[PASSED] Wetland Protection Protocol

[Separatist Peoples]

"Alright, fellow ambassadors. This was promised some time ago, and, though I have little confidence in the current voting atmosphere accepting this, I cannot give up without the attempt. So..."

Wetland Protection Protocol
Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Business

---

Lauding the WA’s vigilance when protecting valued natural resources;

Recognizing that the degradation of wetlands has a serious impact on transnational migratory species, quality of trans-boundary waters, and a loss of nursery habitat necessary to sustain populations of commercially-harvested species;

Aware that wetlands have fantastic capacity to absorb catastrophic flooding and cleanse waters of dangerous pollutants;

Realizing that the benefits that wetlands provide at no cost are often prohibitively expensive to artificially provide, and have effects that cannot be contained by national borders;

Horrified at the degradation of wetlands, despite the benefits they offer;

Defining wetlands as terrestrial habitats, natural or otherwise, whose biological and physical properties are characterized by the regular saturation of water during the growing season, and show evidence of hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation;

The World Assembly hereby,

1. Creates and tasks the Waterbody Health and Mitigation Management Organization (WHAMMO) to:

1. Collect and disseminate information relevant to wetland study, identification, and protection;
   
   
2. Enforce best management practices for research and impact reduction in wetlands, such as jurisdictional determination, public demarcation, and post-construction monitoring;
   
   
3. Manage the purchase of non-transferable mitigation credits by nations for unavoidable permanent impacts caused to a wetland during industrial development, which:
   
   
   1. May be used in lieu of on-site mitigation when all other measures are proven impossible or impractical for a location, and;
      
      
   2. Are equitably priced according to the characteristics of the wetland, impact, and viability of alternative methods;
4. Authorize mitigation credit grants to nations which preemptively construct wetland banks to offset future wetland loss, and;
   
   
5. Collect and disseminate information relevant to wetland study and protection, and issue grants and loans to non-profit entities making progressive strides in wetland conservation and research.

2. Urges member states to employ strategic-level assessment of their wetland resources to avoid and reduce impact to wetlands.

3. Requires member states utilize at least one of the following mitigation methods:

1. Restore wetlands to their pre-construction quality and characteristics;
   
   
2. Construct new wetlands of equal quality in the vicinity to offset impact;
   
   
3. Purchase mitigation credits from WHAMMO;

4. Mandates member states utilize mitigation measures for affected wetland area at no less than a 1:1 ratio.

5. Requires member states adopt, at a minimum, the best management standards issued by WHAMMO.

6. Obligates member states to require projects to include pre-construction environmental reports detailing any potential impacts to wetlands, such as secondary and cumulative impacts, and possible alternatives, including a no-construction alternative, available for review by WHAMMO in the event of dispute.

7. Encourages member states to create and fund water management programs to assist in impact mitigation and wetland quality maintenance, as well as work with local and non-governmental entities to best meet that end.

8. Allows member states to require industries impacting a wetland to assume these additional costs.

Wetland Mitigation Protocol
Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Business
Lauding the WA’s vigilance when protecting the natural resources of her member states,

Realizing that wetlands have extraordinary and often unappreciated value for improving water quality, biodiversity, and physical protection from flood and erosion events,

It is therefore established:

Wetlands being defined as habitats whose biological and physical properties are defined by the regular saturation of water during the growing season, and show evidence of hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation, excluding entirely aquatic environments.

Members are strongly urged to utilize developmental strategies and employ strategic-level assessment of their wetland resources to avoid and reduce impact to wetland waterbodies at a national level.

Members shall utilize mitigation measures for impacted and damaged wetlands at no less than a 1:1 ratio.

The Waterbody Health and Mitigation Organization (WHAMO) shall be established and empowered to:

a. Research and disseminate information relevant to wetland study, identification, and protection;

b. Determine, issue, and enforce best management practices for industry impact on wetlands, such as jurisdictional determination, impact reduction, and post-construction monitoring;

c. Require the purchase of non-transferable mitigation credits, as a form of development tax, by nations which shall serve as compensation for unavoidable permanent impacts caused to a wetland during industrial development, which:

i. May be used in lieu of on-site mitigation when all other mitigation measures are proven impossible or impractical for a particular feature, and;

ii. Shall be fairly and equitably priced according to the nation’s ability to pay and current relevant standards, characteristics of the wetland feature, degree of impact, and viability of alternative methods;

d. Authorize the allocation of mitigation credits to nations which pre-emptively construct wetland banks to offset future wetland loss, and;

e. Issue grants and loans to non-profit entities making progressive strides in wetland research and impact reduction.

