NationStates

Part replacement for GAR # 417 if it gets repealed

(viewtopic.php?f=9&t=528537)

This covers the only scenario which is not covered by any of the existing resolutions (and there are nine related resolutions): onshore (land based) mining and drilling near the borders of two (or more) member states. I believe it's only a WA issue if you are mining near a border with another member state - since it (potentially) affects another member state.

This assumes RNT so I am not writing anything about regulating the actual mining and drilling entirely inside national boundaries - the member state doing the mining/drilling should be able to figure out how to protect its own environment (or not protect it - that's not the WA's problem). Or they are in sci-fi RP and have a planet that doesn't have air or whatever anyway.

Note that because #417 is a partial restriction on hydraulic fracking, it does make it possible to do an outright ban on hydraulic fracking if that's what the WA wants. But that scenario would also require repealing #417.

Draft 2 is to clarify the definition of "onshore" as suggested below. It's very similar to draft 1. Draft 3 very similar with a couple of changes as described below.

Draft 3

Category environmental/all, strength: mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the Assembly’s efforts to protect member states’ environment, ensure a safe water supply (GAR#223, GAR#441, GAR#453), regulate oil drilling activities (GAR#95, GAR#409 and GAR#510), and mining (GAR#148, GAR#263, GAR#346)

Noting that no regulation covers cases where land based mining, drilling and other forms of extraction of natural resources occur near national borders;

1. Hereby requires:
   
   1. A member state that proposes approving mining, drilling and dredging activities ("mining state") (and, hereafter, for convenience, collectively referred to as "mining") wholly within its national land borders must seek the approval of any member state(s) ("bordering member state(s)") that share a land border with the mining state if either the mining state or any of the bordering member state(s) reasonably believes that the mining activities conducted by the mining state will affect the environment (including natural and/or cultural environment) of the bordering member state(s) or the health and well-being of their citizens;
      
   2. Any mining activities that transcend the borders of more than one member state (either above ground or underground) require the approval of all of the member states affected by such activities;
      
   3. A bordering member state may require a mining state to conduct such environmental impact studies and other assessments as the bordering member state (and the mining state) together deems appropriate, with all costs to be borne by the mining state (and if mining activities involve multiple member states, such costs and benefits to be allocated based on mutual negotiations)
      
   4. A bordering member state may require a mining state to assess the costs of any remedial measures as the bordering member state deems appropriate on any mining and drilling activities that affect the bordering member state, and for the mining state to determine whether such activities are ultimately beneficial (in all aspects to the well-being of both the mining state and the bordering member state and not merely financial well-being) prior to the commencement of any mining and drilling activities, and for the mining state to fully indemnify the bordering member state(s) for any remedial costs incurred;
      
   5. Hereby requires that any disputes between member states concerning this resolution shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly.
2. Hereby encourages member states to negotiate similar arrangements if they share a land border with a non member state;
   
3. Hereby clarifies that for the purpose of this resolution:
   
   
   1. the terms "land based", "land borders" or similar terms also include partially submerged tidal flats, marshlands, and very shallow waters and other similar geological features applicable to individual member states;
   2. the term "mining" includes drilling (as a matter of convenience in wording as defined in the preamble), plus dredging and other technologies used in the extraction of natural resources, and includes all of exploratory, scientific/research-related and commercial mining.

(OOC: What is the category and strength? Also, there is a grammatical error in clause 2; “if it shares” should be “if they share”, to agree with “member states”.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: What is the category and strength? Also, there is a grammatical error in clause 2; “if it shares” should be “if they share”, to agree with “member states”.)

Strength would have to be mild because of the use of the word "encourage" (because we can't regulate non member states). Category I am still thinking about it, but probably environmental/mining.

Simone Republic wrote:Category environmental/mining, strength: mild (to be confirmed)

A proposal submitted under Environmental/Mining does not have a strength; it is de facto of Significant strength. If you want a Mild Environmental proposal, you will have to submit under the All Businesses - Mild subcategory.

Simone Republic wrote:2d. A bordering member state may require [...] the mining state to determine whether such activities are beneficial to the mining state

Aren't they just going to say "yes, it is" out of self-interest?

Simone Republic wrote:3. Hereby requires that any disputes between member states shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission.

