[DRAFT] Fisheries Management Act

[Belschaft]

Ok, a new version of an old proposal of mine. It's better than it was last time, (edit: back in the original category).

Fisheries Management Act
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses

The General Assembly,

REGONIZING the fishing industry as a key economic area for many nations, both WA member and non-member alike,

CONCERNED at the possibility of irreversible population depletion of many of the world’s most important fisheries,

CONVINCED that this would represent an extreme hazard to national populations dependent on fishing for their livelihood or primary food source,

BELIEVING that the expansion of fishery stocks to be beneficial to all nations,

Bearing this in mind, hereby:

DEFINES:

(1) a fishery as 'an area with an associated fish or aquatic population which is harvested for its commercial value';

(1.a) a wild fishery as 'a fishery that is naturally occurring and not specifically intended for commercial use';

CREATES the WA Fisheries Management Committee (WAFMC), charged with overseeing, maintaining and expanding the world’s fisheries, specifically:

1. WAFMC shall conduct compressive and rigorous studies of the world’s fish populations at regular intervals, so as to provide essential data for their management and conservation,

2. Using this data and other supplementary sources, WAFMC shall categorize world fisheries according to the threat of permanent and irreversible depletion of stock using a system of their devising,

3. WAFMC shall generate annual fishing quotas for each wild fishery, so as to at a bare minimum maintain current population levels and where necessary facilitate population recovery and long term population growth,

4. WAFMC shall create annual reports on world fishing practices and techniques, with the authority to regulate any practices deemed detrimental to the long term viability of wild fisheries,

5. WAFMC shall take active measures, in cooperation with national and regional governments, to expand existing fishery populations and to create new fisheries where it is deemed environmentally viable,

6. For wild fisheries located outside of a member nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone WAFMC shall provide a segment of each quota to all member nations with a legitimate claim to fishing rights in that area, taking into account the nation’s level of economic reliance upon fishing when making this decision. Legitimate claims may be based upon:


(a) Proximity to a fishery;
(b) Historic patterns of fishing in that area;
(c) Essential economic need;

7. Instructs member nations to distribute their quota segment in any general manner they see fit, either transferring the entirety of their segment to a third party or issuing WAFMC Licenses to commercial fishers, each of which carrying a right to catch a certain amount of fish per year. Such distributions must be both environmentally and economically viable,

8. Provides an exception to the requirement to hold a WAFMC license for fishermen either operating at the subsistence level or fishing only for recreational purposes, and any other non-commercial fishing that may occur,

9. Requires national navies and coast guards to detain and inspect the ships of those believed to be conducting commercial fishing either without a WAFMC license or to be exceeding their quota, passing relevant details on to WAFMC,

10. Member nations are encouraged to prosecute violators.

[Moronist Decisions]

1) What about non-member nations?

2) Wrong category I suspect - that category is designed to reduce environmental controls.

[Belschaft]

1) What about non-member nations?

2) Wrong category I suspect - that category is designed to reduce environmental controls.

1) referenced in the proposal several times.

2) Debatable. This is intended to improve nations economies via regulation (something the WA isn't ideal for) by regulating an industry to prevent it's destruction. Also, there's a blocker on environmental legislation I can't be arsed to try to repeal.

[Bears Armed]

You've still got the problem that this section

5. For wild fisheries located outside of a nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone WAFMC shall provide a segment of each quota to all nations with a legitimate claim to fishing rights in that area, taking into account the nation’s level of economic reliance upon fishing when making this decision. Legitimate claims may be based upon –
a. Proximity to a fishery
b. Historic patterns of fishing in that area
c. Essential economic need

6. Instructs nations to distribute their quota segment in any general manner they see fit, either transferring the entirety of their segment to a third party or issuing WAFMC Licenses to commercial fishers, each of which carrying a right to catch a certain ammount of fish per year. Such distributions must be both environmentally and economically viable

effectively tells the WAFMC to allocate quotas to non-members as well as to members, where they're involved in those fisheries, and then tells the non-members what to do with those quotas... which is illegal.