Member states are required to utilize at least one of the following mitigation methods for wetland impacts:

i. Restoration of a wetland to its pre-construction quality and characteristics;

ii. Construction of a new wetland of similar characteristics in the vicinity to offset impact;

iii. Purchase mitigation credits from WHAMO;

Members shall adopt, at minimum, the best management standards issued by WHAMO for their national industry.

Members must require projects to include pre-construction environmental reports detailing the potential impacts to wetlands and all possible impacts, including secondary and cumulative impacts, and possible alternatives, including a no-construction alternative, available for review by WHAMO in the event of dispute.

Members are strongly encouraged to incorporate water management programs, tailored to the specific needs of the area, and procure funding to that end, as well as work with local and non-governmental entities to best meet that end.

Members are permitted to require those private industry entities impacting a wetland to assume the costs, either in part or whole, for the mitigation efforts herein required.

Wetland Mitigation Protocol
Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Business
Recognizing the WA’s vigilance when protecting the natural resources of her member states,

Realizing that wetlands have extraordinary and often unappreciated value for improving water quality, biodiversity, and physical protection from flood and erosion events,

It is therefore established:

1. Wetlands shall be defined as habitats whose biological and physical properties are defined by the regular saturation of water during the growing season, and show evidence of hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation.

2. This resolution’s scope shall exclude entirely aquatic environments.

3. Members are strongly urged to utilize developmental strategies to avoid and reduce impact to wetland waterbodies at a national level.

4. The Waterbody Health and Mitigation Organization (WHAMO) shall be established and empowered to:

a. Research and disseminate information relevant to wetland study, identification, and protection,
b. Determine, issue, and enforce best management practices for industry impact on wetlands, such as jurisdictional determination, impact reduction, and post-construction monitoring,
c. Require the purchase of non-transferable mitigation credits by nations which shall serve as economic compensation for unavoidable permanent impacts caused to a wetland during industrial development, which:
i. May be used in lieu of on-site mitigation when other local mitigation measures are proven impossible or impractical for a particular feature, and
ii. Shall be fairly and equitably priced according to the nation’s ability to pay and current relevant standards, characteristics of the wetland feature, degree of impact, and viability of alternative methods,
d. Authorize the allocation of mitigation credits to nations which pre-emptively construct wetland banks to offset future wetland loss,
e. Issue grants and loans to non-profit entities making progressive strides in wetland research and impact reduction.

5. Member states shall adopt, at minimum, the best management standards issued by WHAMO for their national industry.

6. Member states shall utilize mitigation measures for impacted and damaged wetlands at no less than a 1:1 ratio.

7. States are permitted to require those private industry entities impacting a wetland to assume the costs, either in part or whole, for the mitigation efforts herein required.

Wetland Mitigation Protocol
Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Business

Recognizing the WA’s vigilance when protecting the natural resources of her member states,

Realizing that wetlands have extraordinary and often unappreciated value for improving water resource quality, biodiversity, and physical protection from flood and erosion events,

It is therefore established:

1. Defines wetlands as habitats whose biological and physical properties are defined by the regular saturation of water, and show evidence of hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation,

2. Strongly urges member states utilize developmental strategies to avoid and reduce impact to wetland waterbodies at a national level,

3. Establishes and empowers the Waterbody Health and Mitigation Organization (WHAMO) to:
a. Collect, disseminate, and research information relevant to wetland study, identification, and impact mitigation, and regularly issue and update best management standards for industry impact to wetlands,
b. Issue mitigation credits to nations which shall serve as economic compensation for unavoidable permanent impacts caused to a wetland during industrial development, and may be purchased in lieu of on-site mitigation when other local mitigation measures are proven impossible or impractical for a particular feature,
c. Fairly and equitably adjust the cost of such credits according to the nation’s ability to pay, size and quality of the wetland, degree of impact, and viability of other mitigation methods,
d. Utilize funds acquired from mitigation credit issuance to issue grants and loans for the creation of wetland mitigation bank sites, partial subsidization of credits for nations with standards that exceed those laid out in this bill, and enforce its’ standards;

4. Requires member states adopt, at minimum, the best management standards issued by WHAMO for their national industry;

5. Requires member states utilize mitigation measures for impacted and damaged wetlands at no less than a 1:1 ratio;

6. States are permitted to require those private industry entities impacting a wetland to foot the bill, either in part or whole, for the mitigation efforts.

OOC: Some background: US laws regarding wetlands are what I work with, so this mirrors the general standards of the USACE/EPA in some places, though not exactly. Specifically, the final segment of the wetlands definition is the industry standard. I don't believe it falls into plagiarism any more then other technical definitions here do, but I'm open to discussion on that.