Why? JCCC's only remit (as of time of writing) is to "to oversee the publication of all laws, treaties, and international agreements." A committee like the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly would be comparatively better suited to this task, for instance. (ESWA is already involved in approving land reclamation impact studies through GA#526 - although I hate it! OOCly, of course. Tinhampton the nation has never reclaimed land.)

You should also note that Morover got Repeal "National Economic Freedoms" passed in part because the IMF had "to investigate, mediate, and arbitrate any conflicts that arise," even if those conflicts were irrelevant to NEF's scope.

OOC: Not got time to go through the draft in detail right now, but name suggestion: instead of "onshore" (which at least I read to mean "on land near shore"), how about "border zone"? You could drop the "cooperation" if it made the title too long.

Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: Not got time to go through the draft in detail right now, but name suggestion: instead of "onshore" (which at least I read to mean "on land near shore"), how about "border zone"? You could drop the "cooperation" if it made the title too long.

Changed. I wasn't thinking about "onshore" in that sense, but sure.

Tinhampton wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:Category environmental/mining, strength: mild (to be confirmed)

A proposal submitted under Environmental/Mining does not have a strength; it is de facto of Significant strength. If you want a Mild Environmental proposal, you will have to submit under the All Businesses - Mild subcategory.

I was thinking about using one of the old Jennifer Government categories for once, but anyway.

Tinhampton wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:2d. A bordering member state may require [...] the mining state to determine whether such activities are beneficial to the mining state

Aren't they just going to say "yes, it is" out of self-interest?

I used the word "beneficial" to mean overall benefits, so not necessarily all financial. But I can clarify that line. Also not all mining is beneficial - the British coal mining industry was rightly scaled back as it was uneconomical.

I also think some of this depends on the country itself and their attitudes. I think Britain will say no to the mining if it affects the bat population or migratory bird patterns etc (which is why High Speed 2 is mostly in a tunnel northwest of London). Probably not the Germans either since the Greens are in government.

Australians blowing up their 40,000 year old artifacts to make way for a mine? Sure.

Tinhampton wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:3. Hereby requires that any disputes between member states shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission.

Why? JCCC's only remit (as of time of writing) is to "to oversee the publication of all laws, treaties, and international agreements." A committee like the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly would be comparatively better suited to this task, for instance. (ESWA is already involved in approving land reclamation impact studies through GA#526 - although I hate it! OOCly, of course. Tinhampton the nation has never reclaimed land.)

You should also note that Morover got Repeal "National Economic Freedoms" passed in part because the IMF had "to investigate, mediate, and arbitrate any conflicts that arise," even if those conflicts were irrelevant to NEF's scope.

I changed it to ESWA. Basically there's going to be so many minor disputes over bee and bat populations, artifacts, earthquakes, who pays for pollution, cleanup, subsidence and what not, that it's best left resolved at committee level, not WA. Preferably bilaterally resolved, to be honest.

I've clarified the benefit bit to the below:

"(in all aspects to the well-being of both the mining state and the bordering member state and not merely financial well-being) prior to the commencement of any mining and drilling activities, and for the mining state to fully indemnify the bordering member state(s) for any remedial costs incurred"

"This draft enables Member-States to place the costs of environmental monitoring and damage abatement on others the world over. The environment is by-definition international,-" Raxes clicks his mandibles, "-for your civilizations, anyway, - there are matters of air and water pollution, the effects of which are world-reaching, and environmental degradation in one area leading to degradation in neighboring ecosystems, leading to degradation in those that neighbor them, and so on, through their deeply interconnected nature. And that's before we even get to such matters as global climate shift.

Even if we put aside the basic fact that a global system is indeed global, and restrict ourselves only to the most immediate neighbors, as your draft seems to be implying, it is an absurd demand to require that Member-States seeking what very well should be the most basic environmental surveys and damage-abatement processes in their neighbors, should be required to reimburse said neighbors for the grace of basic consideration. If you are unmoved by the idea that Member-States should not act as solitary islands that can never be held truly responsible for their actions, consider the incredible chilling effect such a thing would have on such basic considerations. If a poor Member-State must pay the incredible sums of environmental survey and damage-abatement costs for the actions of their wealthier neighbor, it will simply not be done, and all will suffer for it."

