impactful and this is a lot more sweeping than you might expect. Most modern commercial fishing vessels are going to have a low powered active sonar system to know where the fish are. The removal of these systems would result in a real loss of efficiency in fishing. I don't think these systems are in the same ball park of being as impactful as military level active sonar system. I also think ports use active sonar pulses for safety, and these systems also might not be as impactful as military level systems.

Hope this helps!

[Imperium Anglorum]

(Regarding the infeasibility of a Coasian solution.) I really feel like this is a critical part of your resolution. In the past why environmental resolutions are of international scope seems to be a reoccurring question among opposition even when the answer seems self-evident (to me). This really dense and really baroquely worded. I've had several college level classes on environmental policy/economics and although your overall thrust I could deduce on a first read, it took me several to completely grasp what you were driving at. Although this may fall on deaf ears (ha!) I highly recommend you rewrite this for great accessibility.

It used to be much simpler, just saying that a Coasian solution to the externality problem would not be possible. Suggestions for explaining in a layman's terms why that is the case are certainly welcomed.

I was also a bit surprised to see aquatic marine life that uses sound communication was omitted from your preamble since this is one of the most commonly cited impacted life forms and are highly charismatic and therefore likely to be helpful in the persuasiveness of your arguments.

Third preamble clause, (b).

...this resolution which fail to comply with these requirements shall be assessed a fine for that noncompliance, to be included in docking fees.

I'll make that change when I get around to it.

Also, it seems like this would create a perverse economic incentive to keep retrofitting existing ships rather than building news ones depending on the extensiveness of these requirements.

Then the mandate could be applied to new or retrofitted propulsion systems.

Also, I may be mistaken, but in capitalist societies, I would think this sort of surveying would generally be undertaken by individual companies not national goverments, some language reflecting this reality may be preferable.

The language does reflect that reality, it explicitly speaks about firms and the granting of exclusive drilling rights in compensation for releasing survey data to the public.

Also, the phrase "which such a test could reasonably pose a threat to marine life" seems so incredibly broad to me you might as well make it a blanket ban.

Hmm. I'd much rather avoid preventing members from testing their ship armour.

My (tentative) understanding is not all active sonar pulses are equally impactful and this is a lot more sweeping than you might expect. Most modern commercial fishing vessels are going to have a low powered active sonar system to know where the fish are.

This is the case. The clause should be applied to military or high power sonar equipment, however it is that can be well defined. Also, one ought note that the clause applies to member nations, not their citizens or the laws thereof, and thus, state actors..

[Imperium Anglorum]

Changes have been effected to address most of what Ransium noted.

I will note that the provision on explosive testing has been removed. Testing would probably only be done by militaries, and therefore, impose an unreasonable burden vis-à-vis the ability for militaries to assess the efficacy of their ship armour. A more broad construction banning the use of large explosives both fails to establish a good metric for what constitutes a large explosive and also would prohibit the use of explosives for, say, digging a canal between Suez and the Red Sea (among other practical purposes).

[Araraukar]

comply with international standards on marine propulsion noise.
*snip*
make the international standards referenced in section 1, with reference to the economic feasibility of such standards and associated reductions in ocean noise.

So... would this bit actually have any impact on anything? Especially considering the "economic feasibility" thing?

[Tzorsland]

Personally I feel that the 'tragedy of the commons' approach is horrible. Unfortunately, my argument is worse. Given the density of water, sound propagation is an order of magnitude better in the medium than in mediums such as air. As a result, all waters, international and national, as long as they are connected are interconnected. The problem of sound is not confined to international waters, but to all waters, because a loud noise in national waters will propagate to international waters (at the rate of the speed of sound in water, which is to say quickly).

This is necessary because there are many "commons" that don't have such propagation problems. Atmospheric pollution, for example, can be localized. Oceanic pollution, likewise can occasionally be localized. But sound waves cannot be localized, they will travel for enormously long distances.

P.S. Internal Stat Wank Feeling Calculators say that this probably should be a GLOBAL DISARMAMENT resolution since the active sonar thing is mostly a military problem.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So... would this bit actually have any impact on anything? Especially considering the "economic feasibility" thing?

So, when the Federal Reserve is given a mandate for price stability, low interest rates, and high economic growth, I guess it just can't do anything when those priorities happen to trade off with one another. I guess organisations simply don't have any ability to prioritise.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: I don't understand the comparison. We're talking about an international thing here, not a federal one, and about noise reduction that's economically feasible. Since most noise reduction methods for marine transportation/recreation/military either cost money or reduce efficiency, the "economically feasible" may negate the effort altogether.

As a separate point, in clause 1, does that apply to historical vessels as well, especially ones that might only be moved once in a while, acting as museums more than whatever their original purpose was?

And also in clause 1, the fines are only included in the docking fees? What if a ship only docks at non-member nations, but has a treaty with a WA nation to use their national waters to travel through?

A more general question, does this only apply to oceans, or also rivers and lakes? And if the latter, what happens when a river is a national border between a member and a non-member nation, without belonging to either (but with both having the right to use it for transport)?