[Hakio]

Wetland Mitigation Protocol
Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Business

Recognizing the WA’s vigilance when protecting the natural resources of her member states,

Realizing that wetlands have extraordinary and often unappreciated value for improving water resource quality, biodiversity, and physical protection from flood and erosion events,

It is therefore established:

1. Wetlands shall be defined as habitats whose biological and physical properties are defined by the regular saturation of water, and show evidence of hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation, excluding entirely aquatic environments from the scope of this bill.

2. This bill shall exclude entirely aquatic environments from the scope of this bill,

This might work a little better, also saying "this bill ... of this bill" is a little bit redundant in word usage.

3. Members are strongly urged to utilize developmental strategies to avoid and reduce impact to wetland waterbodies at a national level,

4. The Waterbody Health and Mitigation Organization (WHAMO) shall be established and empowered to:
a. Collect, disseminate, and research information relevant to wetland study, identification, and impact mitigation, and regularly issue and update best management standards for industry impact to wetlands,
b. Issue mitigation credits for a nation to purchase when on-site mitigation is not possible or practical for a particular feature and no local mitigation alternative is available,

Mitigation Credits? Might need a bit more explanation.

c. Fairly and equitably adjust the cost of such credits according to the nation’s ability to pay, size and quality of the wetland, degree of impact, and viability of other mitigation methods,

Not sure of the purpose of these theoretical credits.

d. Utilize funds acquired to credit issuance to issue grants and loans for the creation of wetland mitigation bank sites, partial subsidization of credits for nations with standards that exceed those laid out in this bill, and enforce its’ standards;

Is the usage of credit here connected to the theoretical mitigation credits? What are those credits? Financial compensation? Rewards for industries and government agencies properly taking care of their wetlands?

5. Member states shall adopt, at minimum, the best management standards issued by WHAMO for their national industry;

6. Member states shall utilize mitigation measures for impacted and damaged wetlands at no less than a 1:1 ratio;

7. States are permitted to require those private industry entities impacting a wetland to foot the bill, either in part or whole, for the mitigation efforts.

Good start. This bill shows a lot of promise and potential.

[Separatist Peoples]

This might work a little better, also saying "this bill ... of this bill" is a little bit redundant in word usage.

OOC: I hate trying to do this via smartphone Much obliged.

Mitigation Credits? Might need a bit more explanation.

"Certainly. The point being that a nation or entity can pay money to avoid part or all of replacing impacted wetlands. An economic check on widespread wanton development and a source of income. I was watching my character count, but clearly more is needed."

Not sure of the purpose of these theoretical credits.

Is the usage of credit here connected to the theoretical mitigation credits? What are those credits? Financial compensation? Rewards for industries and government agencies properly taking care of their wetlands?

OOC: See above.

Good start. This bill shows a lot of promise and potential.

"Thank you, ambassador. I'll see that this ends up less vague on it's crowning point!"

EDIT: Adjusted.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Have you ever looked at the Ramsar Convention? That was what the attempt at wetlands in the NSUN was based on. This could also easily be downgraded from All Businesses to Agriculture, as outside the US most wetland use is agricultural.

(WHAMO)

Ah, the West Wing...

1. Wetlands shall be defined as habitats whose biological and physical properties are defined by the regular saturation of water, and show evidence of hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation,

This definition is too vague to be worthwhile. Given you're setting up a committee and requiring nations to follow its standards, why not simply allow WHAMO to define the limit and scope of what constitutes a wetland, in consultation with national oversight authorities?

7. States are permitted to require those private industry entities impacting a wetland to foot the bill, either in part or whole, for the mitigation efforts.

For a resolution (not a bill...) otherwise so concerned with very technical language, "foot the bill" is awfully vernacular. How about "meet the costs"?

[Separatist Peoples]

It’s been a while since I reviewed it, so I’ll have to check that resource out. I’ll freely admit that I have little understanding of non-US wetland usage. I wouldn’t mind bumping this down, given the huge stat impact this is likely to have, but I really wanted to include IC versions of the cause of Rapanos v. US. It can be argued that many agricultural uses don’t constitute a permanent impact. I’ll seriously consider it, though. There’s an offside chance I can split this into two, better focused proposals on the subject, and definitely worth exploring…especially if Scion’s desertification draft ends up shifting more to a sustainable agriculture concept.

