[DEFEATED] Land Reclamation Regulation

[Orca and Narwhal]

We'll be submitting this proposal in 3 days if there are no more suggestions or comments

[Araraukar]

OOC: Define (post reply, don't alter the draft) "resource used in land reclamation" and "sustainable", please? Is concrete sustainable? Steel? Manpower?

Clause 2 bans land reclamation. Period.

Define (not in draft) "animal" for the purposes of clause 3?

And clause 3.c. is requiring medicinal properties of every plant or fungal species in the area to be examined?

Clause 4 has "impact study" out of nowhere. Also, you can't fail a study.

And if this meant to apply in freshwater environments too? Asking as someone living in a city that has parts of city center built on land reclaimed from the nextdoor lake.

Might have more, but my cousins who I see once a year, are in town with their significant others this week, so posting going to be sporadic and likely on mobile as well.

Didn't have time for IC, sorry.

[Orca and Narwhal]

OOC: Define (post reply, don't alter the draft) "resource used in land reclamation" and "sustainable", please? Is concrete sustainable? Steel? Manpower?

its resources that are used by humans when reclaiming land. Sustainable source is just something which can reliably provide the resource and a consistent rate for a large period of time. If the materials used to make concrete and Steel are sustainable then yes the would be considered a sustainable material.

Clause 2 bans land reclamation. Period.

It doesn't it just prevents you from destroying rare environmental habitats or ones with an exceptionally diverse

Define (not in draft) "animal" for the purposes of clause 3?

In the Kingdom Animalia

And clause 3.c. is requiring medicinal properties of every plant or fungal species in the area to be examined?

No, its only saying that the area must be examined for plants with known unique medicinal properties.

Clause 4 has "impact study" out of nowhere. Also, you can't fail a study.

Impact study is just a general term to describe the study said in clause 3. However I do take your point about failing a study so we'll change it to "if the ESWA deems a place not suitable to reclaim land"

And if this meant to apply in freshwater environments too? Asking as someone living in a city that has parts of city center built on land reclaimed from the nextdoor lake.

This applies to freshwater as well.

[Ardiveds]

Clause 2 bans land reclamation. Period.

It doesn't it just prevents you from destroying rare environmental habitats or ones with an exceptionally diverse

OOC: Coral reefs and mangrove make up like half the coastline especially in tropical nations IRL with entire nations having reefs and/or mangrove covering their entire coast. I'd wouldn't call them 'rare'.

[Honeydewistania]

It doesn't it just prevents you from destroying rare environmental habitats or ones with an exceptionally diverse

OOC: Coral reefs and mangrove make up like half the coastline especially in tropical nations IRL with entire nations having reefs and/or mangrove covering their entire coast. I'd wouldn't call them 'rare'.

They're exceptionally diverse though

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Coral reefs and mangrove make up like half the coastline especially in tropical nations IRL with entire nations having reefs and/or mangrove covering their entire coast. I'd wouldn't call them 'rare'.

They're exceptionally diverse though

OOC: Yes but so are most shallow marine habitats. Besides, I can imagine quite a few nations being barred from land reclamation, even if they really need it simply, based on their location. Also there's mangrove. As a RL example, this would prohibit Bangladesh from doing any reclamation though their entire country is slowly sinking.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Define (post reply, don't alter the draft) "resource used in land reclamation" and "sustainable", please? Is concrete sustainable? Steel? Manpower?

its resources that are used by humans when reclaiming land.

OOC: Do you understand what "land reclamation" includes, as the entire process? It includes planning (phones, computers, printer ink, electricity, people, their salaries, etc.), machinery (the machines themselves, their fuel, their repairs and parts and tools needed for that, their operators, the operators' salaries, etc.), materials (rock, wood, sand, metal, concrete, clay, cloth, etc.) and such. Which of these fall under "resource used in land reclamation"?

Sustainable source is just something which can reliably provide the resource and a consistent rate for a large period of time. If the materials used to make concrete and Steel are sustainable then yes the would be considered a sustainable material.