Second Sovereignty wrote:"This draft enables Member-States to place the costs of environmental monitoring and damage abatement on others the world over. The environment is by-definition international,-" Raxes clicks his mandibles, "-for your civilizations, anyway, - there are matters of air and water pollution, the effects of which are world-reaching, and environmental degradation in one area leading to degradation in neighboring ecosystems, leading to degradation in those that neighbor them, and so on, through their deeply interconnected nature. And that's before we even get to such matters as global climate shift.

Even if we put aside the basic fact that a global system is indeed global, and restrict ourselves only to the most immediate neighbors, as your draft seems to be implying, it is an absurd demand to require that Member-States seeking what very well should be the most basic environmental surveys and damage-abatement processes in their neighbors, should be required to reimburse said neighbors for the grace of basic consideration. If you are unmoved by the idea that Member-States should not act as solitary islands that can never be held truly responsible for their actions, consider the incredible chilling effect such a thing would have on such basic considerations. If a poor Member-State must pay the incredible sums of environmental survey and damage-abatement costs for the actions of their wealthier neighbor, it will simply not be done, and all will suffer for it."

Would it work better if I reverse the payment mechanism so that whoever proposes the mining pays all the costs? Obviously if both sides want to mine, then they can work out something.

Ultimately some mining is unavoidable based on current "green" technologies - lithium, nickel, vanadium etc.

Simone Republic wrote:Would it work better if I reverse the payment mechanism so that whoever proposes the mining pays all the costs?

"That would be as it should be, yes."

Second Sovereignty wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:Would it work better if I reverse the payment mechanism so that whoever proposes the mining pays all the costs?

"That would be as it should be, yes."

Fine, I reversed it.

Bump. Also just remembered that offshore there's also dredging of seabed for sand.

Second bump. I explicitly added in clause 3 "very shallow waters" to cover sand dredging and what constitutes tidal flats, etc.

There is a slight change in the definition to also include "extraction of natural resources" to cover broadly other similar technologies.

Note that my last calls can last for weeks and weeks, like my last calls for drinks.

Edit: final call as the repeal has gone to vote.

Bump as the original resolution has been repealed.

this hit vote four minutes ago

"Full Support."

as usual a well rounded and sensible proposal
full support

Inner Mations Aststan fully supports this proposal. Should this resolution go through, Inner Mations Aststan will use it to effectively shut down all mining operations in neighbouring states, as we feel that any mining operation affects the environment through polluting the air that flows through Inner Mations Aststan. We will require all mining states to conduct environmental impact studies at their cost, and build remdiation costs into every mining project. We feel that this will drive up the cost of mining operations to the point where mining becomes financially unfeasible, thus protecting the environment. We appreciate the wide-ranging implications of this proposal, and look forward to mining around Inner Mations Aststan being fully shut down because of it.

Inner Mations Aststan wrote:Inner Mations Aststan fully supports this proposal. Should this resolution go through, Inner Mations Aststan will use it to effectively shut down all mining operations in neighbouring states, as we feel that any mining operation affects the environment through polluting the air that flows through Inner Mations Aststan. We will require all mining states to conduct environmental impact studies at their cost, and build remdiation costs into every mining project. We feel that this will drive up the cost of mining operations to the point where mining becomes financially unfeasible, thus protecting the environment. We appreciate the wide-ranging implications of this proposal, and look forward to mining around Inner Mations Aststan being fully shut down because of it.

“I would like to politely remind your Excellency that it is not for any singular member-nation to decide the manner in which others interpret legislation. As mandated by GA #464, Civil Charter of the World Assembly, all member-nations must comply in good faith with law of the General Assembly. However, that does not mean that all member-nations must apply resolutions in precisely the same way. In accordance with GA #390, Compliance Commission, it is an independent committee of the General Assembly that is responsible for standardising compliance, not any singular member-nation. There is nothing in this proposal which requires that mining be completely eliminated, merely regulated.”

The Republic of Kaprein strongly supports the intent of this proposal, but is unable to support it due to clauses 1a, 1c, and 1d.

There is nothing in clause 1a to prevent a state from abusing this resolution and sending bogus requests and claiming they reasonably believe the mining will be a threat.

Similarly, there is nothing in clause 1c to prevent bogus requests to be sent - especially as the cost is on the state doing the mining. What prevents this resolution from being used to target smaller nations who don't have the capabilities of a larger nation?