I’m not sure about the definition being relegated to the committee. From a technical standpoint, it mirrors the USACE’s, in that all three, hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation, need to be present. Hydrology and vegetation is generally easy, but hydric soils take, on average, decades to form. As such, you are unlikely to find a technical wetland where you’ll see ephemeral or intermittent streams, tilled soils, fill, and the like. From a political standpoint, not defining it leaves this open for a malicious misinterpretation of the draft’s effects, which seems to be the new black this summer. For now, I’m inclined to leave it in, unless I start seeing some real definition-wanking in the debate. I will, however, expand WHAMO’s powers to include jurisdictional determination in the event of a dispute, since they have control of the Best Management Standards and data distribution on the matter. Does that jive as a reasonable compromise for the moment?

I’ll also adjust the wording to something less vernacular. And here I thought I was being extra careful…

"As a general announcement, I won't be keeping numbered drafts of this for the first several hours, considering how much editing this is likely to see for now. When it starts resembling something vaguely polished, or merits a major rewrite, expect an archive."

OOC EDIT: smartphones are terrible, terrible drafting platforms.

[Louisistan]

OOC


I have bo idea where my post went. There seems to have been a problem when I submitted. Hmmm...

[Defwa]

OOC I'm also on mobile which is why Ambassador Landfree is appearing via telecom drone (flying tv).

The definition of wetland strikes us, too, as overly avoidable. I appreciate that it is not your style, but WHAMO should be designating them to prevent nations escaping this resolution. Your compromise is quite acceptable, however a little expansion on the definition, I you have words left over at the end of drafting, would help.
We're also not sure what these credits you're referring to are. Are they punitive for defying the resolution? Are you saying nations can pay to get out of complying? Are we paying other nations to maintain their environments through the general fund?
The language is either not there or my translator isn't working properly through the camera. If it is the second, I really do detest such systems but I understand they go down easier than punishment. I can only hope that the credits are then sufficiently obstructive.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC I'm also on mobile which is why Ambassador Landfree is appearing via telecom drone (flying tv).

The definition of wetland strikes us, too, as overly avoidable. I appreciate that it is not your style, but WHAMO should be designating them to prevent nations escaping this resolution. Your compromise is quite acceptable, however a little expansion on the definition, I you have words left over at the end of drafting, would help.

OOC: That definition is, unfortunately, as close as one can get without bringing specific units in, which I hate to do. Its the scientific standard in the real world. I'm not sure how its insufficient without becoming absurd in interpretations. While that is normal here, it isn't entirely avoidable. How would you define it?

We're also not sure what these credits you're referring to are. Are they punitive for defying the resolution? Are you saying nations can pay to get out of complying? Are we paying other nations to maintain their environments through the general fund? The language is either not there or my translator isn't working properly through the camera. If it is the second, I really do detest such systems but I understand they go down easier than punishment. I can only hope that the credits are then sufficiently obstructive.

IC: "Ambassador Landfree, it says directly in the text that the credits are compensatory for use in-lieu of other wetland mitigation options. Options like repairing the impacted ones, building new ones, utilizing local wetland banks, etc. are not always viable. Rather then halt all construction, like the ill-fated Percussionland draft would, this allows for nations to otherwise compensate for the damage done. It is unreasonable to expect all industry to halt for the sake of a few acres of wetland, especially in the current voting atmosphere. This, at least, provides a source of funding, and is only an option when approved by WHAMO."

In the US, a similar option exists. If you just can't build a wetland on site to make up for what you've lost, and there are no other options, companies can pay roughly $30,000/credit, which the USACE reinvests into other management projects. This is compounded depending on the quality and type of the wetland; a Palustrine Emergent Wetland of low quality would have a 1:1 ratio of credits to acres, since they are relatively simple to restore, taking only a few years. On the other hand, a high-value Palustrine Forested Wetland would have a ratio of approximately 4:1 credits to acre, as forested wetlands take significantly longer to develop. Thus the beauty of the system, which can be adopted, roughly, into WA law.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I will, however, expand WHAMO’s powers to include jurisdictional determination in the event of a dispute, since they have control of the Best Management Standards and data distribution on the matter. Does that jive as a reasonable compromise for the moment?

That does jive, honky.

On these "mitigation credits", would it be viable for nations to trade them internationally, or would that undermine the enforcement regime.

[Separatist Peoples]

I will, however, expand WHAMO’s powers to include jurisdictional determination in the event of a dispute, since they have control of the Best Management Standards and data distribution on the matter. Does that jive as a reasonable compromise for the moment?

That does jive, honky.

On these "mitigation credits", would it be viable for nations to trade them internationally, or would that undermine the enforcement regime.