According to that definition, neither concrete nor steel nor indeed rocks (or sand) are sustainable.

It doesn't it just prevents you from destroying rare environmental habitats or ones with an exceptionally diverse

In other words, beaches and any shallow marine areas. Not to even mention lakes.

Define (not in draft) "animal" for the purposes of clause 3?

In the Kingdom Animalia

Such as these, which are so tiny that you wouldn't even notice them or thought them to just be grains of sand?

And clause 3.c. is requiring medicinal properties of every plant or fungal species in the area to be examined?

No, its only saying that the area must be examined for plants with known unique medicinal properties.

No it isn't. It says "plant or fungal species with a particular, unique importance to medicine". Unless you test them for medical properties, you won't know if they have any. If it DID say "known" properties, then the issue wouldn't exist.

Clause 4 has "impact study" out of nowhere. Also, you can't fail a study.

Impact study is just a general term to describe the study said in clause 3.

Then change clause 3 to have "impact study" instead of "environmental study", because an impact study is a very specific thing, while environmental study is not.

However I do take your point about failing a study so we'll change it to "if the ESWA deems a place not suitable to reclaim land"

That wording doesn't sound right.

And if this meant to apply in freshwater environments too? Asking as someone living in a city that has parts of city center built on land reclaimed from the nextdoor lake.

This applies to freshwater as well.

Then you're REALLY banning all land reclamation. Unless you think all lakes across the world are carbon copies and thus none of this would actually apply to them, and likewise for all marine coasts. With your wording it's all or nothing, while in RL it's a very long sliding scale.

What is the actual effect you want to achieve? Be as specific as possible, please.

[Orca and Narwhal]

We've made a couple of edits and updated the proposal. If there are no other large comments or suggestions we plan on submitting by the 17th

[Barfleur]

Full support.

[Orca and Narwhal]

Submitted

[Araraukar]

OOC: How does clause 3 work with GA #413? Yours makes it a blanket ban, while #413 allows wetland destruction in certain circumstances, given you specify mangrove wetlands rather than coastal mangroves (growing in the sea basically).

[Refuge Isle]

5. States that clause 1 of this resolution shall apply to both freshwater and saltwater land reclamations projects while the rest of this resolution will only apply to all land reclamations projects in saltwater environments.

So, what this means for freshwater is:

• The World Assembly does not require a ESWA study to evaluate freshwater land reclamation.
• Were such an evaluation to be carried out anyway and the ESWA determines that the plan would cause species extinction, cause endangered animals to starve, or otherwise destroys exceptionally bio-diverse areas and shouldn't take place, it may proceed per usual.

Resolution requirements are made in the context of their surroundings. I understand that this edit was made in response to criticisms on freshwater reclamation being "impossible", but the way you have gone about it is very odd and makes the resolution look ineffective. Why was it necessary to exclude even clause 2? Or 4 for that matter (which is just a recommendation anyway)? I have no idea.

Kudos on invoking a committee I made though

[Flying Eagles]

5. States that clause 1 of this resolution shall apply to both freshwater and saltwater land reclamations projects while the rest of this resolution will only apply to all land reclamations projects in saltwater environments.

We don’t understand the purpose of this clause, which appears to allow most lakes and rivers to be reclaimed as long as they are filled in with environmentally friendly material (Clause 1), regardless of the habitat destruction that it could cause (due to the exemption from Clauses 2 and 3).

[Blanketsburge]

Land Reclamation Regulations

Category: Environmental
AoE: All Businesses - Mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the use of land reclamation in member nations to increase their land area for purposes such as alleviating overpopulation;

Concerned that unregulated land reclamation could lead to serious environmental damage, such as:

• the destruction of coral reefs and wetlands,
• erosion of beaches in nations that sell sand to be used in land reclamation,
• use and harmful depletion of nonrenewable resources;

Hoping that by regulating land reclamation, these environmental damages can be prevented;

The World Assembly Hereby:

1. Mandates that member nations obtain all resources used in the actual physical construction phase of land reclamation projects in a manner with minimal damage to the environment;
   