[Belschaft]

You've still got the problem that this section

5. For wild fisheries located outside of a nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone WAFMC shall provide a segment of each quota to all nations with a legitimate claim to fishing rights in that area, taking into account the nation’s level of economic reliance upon fishing when making this decision. Legitimate claims may be based upon –
a. Proximity to a fishery
b. Historic patterns of fishing in that area
c. Essential economic need

6. Instructs nations to distribute their quota segment in any general manner they see fit, either transferring the entirety of their segment to a third party or issuing WAFMC Licenses to commercial fishers, each of which carrying a right to catch a certain ammount of fish per year. Such distributions must be both environmentally and economically viable

effectively tells the WAFMC to allocate quotas to non-members as well as to members, where they're involved in those fisheries, and then tells the non-members what to do with those quotas... which is illegal.

Noted. I'll re-word it.

Edit: If I remember the last time I put forward a version of this, a mod stated that the WA acts as if non-member states are few and far between, and generally speaking ignores them. I'll see if I can track down the thread, as it may be easier to just ignore member regions.

[Belschaft]

Ok, the mod quote is as follows;

About non-WA nations: as far as the WA is concerned, these are "rogue" nations. We don't have to make any legislative compromises for them; they might as well not exist. To the extent that there's an official attitude to them, it's more or less that they are few in number and we feel for them a condescending pity for their short-sightedness in refusing the benefits of Our Glorious Assembly. Or perhaps a smug certainty that they'll inevitably come round to our position because it's So Much Better. Maybe even a reformist zeal to set such a good example that less lawful nations can't help but repent of their unenlightened ways and join us.

Whatever, the upshot is that you don't have to, and largely shouldn't, mention non-WA nations unless we're getting cash out of them somehow. There's too much risk of accidentally making a proposal illegal by trying to do something to them.

So, I'm gonna purge this of all references to non WA nations. That, plus a few more clauses detailing encouragement of industry and the elimination of bad fishing practices should make it good to go I think.

[Belschaft]

Updated, and back in the original category. Thoughts?

[Quelesh]

As long as the definition of "fishery" continues to include only commercial operations, and as long as the exception for non-commercial fishermen remains (and therefore this resolution does not interfere with Quelesh's many subsistence fishermen), we will likely continue to support this proposal.

[Belschaft]

Due to the lack of any more comments I have come to the conclusion one of the following two things must be true;

a) This is the most perfect resolution ever written
b) No one else gives a crap about fishing legislation

Either way, I'll probably submit it some time tonight.

[Bears Armed]

Ok, the mod quote is as follows;

About non-WA nations: as far as the WA is concerned, these are "rogue" nations. We don't have to make any legislative compromises for them; they might as well not exist. To the extent that there's an official attitude to them, it's more or less that they are few in number and we feel for them a condescending pity for their short-sightedness in refusing the benefits of Our Glorious Assembly. Or perhaps a smug certainty that they'll inevitably come round to our position because it's So Much Better. Maybe even a reformist zeal to set such a good example that less lawful nations can't help but repent of their unenlightened ways and join us.

Whatever, the upshot is that you don't have to, and largely shouldn't, mention non-WA nations unless we're getting cash out of them somehow. There's too much risk of accidentally making a proposal illegal by trying to do something to them.

So, I'm gonna purge this of all references to non WA nations. That, plus a few more clauses detailing encouragement of industry and the elimination of bad fishing practices should make it good to go I think.

"Don't have to make legislative compromises for them", no: Have to word proposals so that those don't appear to address them (as well as member nations), yes: In your draft's clauses 5 & 6,therefore, I strongly recommend replacing "nations" with "member nations" for this reason.

[Knootoss]

This is a horrid and utterly preposterous proposal. Knootoss and two other nations in the region would have fishing quotas imposed on them, utterly ruining an entire industry, while everyone else is unaffected. This is a hideous idea.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This is a horrid and utterly preposterous proposal. Knootoss and two other nations in the region would have fishing quotas imposed on them, utterly ruining an entire industry, while everyone else is unaffected. This is a hideous idea.

But tell us how you really feel.

Against, painful micromanagement. Keep your grubby hands off my fishing rods.

[Mousebumples]

Against, unnecessary micromanagement, etc.

I could go into more detail, but I'm tired, and that's the basics. I recommend the shredding of this proposal, myself.

[Belschaft]

Ok, the mod quote is as follows;



So, I'm gonna purge this of all references to non WA nations. That, plus a few more clauses detailing encouragement of industry and the elimination of bad fishing practices should make it good to go I think.

