[DRAFT] Reduction of Marine Plastic Pollution

[Carbarosia]

Reduction of Marine Plastic Pollution
A resolution to increase the quality of the world’s environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Industry

Description: The World Assembly,

Understanding of the severe effect plastic waste has in the environment, especially within the marine environment.

Recognising that microplastic produced through the breakdown of large debris is responsible for a significant percentage of this worldwide oceanic pollution, with serious consequence to marine wildlife and in particular, zooplankton, which constitute a substantial fraction of the oceanic food chain's base.

Aware that microplastic pollution is additionally produced via microplastic manufactured for commercial use, which is used heavily in the cosmetic industry.

Distressed at the discovery of the presence of microplastic in seafood and table salt used for consumption, as well as in wastewater, which pose a serious risk to the health of any living being ingesting it.

Concerned at the continued disposal of plastic waste improperly despite research examining and affirming the effect it has in nature, with widespread corroboration proving the grave consequence on the environment holistically.

Alarmed at the rate of manufacture of plastic worldwide and the projected increase in plastic waste in the future.

Noting that not each member nation is equipped with the adequate infrastructure to deal with the prevention of plastic waste and in particular, the extensive removal of microplastic through wastewater and/or sewage treatment.

Further noting that even with sufficient treatment, microplastic is not completely removed in this process and is released into the environment in effluent.

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   1. ”Plastic” as any synthetic or semi-synthetic organic compound based polymer;
      
   2. ”Plastic waste” as any plastic (micro, meso, or macro) present in the environment except for:
      
      
      1. Plastic buried at sea due to the extreme risk it may pose to sapient life such as irradiated plastic.
      2. Plastic posing an immediate threat to sapient life such as the jettisoning of cargo.
      3. Plastic incorporated into any object actively used at sea such as in an environmental probe or buoy.
   3. “Microplastic” as a particle of plastic less than 5mm in diameter;
   4. “Personal care product” as any product produced for personal hygiene and/or beautification, including, but not limited to, facial cleanser, exfoliator, toothpaste, soap and shampoo;
   5. “Cosmetic microplastic” as any microplastic present in or intended for use in a personal care product, excluding the materials used in the manufacture of its packaging.
   
   
2. Forbids the disposal of plastic in any sea, ocean, lake, river or waterway for any reason excluding those outlined under article 1-b.
   
   
3. Enforces the use of, where technologically and financially feasible, the use of biodegradable plastic in place of non-biodegradable plastic in packaging and bottling.
   
   
4. Prohibits the manufacture, import, wholesale, sale and distribution of cosmetic microplastic.
   
   
5. Prohibits the production, import, wholesale, sale and distribution of any personal care product containing cosmetic microplastic.
   
   
6. Mandates the evidenced disclosure of the usage of any manufactured microplastic to avoid the circumventing of article 5.
   
   
7. Establishes the World Assembly Plastic Control Authority (WAPCA) as a regulatory body to:
   
   
   1. fund and/or undertake the implementation of proper infrastructure to deal with the cleanup of plastic waste and microplastic, such as up to date wastewater treatment technology, in any member nation incapable of doing so; and,
   2. offer consultation on the cleanup of plastic waste; and,
   3. assist in the development of any national plastic cleanup initiative; and,
   4. ensure the enforcement and upholding of the prohibition enacted on cosmetic microplastic and personal care products containing cosmetic microplastic; and,
   5. monitor the production of non-cosmetic microplastic.
8. Encourages the development of environmentally friendlier, biodegradable alternatives to currently used plastic.

1. Draft 1.1
   1. Alteration to the sub-list of clause 5.
   2. The replacement of the establishment of a World Assembly Microplastic Control Authority (WAMCA) with the expansion of duties of the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) in clause 5.
2. Draft 1.2
   1. Amendment of point 3 of the preamble for the inclusivity of any living being.
3. Draft 2
   1. Proposal revised to tackle marine plastic pollution as a whole.

1. Amendment of point 3 of the preamble for the inclusivity of any living being.

Ban on Commercial Microplastic
A resolution to increase the quality of the world’s environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: Manufacturing

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognising that microplastic is responsible for a significant percentage of worldwide oceanic pollution, with serious consequence to marine wildlife and in particular, zooplankton, which constitute a substantial fraction of the oceanic food chain's base.

Acknowledging that although commercial microplastic developed for the cosmetic industry is not the leading cause of microplastic pollution, it is an unnecessary and avoidable contribution.