2. Requires that impact studies be conducted by the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA) to evaluate whether any land reclamation causes any of the following:
   1. the extinction of any animal species residing in the land being reclaimed,
   2. significant disruption to a food chain involving endangered or rare animals,
   3. loss of plant or fungal species with a particular, known, unique importance to medicine,
3. Prohibits member nations from moving forward with a land reclamation project if the ESWA deems a place not suitable to reclaim land or if the land reclamation projects drain or destroy coral reefs, mangrove wetlands or other exceptionally biodiverse areas;
   
4. Encourages member nations to use other less environmentally destructive methods to alleviate overpopulation while also minimizing the ecological and environmental impact of land reclamation; and
   
5. States that clause 1 of this resolution shall apply to both freshwater and saltwater land reclamations projects while the rest of this resolution will only apply to all land reclamations projects in saltwater environments.

Co-authored by Honeydewistania.

I guess with this Land Reclamation Regulation, it can further strengthen and lessen the damages in terms of our environment.

[Heavens Reach]

There's a trend lately of otherwise perfectly good resolutions being either rendered ineffective by a last minute clause, or of mandating something harmful that is anyway beyond the scope of the resolution's stated goals. Why take the teeth out of this resolution for freshwater environments? If anything, they are the primary target of land reclamation. It just doesn't make sense to us.

[Waffia]

Waffia agrees with the purpose of this resolution, but not with its execution. Sadly, some of the criticisms by Araraukar have been addressed in a very rough manner with the addition of the fifth clause, instead of overhauling the proposal to properly legislate freshwater reclamation. The proposal does not achieve what it could have achieved if its drafting process had seen some more iterations. We vote against, hoping that an improved version will be submitted in the future.

[Ransium]

One of the reasons I resigned as delegate of Forest is so that I could vote against environmental resolutions that were of poor quality IMO without feeling like I was stabbing a knife into the back of my region. Despite name dropping mangroves, unfortunately I feel this meets the bill. The scope feels to me to be covered by 413 and my endangered species resolution. Besides mandating you really look for endangered species, the rest of clause 2 is covered by my endangered species resolution. Clause 3 doesn’t seem to fit well with 413, clause 4 is optional, and as others have pointed out clause 5 is awful. My novel comments on the badness of clause 5 is it seems like it should be included in ‘the rest of the resolution’, so does it only apply to salt water areas? It’s an enigma.

[Kenmoria]

“In response to issues highlighted by other delegations about various issues with this proposal, particularly clause five, I have changed my vote to against. My apologies for not catching this sooner.”

[Heavens Reach]

Pursuant to concerns raised by us and others, barring an overriding argument in favor of this resolution, we will be submitting a vote of AGAINST in the matter of Land Reclamation Regulation.

[Ardiveds]

"Ardiveds votes against this well written but flawed resolution. As the other ambassadors have pointed out, the inclusion of clause 5 was a poor move and there were much better and more effective ways of addressing the concerns raised by the delegate of Araraukar regarding fresh water land reclamation."

[The New California Republic]

I initially voted for this, but I'm going to switch my vote to against, as on further inspection it needs more work.

[Honeydewistania]

It's a bit annoying when everyone points out mistakes after bumping this thread multiple times, but I guess that's unavoidable.

[Orca and Narwhal]

Should the proposal fail we will try and fix the mistakes, hopefully to the people's satisfaction, before resubmitting.

[Picairn]

It's a bit annoying when everyone points out mistakes after bumping this thread multiple times, but I guess that's unavoidable.

Many times a proposal only gets attention once it gets to vote.

[Refuge Isle]

It's a bit annoying when everyone points out mistakes after bumping this thread multiple times, but I guess that's unavoidable.

It is entirely possible to publish a draft that gets abundant feedback which still fails, just as it's possible to submit a proposal without drafting and have it still pass. It's the author's responsibility to produce a good resolution, not on the regulars of the GA. One of the main reasons I've recommended against this resolution was because of clause 5. Shifting responsibility for Against votes onto the community for not responding to that spontaneous addition in a three day window will do you or your co-author no favours.