NationStates

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.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Can you explain to me why sand is uniquely so important as to require regulation?

Tinhampton wrote:Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Tinhampton is opposed to this proposal until Ambassador Hepperle and his Orca-Narwhalian colleague can work out how to make nations accountable for land reclamation by themselves. What is a sustainable source of sand?

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Still on mobile for today, but see the wetlands protection resolution, it sounds relevant here. Also, see Netherlands.

Oh and some desert sand, like RL Sahara or Arabs, is useless for building and landscaping because of sand grain shape, so it's not that simple.

Kenmoria wrote:“In reference to clause 3, I find it hard to imagine a situation where land reclamation would not cause a negative impact on the environment. That is the trade-off being made by a government during land expansion.”

Honeydewistania wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“In reference to clause 3, I find it hard to imagine a situation where land reclamation would not cause a negative impact on the environment. That is the trade-off being made by a government during land expansion.”

“That’s why we are looking for what would cause significant enough damage to warrant a prohibition of the land expansion. Do you have any ideas?"

Kenmoria wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:“That’s why we are looking for what would cause significant enough damage to warrant a prohibition of the land expansion. Do you have any ideas?"

“Currently you just have ‘a long-term negative impact’, which doesn’t even mention the significance or severity of this impact, just that it is negative. You would need to put in some sort of qualifier based on the severity of the damage.

However, Land expansion is almost inherently bad for the environment, so prohibiting all forms of land expansion that are damaging to local ecosystems could severely stunt the growth of a city over time. Cities are just worse places to live for most animals than natural areas, which isn’t really preventable.”

Honeydewistania wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Currently you just have ‘a long-term negative impact’, which doesn’t even mention the significance or severity of this impact, just that it is negative. You would need to put in some sort of qualifier based on the severity of the damage.

However, Land expansion is almost inherently bad for the environment, so prohibiting all forms of land expansion that are damaging to local ecosystems could severely stunt the growth of a city over time. Cities are just worse places to live for most animals than natural areas, which isn’t really preventable.”

"What the qualifier should be is where the Orca and Narhwalian ambassador and I are stumped. How severe is too severe for you?"

"We agree that outlawing all land reclamation is not feasible."

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, unique importance to medicine,
4. damage to an exceptionally rich or diverse ecosystem,

Kenmoria wrote:“How about this: ‘
3. Requires that environmental 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, unique importance to medicine,
4. damage to an exceptionally rich or diverse ecosystem,

’
Of course, point d is the most open to interpretation, but I couldn’t think of a better way to phrase it.”

Maowi wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“How about this: ‘
3. Requires that environmental 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, unique importance to medicine,
4. damage to an exceptionally rich or diverse ecosystem,

’
Of course, point d is the most open to interpretation, but I couldn’t think of a better way to phrase it.”

"As a side note, I believe your point d) uses language - 'exceptionally' - flexible enough to be interpreted as not being too stringent, if it is in a particular member state's interest to interpret it as such, which I believe is a positive thing and avoids the issue of being overbroad. So I am not of the opinion that the phrase being open to interpretation necessitates any "better" phrasing."

Orca and Narwhal wrote:What do you guys think of a sustainable source being Man-Made Sand?

Potted Plants United wrote:

Orca and Narwhal wrote:What do you guys think of a sustainable source being Man-Made Sand?

OOC: It depends on what you think "man-made sand" means.

EDIT: OP, I'll get you a proper IC hivemind post on this later to illustrate how your point of view is very limited on this. Not all land reclamation is done by pouring tons of sand in the sea. It's partially why I (on Ara) suggested you look up RL Netherlands, as that's yet another approach.

Honeydewistania wrote:I am aware that Flevoland was created by draining the South Sea in the Netherlands, and that’s a way to do it. Should we encourage this or regulate this as well?

Land Reclamation Regulations

Category: Environmental
Strength: 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 irreversible environmental damage, such as: Not all of the given examples seem irreversible.

• the destruction of coral reefs and wetlands,
• erosion of beaches in nations that sell sand to be used in land reclamation,
• increased flooding and storm surges; Why is this a consequence of land reclamation? It seems to be more an issue present with beach erosion generally, which is more commonly caused by longshore drift.

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

The World Assembly Hereby:

1. Mandates that member nations obtain sand for land reclamation from sustainable sources; Why focus specifically on sand-based land reclamation?
   
2. Prohibits member nations from building on, draining or destroying coral reefs, mangrove wetlands and other biodiverse areas during land reclamation; Aside from deserts, almost all biomes are biodiverse. I would prefer some clarity that the areas need to be more biodiverse than average or exceptional in some other regard.
   
3. Requires that environmental studies be conducted by the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA) to evaluate whether any land reclamation causes any of the following: Is there another committee you could put this under, rather than creating a new one?
   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, unique importance to medicine,
      
   4. damage to an exceptionally rich or diverse ecosystem;
   There’s an excessively large space after this clause.
   
   
4. Prohibits member nations from moving forward with land reclamation projects should the ESWA deem that they fail the environmental impact study; and
   
5. Encourages member nations to use other less environmentally destructive methods to alleviate overpopulation. In this clause, you could also urge member nations to generally attempt to minimise the ecological impact of land reclamation.

Co-authored by Orca and Narwhal.

Mandates that member nations obtain sand for land reclamation from sustainable sources; Why focus specifically on sand-based land reclamation?

[*] Requires that environmental studies be conducted by the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA) to evaluate whether any land reclamation causes any of the following: Is there another committee you could put this under, rather than creating a new one?

Maowi wrote:OOC: I'd suggest making clause 1 refer to "all resources", rather than simply "resources", because otherwise it could be read as requiring simply that land reclamation involve some sustainably sourced resource.

Concerned that unregulated land reclamation could lead to irreversible 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,
increased flooding and storm surges;

• Use of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a project;
• Physical changes, such as a highway improvement, that provides access to a previously
  inaccessible area that commits future generations to similar uses

Glenbrook wrote:

Concerned that unregulated land reclamation could lead to irreversible 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,
increased flooding and storm surges;

As Kenmoria said, not all of these effects are irreversible. You could replace some of them with these irreversible environmental impacts.

• Use of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a project;
• Physical changes, such as a highway improvement, that provides access to a previously
  inaccessible area that commits future generations to similar uses

Here's the link if you would like to read more.
https://www.lamission.edu/planning/2009 ... omment.pdf