Distressed at the discovery of the presence of microplastic in seafood and table salt used for consumption, as well as in wastewater, which pose a serious risk to the health of any living being ingesting it.

Concerned at the continued use of microplastic despite research examining and affirming the effect microplastic has in nature, with widespread corroboration proving the grave consequence on the environment holistically, such as: coral bleaching, physical harm and even starvation and death in some marine wildlife.

Alarmed at the rate of manufacture of microplastic for commercial use worldwide.

Noting that not each member nation is equipped with the adequate infrastructure to deal with extensive microplastic removal through wastewater and/or sewage treatment.

Further noting that even with sufficient treatment, microplastic is not completely removed in this process and is released into the environment in effluent.

Hereby,

1. Defines:
   
   
   1. “Microplastic” as a particle of plastic less than 5mm in diameter;
   2. “Personal care product” as any product produced for personal hygiene and/or beautification, including, but not limited to, facial cleanser, exfoliator, toothpaste, soap and shampoo;
   3. “Commercial microplastic” as any microplastic present in or intended for use in a personal care product
2. Prohibits the manufacture, import, wholesale, sale and distribution of commercial microplastic.
   
   
3. Prohibits the production, import, wholesale, sale and distribution of any personal care product containing commercial microplastic.
   
   
4. Mandates the evidenced disclosure of the usage of any manufactured microplastic to avoid the circumventing of article 2.
   
   
5. Expands the duties of the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to include:
   
   
   1. the enforcement and upholding of the prohibition enacted on commercial microplastic and personal care products containing commercial microplastic; and,
   2. monitors the production of non-commercial microplastic.
6. Encourages the use and development of environmentally friendlier, biodegradable alternatives.
   
   
7. Clarifies that microplastic produced by the breakdown of larger debris does not fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution.

1. Alteration to the sub-list of clause 5.
2. The replacement of the establishment of a World Assembly Microplastic Control Authority (WAMCA) with the expansion of duties of the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) in clause 5.

Ban on Commercial Microplastic
A resolution to increase the quality of the world’s environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: Manufacturing

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognising that microplastic is responsible for a significant percentage of worldwide oceanic pollution, with serious consequence to marine wildlife and in particular, zooplankton, which constitute a substantial fraction of the oceanic food chain's base.

Acknowledging that although commercial microplastic developed for the cosmetic industry is not the leading cause of microplastic pollution, it is an unnecessary and avoidable contribution.

Distressed at the discovery of the presence of microplastic in seafood and table salt used for human consumption, as well as in wastewater, which pose a serious risk to human and animal health.

Concerned at the continued use of microplastic despite research examining and affirming the effect microplastic has in nature, with widespread corroboration proving the grave consequence on the environment holistically, such as: coral bleaching, physical harm and even starvation and death in some marine wildlife.

Alarmed at the rate of manufacture of microplastic for commercial use worldwide.

Noting that not each member nation is equipped with the adequate infrastructure to deal with extensive microplastic removal through wastewater and/or sewage treatment.

Further noting that even with sufficient treatment, microplastic is not completely removed in this process and is released into the environment in effluent.

Hereby,

1. Defines:
   
   
   1. “Microplastic” as a particle of plastic less than 5mm in diameter;
   2. “Personal care product” as any product produced for personal hygiene and/or beautification, including, but not limited to, facial cleanser, exfoliator, toothpaste, soap and shampoo;
   3. “Commercial microplastic” as any microplastic present in or intended for use in a personal care product
2. Prohibits the manufacture, import, wholesale, sale and distribution of commercial microplastic.
   
   
3. Prohibits the production, import, wholesale, sale and distribution of any personal care product containing commercial microplastic.
   
   
4. Mandates the evidenced disclosure of the usage of any manufactured microplastic to avoid the circumventing of article 2.
   
   
5. Expands the duties of the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to include:
   
   
   1. the enforcement and upholding of the prohibition enacted on commercial microplastic and personal care products containing commercial microplastic; and,
   2. monitors the production of non-commercial microplastic.
6. Encourages the use and development of environmentally friendlier, biodegradable alternatives.
   
   
7. Clarifies that microplastic produced by the breakdown of larger debris does not fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution.

Ban on Commercial Microplastic
A resolution to increase the quality of the world’s environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: Manufacturing

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognising that microplastic is responsible for a significant percentage of worldwide oceanic pollution, with serious consequence to marine wildlife and in particular, zooplankton, which constitute a substantial fraction of the oceanic food chain's base.