The same issue is present in 1d.

This resolution is not about improving mining. It is about making it as easy as possible to target a state who uses mining with bogus requests, as compared to a resolution promoting genuine mining regulation.

Inner Mations Aststan has explicitly stated that they will abuse this resolution - this is the issue with it. This is not a resolution which promotes actual environmental protection - it is about forcing all the costs on a mining state. States subject to this will do their absolute best to limit this, prevent this, exploit loopholes, etc. The consequence of this will be states that mine on their borders to spend more time making border nations lives as frustrating as possible, as compared to promoting environmentalism.

Inner Mations Aststan fully supports this proposal. Should this resolution go through, Inner Mations Aststan will use it to effectively shut down all mining operations in neighbouring states, as we feel that any mining operation affects the environment through polluting the air that flows through Inner Mations Aststan. We will require all mining states to conduct environmental impact studies at their cost, and build remdiation costs into every mining project. We feel that this will drive up the cost of mining operations to the point where mining becomes financially unfeasible, thus protecting the environment. We appreciate the wide-ranging implications of this proposal, and look forward to mining around Inner Mations Aststan being fully shut down because of it.

Harry Adler, Permanent Representative of Kaprein to the World Assembly

the commonwealth of Stellus stay grateful for the Art of mining, we are having difficulty in denouncing the neighbor[nation]Evangelistao[/nation] for exploiting resources in the national territory without our permission, disturbing the economy

The National Council of the People's Will is at something of a deadlock. On the one hand, some members share the views of Inner Mations Aststan, to allow for forceful shutting down of bordering operations that threaten our environmental sanctity. Protecting the environment is a good thing, no one will argue that. However, other members agree with the honorable delegate from the Republic of Kaprein, in that the wording and intent of the resolution specifically invites this kind of bullying - and there is no other word for what will ensue - to force their own agendas onto their neighbors. A number of nations rely on these heavy - and yes, very dirty - industries to maintain their economies. Using this resolution will result in severe economic consequences - which will not always remain restricted to the industrial nation whose economy is being bludgeoned in this manner.

I personally am in agreement with my counterpart from Kaprein, and after consultations in the capital, so is the President. Therefore, I vote against this proposal on behalf of the people of Caymarnia.

Answers in one go.

Youtube Inc wrote:as usual a well rounded and sensible proposal
full support

Thank you.

Kaprein wrote:The Republic of Kaprein strongly supports the intent of this proposal, but is unable to support it due to clauses 1a, 1c, and 1d.

There is nothing in clause 1a to prevent a state from abusing this resolution and sending bogus requests and claiming they reasonably believe the mining will be a threat.

Similarly, there is nothing in clause 1c to prevent bogus requests to be sent - especially as the cost is on the state doing the mining. What prevents this resolution from being used to target smaller nations who don't have the capabilities of a larger nation?

The same issue is present in 1d.

*snip*

I respect that point of view, but as per GA#390, GA#440, GA#654, etc., there is an implicit assumption of acting in good faith between members.

Caymarnia wrote:The National Council of the People's Will is at something of a deadlock. On the one hand, some members share the views of Inner Mations Aststan, to allow for forceful shutting down of bordering operations that threaten our environmental sanctity. Protecting the environment is a good thing, no one will argue that. However, other members agree with the honorable delegate from the Republic of Kaprein, in that the wording and intent of the resolution specifically invites this kind of bullying - and there is no other word for what will ensue - to force their own agendas onto their neighbors. A number of nations rely on these heavy - and yes, very dirty - industries to maintain their economies. Using this resolution will result in severe economic consequences - which will not always remain restricted to the industrial nation whose economy is being bludgeoned in this manner.

I personally am in agreement with my counterpart from Kaprein, and after consultations in the capital, so is the President. Therefore, I vote against this proposal on behalf of the people of Caymarnia.

Again, I respect that point of view but I think we work on the assumption that there is good faith between members pursuant to GA#654. Obviously, it's "anything goes" if you have a non-member as neighbour.

"Unfortunately, the Strange Reality is unable to comply with this resolution. If the neighbouring Bigtopia invokes Sections 1c or 1d, we have no way of knowing that such a requirement was made given the force field which surrounds the Strange Reality, and thus prevents such information from reaching our nation."

"Your resolution has been officially wanked."