"Don't have to make legislative compromises for them", no: Have to word proposals so that those don't appear to address them (as well as member nations), yes: In your draft's clauses 5 & 6,therefore, I strongly recommend replacing "nations" with "member nations" for this reason.

Consider it done.

[Belschaft]

As for those of you who claim micro-management; it really isn't. This is an industry that is, at present, entirely unregulated and what I'm proposing here consists of some minor changes to the existing status quo. Furthermore, I have consistently taken pains when writing this to protect the economic viability of this vital industry.

As for Knootoss' objection, I refer you too Ardy's statement in my original thread (and posted above);

About non-WA nations: as far as the WA is concerned, these are "rogue" nations. We don't have to make any legislative compromises for them; they might as well not exist. To the extent that there's an official attitude to them, it's more or less that they are few in number and we feel for them a condescending pity for their short-sightedness in refusing the benefits of Our Glorious Assembly. Or perhaps a smug certainty that they'll inevitably come round to our position because it's So Much Better. Maybe even a reformist zeal to set such a good example that less lawful nations can't help but repent of their unenlightened ways and join us.

Whatever, the upshot is that you don't have to, and largely shouldn't, mention non-WA nations unless we're getting cash out of them somehow. There's too much risk of accidentally making a proposal illegal by trying to do something to them.

As such, 'it makes us un-competitive with non-WA nation's is not a legitimate argument, as ICly -

"We don't have to make any legislative compromises for them; they might as well not exist. To the extent that there's an official attitude to them, it's more or less that they are few in number and we feel for them a condescending pity for their short-sightedness in refusing the benefits of Our Glorious Assembly."

I had been planning to submit this now, but in the interests of bi-partisanship and giving you guys time to come back to me, I'll hold off for now.

[Belschaft]

Ok, here's a further proposal aimed at Knootoss, and anyone else concerned about the economic impact of environmental proposals;

Since the repeal of GA#42 - WA Environmental Council environmental protection inside the WA has taken a major hit. My plan had been to pass a number of precise bills dealing with individual issues, rather than a generic one dealing with them all very vaguely. After this my intention had been to put forward proposals on de-forestation and farming regulations (neither of which are covered any more, as far as I'm aware).

Instead, after putting this to vote, I will work on a bill mandating that all new environmental bills specifically address their economic impact, and contain measures to promote industry and offset any issues that they cause. While drafting it I'll specifically seek input from Knootoss and other concerned nations, and draft it here from the start instead of running it past a few IntFed buddies elsewhere first and going over it on Dharma's forums, like I had been doing.

How does that sound?

[Knootoss]

OOC: The thing is this. Neither you nor Ardy can tell me that "Non-member nations don't exist". There is a difference between being ICly arrogant and not really MENTIONING non-member nations in the text of a resolution, and actually putting your head in the sand and pretending the situation isn't exactly as it is. Fishing quotas only make sense if all relevant actors are bound by them. There are at present 25 nations in the Western Atlantic and only three are in the WA. Me and two tiny ministatelets. WA-imposed fishing quota are therefore madness. I left the WA over quota when the UN passed such a law, and I'm /guaranteed/ to leave the WA over it now, pretty posters from Belschaft featuring children of colour notwithstanding.

I'll be happy to give opinion on a fisheries bill, but unilaterally imposed quotas are just bad bad bad. I'll give some more, uh, constructive input if we can think outside that particular box?

[Belschaft]

OOC: The thing is this. Neither you nor Ardy can tell me that "Non-member nations don't exist". There is a difference between being ICly arrogant and not really MENTIONING non-member nations in the text of a resolution, and actually putting your head in the sand and pretending the situation isn't exactly as it is. Fishing quotas only make sense if all relevant actors are bound by them. There are at present 25 nations in the Western Atlantic and only three are in the WA. Me and two tiny ministatelets. WA-imposed fishing quota are therefore madness. I left the WA over quota when the UN passed such a law, and I'm /guaranteed/ to leave the WA over it now, pretty posters from Belschaft featuring children of colour notwithstanding.

I'll be happy to give opinion on a fisheries bill, but unilaterally imposed quotas are just bad bad bad. I'll give some more, uh, constructive input if we can think outside that particular box?

From an IC point of view though, the secretariat's ruling is clear. Non-members should not be considered when writing proposals, and certainly should not be taken into account in the legislation. While the fact that the majority of your region's members would not be bound by this is an issue for you, it's not a legitimate argument against inside the WA.