Acknowledging that although commercial microplastic developed for the cosmetic industry is not the leading cause of microplastic pollution, it is an unnecessary and avoidable contribution.

Distressed at the discovery of the presence of microplastic in seafood and table salt used for human consumption, as well as in wastewater, which pose a serious risk to human and animal health.

Concerned at the continued use of microplastic despite research examining and affirming the effect microplastic has in nature, with widespread corroboration proving the grave consequence on the environment holistically, such as: coral bleaching, physical harm and even starvation and death in some marine wildlife.

Alarmed at the rate of manufacture of microplastic for commercial use worldwide.

Noting that not each member nation is equipped with the adequate infrastructure to deal with extensive microplastic removal through wastewater and/or sewage treatment.

Further noting that even with sufficient treatment, microplastic is not completely removed in this process and is released into the environment in effluent.

Hereby,

1. Defines:
   
   
   1. “Microplastic” as a particle of plastic less than 5mm in diameter;
   2. “Personal care product” as any product produced for personal hygiene and/or beautification, including, but not limited to, facial cleanser, exfoliator, toothpaste, soap and shampoo;
   3. “Commercial microplastic” as any microplastic present in or intended for use in a personal care product
2. Prohibits the manufacture, import, wholesale, sale and distribution of commercial microplastic.
   
   
3. Prohibits the production, import, wholesale, sale and distribution of any personal care product containing commercial microplastic.
   
   
4. Mandates the evidenced disclosure of the usage of any manufactured microplastic to avoid the circumventing of article 2.
   
   
5. Establishes the World Assembly Microplastic Control Authority (WAMCA) as a regulation body, which:
   
   
   1. enforces and upholds the prohibition enacted on commercial microplastic and personal care products containing commercial microplastic; and,
   2. monitors the production of non-commercial microplastic.
6. Encourages the use and development of environmentally friendlier, biodegradable alternatives.
   
   
7. Clarifies that microplastic produced by the breakdown of larger debris does not fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution.

OoC: This is my first GA resolution proposal/draft so any amendment, criticism or overall feedback is welcomed and encouraged. Coincidentally, it is Earth Day.

[Kenmoria]

"This is very good for a first draft by a delegation. However you use aphabetical lists in clause 1 and i lists in clause 6, I would stick to one or the other. Also, I don't see the creation of a new committee as necessary, perhaps you could fit this proposal under an existing one."

[Carbarosia]

"This is very good for a first draft by a delegation. However you use aphabetical lists in clause 1 and i lists in clause 6, I would stick to one or the other. Also, I don't see the creation of a new committee as necessary, perhaps you could fit this proposal under an existing one."

"We would like to thank the Kenmorian delegation for their kind praise and criticism. In response we will amend the sub-list of clause 6 to fit with that used in clause 1. Regarding the use of an existing committee, we feel that either the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP), the Joint Water Resources Management Panel (JWRMP) established in GA#223 or the International Bureau of Water Safety (IBWS) established in GA#107 could act as a suitable regulatory body."

OoC: I am not too familiar with the usage of an existing committee in a GA proposal but from what I understand in this post would it not risk duplication?

[Kenmoria]

"This is very good for a first draft by a delegation. However you use aphabetical lists in clause 1 and i lists in clause 6, I would stick to one or the other. Also, I don't see the creation of a new committee as necessary, perhaps you could fit this proposal under an existing one."

OoC: I am not too familiar with the usage of an existing committee in a GA proposal but from what I understand in this post would it not risk duplication?

(OOC: That post referred to using an already created committee in another proposal with the same duties, not creating new duties for a committee already created, which should be fine.)

[Carbarosia]

"The amendment of the original draft has resulted in the following:

1. A change to the sub-list of clause 5.
2. The replacement of the establishment of a World Assembly Microplastic Control Authority (WAMCA) with the expansion of duties of the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) in clause 5.

We welcome any further input on the proposal as a whole."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

“Microplastic” as a particle of plastic less than 5mm in diameter;

Teran Saber: "Well, there goes the ability to cut or machine polyethylene, due to the fact that doing so produces small particles within these definitions, much like machining metal or routing wood would. Please amend this to only ban the intentional production of 'microplastic' particles."

