[DRAFT] Coastline Management Act

[Bananaistan]

"We remain opposed. The one aspect of the justification laid out for this proposal which is feasible, IE the endangered species issue, is already covered by existing international legislation in GAR#465 which directs such efforts only to locations where they are necessary.

"The substance of this proposal remains the same as in the previous drafts presented for our consideration. Member states are still forced to undertakes works on all beaches and coastlines regardless of the necessity or feasibility of same. No doubt at huge costs too.

"Member states are best placed to decide, within the requirements of the existing legislation already referred to, which parts of their coastlines require protection from erosion and where it's best to let nature run its course."

This proposal builds on this by concentrating not just on coastal and local wildlife, but also on coastal human settlements, manmade and natural landmarks, and preservation of overall areas of natural beauty.

"Why should member states build a "plethora" (OOC: well done on including this word in a proposal btw) of groynes on all beaches and do this beach nourishment process on all beaches and then let some random areas erode as normal? And all this regardless of the cost, necessity or feasibility. Please justify this universal requirement for all coastlines.

"And then there's also the previous issues with the open-ended mandate for secondary legislation granted to the committee."

[Cappedore]

This proposal builds on this by concentrating not just on coastal and local wildlife, but also on coastal human settlements, manmade and natural landmarks, and preservation of overall areas of natural beauty.

"Why should member states build a "plethora" (OOC: well done on including this word in a proposal btw) of groynes on all beaches and do this beach nourishment process on all beaches and then let some random areas erode as normal? And all this regardless of the cost, necessity or feasibility. Please justify this universal requirement for all coastlines.

"And then there's also the previous issues with the open-ended mandate for secondary legislation granted to the committee."

"It is possible that the committee mentioned in this proposal can provide the appropriate funding to states should they require it, if they struggle to pay for the cost of beach nourishment as we understand it is a very costly job - being a nation surrounded by ocean on three fronts, we understand the costs of keeping our coastline secured and we believe that no nation should be placed into a difficult economic position simply to protect their coastlines."

"It all depends on local factors, really. If you're defending an area of coast that is commonly visited by tourists and citizens alike, and that area generates some form of local income or encourages local economic development, then we'd believe it is in that state's best interests to ensure that area is preserved to secure future economic prosperity - moreso for local communities. On top of that, as I stated above, it ensures the protection of coastal and seaside human settlements - or settlements next to any body of water for that matter, lakes and inland seas can still cause a lot of natural damage to surrounding areas."

"Some areas would be left to allow nature to run its course because in most cases, coastal erosion can create new habitats, moreso than it destroys, and can lead to a much wider sea life ecosystem - from there, if needs be, it can be protected through this proposal."

[Wallenburg]

Trevanyika can be seen flipping through her files concerning the draft at hand. Examining them, she settles on a particular excerpt she considers equally relevant now as it was when Ogenbond had said it.

"Preventing the natural processes of the planet on uninhabited stretches of coastline is an absurd waste of funds and resources, and is more likely to cause environmental harm than mitigate it."

[Cappedore]

Trevanyika can be seen flipping through her files concerning the draft at hand. Examining them, she settles on a particular excerpt she considers equally relevant now as it was when Ogenbond had said it.

"Preventing the natural processes of the planet on uninhabited stretches of coastline is an absurd waste of funds and resources, and is more likely to cause environmental harm than mitigate it."

"We agree - and furthermore, we would update our draft to suit those standards. This proposal aims to set in place the necessary provisions to ensure both natural and human inhabited areas on the coast and indeed near large bodies of water are secured - the rest of nature can be free to run its course as it pleases."

Anthony King can be seen scribbling out the fourth draft as he says this.

[Bananaistan]

"Why should member states build a "plethora" (OOC: well done on including this word in a proposal btw) of groynes on all beaches and do this beach nourishment process on all beaches and then let some random areas erode as normal? And all this regardless of the cost, necessity or feasibility. Please justify this universal requirement for all coastlines.

"And then there's also the previous issues with the open-ended mandate for secondary legislation granted to the committee."

"It is possible that the committee mentioned in this proposal can provide the appropriate funding to states should they require it, if they struggle to pay for the cost of beach nourishment as we understand it is a very costly job - being a nation surrounded by ocean on three fronts, we understand the costs of keeping our coastline secured and we believe that no nation should be placed into a difficult economic position simply to protect their coastlines."

"It all depends on local factors, really. If you're defending an area of coast that is commonly visited by tourists and citizens alike, and that area generates some form of local income or encourages local economic development, then we'd believe it is in that state's best interests to ensure that area is preserved to secure future economic prosperity - moreso for local communities. On top of that, as I stated above, it ensures the protection of coastal and seaside human settlements - or settlements next to any body of water for that matter, lakes and inland seas can still cause a lot of natural damage to surrounding areas."

"Some areas would be left to allow nature to run its course because in most cases, coastal erosion can create new habitats, moreso than it destroys, and can lead to a much wider sea life ecosystem - from there, if needs be, it can be protected through this proposal."

"So then, if it all depends on local factors, aren't member states best placed to decide on all this?

"Also, the General Fund is not a bottomless pit. Member states and the WA have better things to be spending their money on than on universal habitat destruction of every single beach.

"And then there's the further problem of just exactly where is the sand that is to be dumped on every single beach to be sourced?"

[Cappedore]

"It is possible that the committee mentioned in this proposal can provide the appropriate funding to states should they require it, if they struggle to pay for the cost of beach nourishment as we understand it is a very costly job - being a nation surrounded by ocean on three fronts, we understand the costs of keeping our coastline secured and we believe that no nation should be placed into a difficult economic position simply to protect their coastlines."

"It all depends on local factors, really. If you're defending an area of coast that is commonly visited by tourists and citizens alike, and that area generates some form of local income or encourages local economic development, then we'd believe it is in that state's best interests to ensure that area is preserved to secure future economic prosperity - moreso for local communities. On top of that, as I stated above, it ensures the protection of coastal and seaside human settlements - or settlements next to any body of water for that matter, lakes and inland seas can still cause a lot of natural damage to surrounding areas."

"Some areas would be left to allow nature to run its course because in most cases, coastal erosion can create new habitats, moreso than it destroys, and can lead to a much wider sea life ecosystem - from there, if needs be, it can be protected through this proposal."

"So then, if it all depends on local factors, aren't member states best placed to decide on all this?

"Also, the General Fund is not a bottomless pit. Member states and the WA have better things to be spending their money on than on universal habitat destruction of every single beach.

"And then there's the further problem of just exactly where is the sand that is to be dumped on every single beach to be sourced?"

"These three points are important, and we will be sure to consider them when writing our next draft - to respond to your first scrutiny, however, we would disagree. Fundamentally, it can be argued that not all member states have the necessary funding to create these kinds of precautions, and this proposal, overall, has the poorest nations in mind."

"If it would be okay with you, we would appreciate much more time to draft out this proposal - we are adamant that it has potential and even more adamant that international legislation can help deal with the issue for all nations. If not, we would be more than happy to move it to a declaration. Awareness for coastal preservation is needed, after all."

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe first flips through Elsie Mortimer Wellesley's notes, elegantly received from a lictor in a green despatch box. He then looks up and speaks, "I hope the ambassador can assure my delegation that they have abandoned this strange obsession of theirs with the mindless preservation of past shorelines and the destruction – by preventing formation – of future ones... and that they have intuited from the age of the Earth the implausibility of this strange scenario that all the world's mountains will be promptly reduced to saltwater marshes in geologic time".