If you have any alternatives at hand, I'd be only too happy to consider them. But I'm not willing to take quota's off the table, at least until some one else can suggest an equally effective solution. IRL they do work, and no one there has been able to come up with a better idea outside the box. I'd love your input though, regardless.

Also, can I take that to mean you liked my posters?

[Knootoss]

OOC: The posters are good but I'd like for a mod to post here and clarify because "non-members do not exist" is not what the mod ruling was all about, and I would find it absolutely preposterous if we are expected to RP on the basis that 80% of this game and 90% of the players that I interact with "do not exist". And there is a HUGE difference between not MENTIONING non-members to avoid making your proposal illegal, and saying they don't exist.

I also take issue with the suggestion that there are only a few non-members and that WA members are a vast majority of nations. That just contradicts the game itself, and I don't think Ard was saying that in her capacity as a mod. If she was, please say so and I'll just leave the WA because that's just too dumb for words and completely contradicting the game world that I've played in since the mid 2000s.

[Belschaft]

Knoot, are you gonna get back to me on this or not?

[Mousebumples]

I think that this statement (by Ard, in a previous legality ruling thread) is much more clear on the existence (or non-existence, if that's what some care to argue) of non-WA member nations:

Just don't go nuts with mentioning non-WA nations, okay? Most of the time it can be avoided, and should be: one, because we don't want to give any deplorable Rouge Nations the encouragement of imagining that we spend so much as one minute of the WA's time thinking about them, and two, because the minute proposal writers start thinking outside the WA's walls, they expose themselves to the temptation of Metagaming.

(Oh, you may think you're different, you're strong, you can withstand it: but Metagaming erodes the moral fibre of even the most virtuous among us.)

It's not that the non-WAs do not exist. It's that our proposals do not and SHOULD NOT be affected them. Which is exactly the complaint that Knoot is raising, quite reasonably, I think.

Still opposed as presently written.

[Belschaft]

I think that this statement (by Ard, in a previous legality ruling thread) is much more clear on the existence (or non-existence, if that's what some care to argue) of non-WA member nations:

Just don't go nuts with mentioning non-WA nations, okay? Most of the time it can be avoided, and should be: one, because we don't want to give any deplorable Rouge Nations the encouragement of imagining that we spend so much as one minute of the WA's time thinking about them, and two, because the minute proposal writers start thinking outside the WA's walls, they expose themselves to the temptation of Metagaming.

(Oh, you may think you're different, you're strong, you can withstand it: but Metagaming erodes the moral fibre of even the most virtuous among us.)

It's not that the non-WAs do not exist. It's that our proposals do not and SHOULD NOT be affected them. Which is exactly the complaint that Knoot is raising, quite reasonably, I think.

Still opposed as presently written.

Do you have any suggestions about how I can improve it then, if you don't like it currently?

[Mousebumples]

Do you have any suggestions about how I can improve it then, if you don't like it currently?

As I said previously:
I recommend the shredding of this proposal, myself.

While I understand that this is as area that has not been legislated on by the WA as of yet, I don't believe that fisheries need WA oversight - especially because, as Knoot has stated, any WA regulation would only apply to WA member nations. There is nothing that you or I (or anyone!) can do to keep non-WA members from overfishing. As such, any regulation with regards to fishing quotas seems rather futile.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper opposes this proposal because it should only concern international waters, outside the exclusive economical waters of countries.

[Belschaft]

Do you have any suggestions about how I can improve it then, if you don't like it currently?

As I said previously:
I recommend the shredding of this proposal, myself.

While I understand that this is as area that has not been legislated on by the WA as of yet, I don't believe that fisheries need WA oversight - especially because, as Knoot has stated, any WA regulation would only apply to WA member nations. There is nothing that you or I (or anyone!) can do to keep non-WA members from overfishing. As such, any regulation with regards to fishing quotas seems rather futile.

That very much seems to be an argument that as any action we take can only be of limited effectiveness we should take no action at all.

Ms. Harper opposes this proposal because it should only concern international waters, outside the exclusive economical waters of countries.

A significant portion of these measures are already limited to international waters; if Ms. Harper is able to suggest a way to extend that to more of them without excessively diluting the effectiveness of this resolution we would be more than willing to consider it.