OOC: Before anyone claims this is a tech argument... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene

[New-Brussels]

“Microplastic” as a particle of plastic less than 5mm in diameter;

Teran Saber: "Well, there goes the ability to cut or machine polyethylene, due to the fact that doing so produces small particles within these definitions, much like machining metal or routing wood would. Please amend this to only ban the intentional production of 'microplastic' particles."

OOC: Before anyone claims this is a tech argument... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene

OOC: I'll add that plastics in injection molding are in pellet form that can very possibly be smaller than 5mm. Really I would just say that it's gonna be a pain to make such a narrow law.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think a better approach would be stopping it from ending up in the ocean. Not a ban altogether, but rather, a solution to the pollution aspect itself. And before anyone talks about this not being an international issue, it is. The oceans are international territory. And a solution to this cannot be achieved without a reasonable international action due to the collective action problem.

A good introduction to the problem can be found in a Financial Times article in the column FT View published yesterday.

EDIT: Also, in the real world, a lot of the problem has to do with underdevelopment. Where the Kutznets curve becomes extremely applicable (in this case, I would say, simply true) is in pollution of plastics. Richer nations output significant less plastic waste per capita than poorer nations. This is because they can afford to pay for cleanup. And when I mean cleanup, I don't mean recycling or post-waste cleaning. I just mean the presence of basic and functional landfill and trash disposal services, which many slums and villages in the developing world lack.

The source of this plastic pollution isn't a lack of recycling. It is literally a failure to move trash from informal dumping zones or rivers into landfills, incinerators, or recycling centres. I think that it would certainly be feasible to set up an international organisation to both transfer applicable technologies and directly fund plastic cleanup efforts in developing nations.

[Veniyerris]

I think a better approach would be stopping it from ending up in the ocean. Not a ban altogether, but rather, a solution to the pollution aspect itself. And before anyone talks about this not being an international issue, it is. The oceans are international territory. And a solution to this cannot be achieved without a reasonable international action due to the collective action problem

What about the old “my planet has no oceans” problem?

I totally agree with you btw, but I’ve seen this kind of argument too many times to not ask.

[Araraukar]

What about the old “my planet has no oceans” problem?

OOC: Well then according to your preamble, microplastic won't be a problem for them anyway. Your justification for this relies entirely on oceanig pollution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What about the old “my planet has no oceans” problem?

Then IDGAF. No oceans, nothing to pollute, really a you problem.

[Carbarosia]

Teran Saber: "Well, there goes the ability to cut or machine polyethylene, due to the fact that doing so produces small particles within these definitions, much like machining metal or routing wood would. Please amend this to only ban the intentional production of 'microplastic' particles."

"The honourable delegate will find that under article two of the proposal, a prohibition is enacted only on commercial microplastic, which, as defined by article one, is: "any microplastic present in or intended for use in a personal care product". Any action leading to the production of microplastic or plastic particulate that is not directly used, or intended for use, in a personal care product is therefore not restricted by this proposal. We can assure the delegate that this proposal is not aiming to regulate the production of such plastic particulate in the manufacture of polyethene, or in fact the manufacture of any plastic polymer that, by definition, would produce microplastic. If this explanation has not adequately alleviated the concern of the delegation, we will amend the proposal to clarify the addressed point. Or, as an alternative, "commercial microplastic" can be designated instead as "cosmetic microplastic"?"

OOC: I'll add that plastics in injection molding are in pellet form that can very possibly be smaller than 5mm. Really I would just say that it's gonna be a pain to make such a narrow law.

OoC: As mentioned above I felt the wording of the proposal was watertight enough to affect only the production of "commercial microplastic"; if any vagueness will persist on the legality of the production of microplastic intentional or otherwise under this proposal I will quickly fix it. Continuing from that, I could rename "commercial microplastic" to "cosmetic microplastic", or even make the change in conjunction with the previous point, to avoid further ambiguity on the term.

I think a better approach would be stopping it from ending up in the ocean. Not a ban altogether, but rather, a solution to the pollution aspect itself. And before anyone talks about this not being an international issue, it is. The oceans are international territory. And a solution to this cannot be achieved without a reasonable international action due to the collective action problem.

A good introduction to the problem can be found in a Financial Times article in the column FT View published yesterday.

EDIT: Also, in the real world, a lot of the problem has to do with underdevelopment. Where the Kutznets curve becomes extremely applicable (in this case, I would say, simply true) is in pollution of plastics. Richer nations output significant less plastic waste per capita than poorer nations. This is because they can afford to pay for cleanup. And when I mean cleanup, I don't mean recycling or post-waste cleaning. I just mean the presence of basic and functional landfill and trash disposal services, which many slums and villages in the developing world lack.

The source of this plastic pollution isn't a lack of recycling. It is literally a failure to move trash from informal dumping zones or rivers into landfills, incinerators, or recycling centres. I think that it would certainly be feasible to set up an international organisation to both transfer applicable technologies and directly fund plastic cleanup efforts in developing nations.

OoC: I wholeheartedly agree with the first point and was the actual reason as to why I included the WAMCA as a regulatory body in the original draft, though in hindsight I see the committee could have been vastly improved upon. It is possible that I could redraft the bill devoted to the cleanup of microplastic where such an organisation would be setup to directly fund the development of adequate waste water treatment and the implementation of the cleanup initiative you went on to mention where needed, which is by far a more holistic approach to microplastic in general. On an off note I was considering drafting a proposal addressing the cleanup of plastic pollution, specifically oceanic pollution, in the environment but was conscious of the wide scope the bill would cover and, as a first timer, was hesitant to dive into such an extensive proposal - which lead me here.

What about the old “my planet has no oceans” problem?

I totally agree with you btw, but I’ve seen this kind of argument too many times to not ask.

OoC: The microplastic will end up in the environment somewhere, regardless of whether water is present or not, and will undoubtedly have an effect. I guess the same type of question could be asked of almost any WA proposal: take for example GA #224 on the promotion of bee-keeping, a nation that does not have a bee population can make the same point that the proposal is irrelevant to them.

[New-Brussels]

OOC: I'll add that plastics in injection molding are in pellet form that can very possibly be smaller than 5mm. Really I would just say that it's gonna be a pain to make such a narrow law.

OoC: As mentioned above I felt the wording of the proposal was watertight enough to affect only the production of "commercial microplastic"; if any vagueness will persist on the legality of the production of microplastic intentional or otherwise under this proposal I will quickly fix it. Continuing from that, I could rename "commercial microplastic" to "cosmetic microplastic", or even make the change in conjunction with the previous point, to avoid further ambiguity on the term.

After a proper reevaluation of your definitions, I have decided to retract my statement (and the siriusians should too ). I can't really say that other ambassadors will not immediately make the same mistake during vote.

The only clarity fix I can suggest that pertains to my previous point is to add ", excluding the materials used in the manufacture of its packaging;" as the plastics used in this case, while they may have been in microplastic form, as defined, before they are turned into packaging, are decidedly not in this form anymore after the proper processes (i.e. molding). Obviously, this shouldn't be taken as promotion of plastic packaging.

This brings us to IA's point (which is clear enough): your problem lies in oceanic pollution and maybe you should rethink the whole idea (maybe not since a resolution tackling oceanic pollution in such a way doesn't exclude your proposal from having an effect on the problem).

I also advise you to add "for the purposes of this resolution" after "Defines" to prevent your definitions from overreaching their target, especially since you are grouping all commercial microplastics as cosmetic (which by itself isn't a great problem if it's confined to your proposal).

Otherwise, your definitions are actually well crafted, but restricting yourself to cosmetic products may be counterproductive or weirdly ambiguous as already said (you might want to ban all microplastics used in all retail products to actually achieve your intent which is protecting marine wildlife).

((also for the "muh waterless planets" problem, indeed it can be ignored since they can just ignore the resolution, but you might as well recognize the geo- and biodiversity of WA nations to address that if you think it's worth it))

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 5b doesn't make sense in the context of clause 5. It should be “monitoring” not “monitors”."

[Carbarosia]

"We would like to announce the revision of our proposal to tackle marine plastic pollution as a whole rather than pollution produced by cosmetic microplastic. A preliminary draft for this has been written up and is a long way from being finalised and as such, we would appreciate any feedback due to the sheer scope of the resolution."

OoC: Version two of the proposal is up on the original post! This proposal is very very very preliminary so please treat it as such and offer any suggestion(s) you all may have.

/post/

OoC: As you can see I kinda took what you suggested and ran with it, with everything you mentioned being implemented and, as suggested by IA and you, have committed to a full scale change to the aim of the proposal (major thank you).

"Clause 5b doesn't make sense in the context of clause 5. It should be “monitoring” not “monitors”."

OoC: Fixed! Really appreciate your spotting of my grammar!

[Kenmoria]

"I would change the comma in clause 1d after “to” to a colon."