"Word, my chum. Appropriately updated. I made sure the credits were nontransferable. I wouldn't want some nations filling their swamps with fill just because their neighbors were willing to sell a few extras. As a general clarification for those who don't follow, the credits exist merely to aid in quantifying the wetland resources, not unlike paper money to gold bullion. I lack the room for it, but the intention is that WHAMO will apply them by a relevant standard, such as per acre and ecological regime, making the entire process, in practice, less complex. I lack the characters to explain this in-text, though. In the new draft, you'll notice that the language has been changed from "Issue" credits to "Purchase" in subsection C. This is to make clear the difference in subsection D, where credits may be "allocated", implying no charge, for those nations that preemptively construct mitigation banks."

[Goddess Relief Office]

I fully support the idea of mitigation credits, but I think the language needs to make it clear that it shouldn't be an alternative to conservation. While the use of credits (a development "tax") does tends to protect wetlands to a certain extent, it isn't effective in practice especially when the developer happens to be "the government" or some other high profit margin business like oil or gas.

I guess what I'm saying is, allowing development to proceed with purchase of credits should be the absolute last option in lieu of other on-site mitigation measures. This should be clear in the draft. It currently focuses too much on credit trading which I think, kind of shifts the attention away from the importance of conservation (there is for example, the option of picking the "no project" alternative)

Here are a few other suggestions (admittedly some may not fall neatly into the "mitigation" topic)

• Require the preparation of project-level environment effects reports to identify impacts and mitigation measures, taking into consideration on-site as well as secondary/cumulative impacts to the environment. Better still, require strategic level environment assessment studies before projects are even proposed.

• Add a line to recognize that water regimes/programs may be needed to mitigate, restore or maintain wetlands at their current states, requiring nations/developers to implement water management programs and allocate funding as necessary to mitigate past or proposed actions.

• As much as possible, require the retention of floodplains in their entirety and allow the unimpeded movement of aquatic biota and waterbirds (in other words, don't cut wetlands in half by filling some parts up).

• Acknowledge the importance of cooperation between government and non-government organizations including environment groups on conservation and monitoring work to ensure transparency and effective management.

Regards,
~GRO~
(Mods: A bit of a grave dig I know, but I've spoken to the author and he said I could post in this thread)

[Separatist Peoples]

I fully support the idea of mitigation credits, but I think the language needs to make it clear that it shouldn't be an alternative to conservation. While the use of credits (a development "tax") does tends to protect wetlands to a certain extent, it isn't effective in practice especially when the developer happens to be "the government" or some other high profit margin business like oil or gas.

I guess what I'm saying is, allowing development to proceed with purchase of credits should be the absolute last option in lieu of other on-site mitigation measures. This should be clear in the draft. It currently focuses too much on credit trading which I think, kind of shifts the attention away from the importance of conservation (there is for example, the option of picking the "no project" alternative)

“Indeed, that’s why the price isn’t set, and can be scaled. When it comes down to it, that is a mostly unavoidable situation, but I had hoped the language here:

. Require the purchase of non-transferable mitigation credits, as a form of development tax, by nations which shall serve as compensation for unavoidable permanent impacts caused to a wetland during industrial development, which:
i. May be used in lieu of on-site mitigation when all other mitigation measures are proven impossible or impractical for a particular feature, and;

“would be sufficient to ensure that these are a last-resort credit. I did add in, as per your later suggestions, some wording involving documentation and availability of reporting, the better to allow WHAMO to review these cases, allowing an investigatory entity to root out any violations and address them however the WA addresses violations.”

Here are a few other suggestions (admittedly some may not fall neatly into the "mitigation" topic)
Require the preparation of project-level environment effects reports to identify impacts and mitigation measures, taking into consideration on-site as well as secondary/cumulative impacts to the environment. Better still, require strategic level environment assessment studies before projects are even proposed.

“Added, though not precisely as you suggested. I hope my alteration was sufficient to require effective documentation.”

Add a line to recognize that water regimes/programs may be needed to mitigate, restore or maintain wetlands at their current states, requiring nations/developers to implement water management programs and allocate funding as necessary to mitigate past or proposed actions.

“Added.”

As much as possible, require the retention of floodplains in their entirety and allow the unimpeded movement of aquatic biota and waterbirds (in other words, don't cut wetlands in half by filling some parts up).

“I’d love to, ambassador, but floodplain regulation and associated requirements are surprisingly complex, and are sufficiently distinct from wetland protection that they would require a separate proposal to adequately cover without delving into micromanagement of regional building codes. Unfortunately, floodplains will have to remain outside this proposal, unless the Secretariat is interested in bumping out the maximum character count threefold.”

Acknowledge the importance of cooperation between government and non-government organizations including environment groups on conservation and monitoring work to ensure transparency and effective management.

“Added.”
OOC: I really wish I had more space to enumerate the myriad of options and clarifications available to states, so this doesn’t seem so draconian. There are about a million different facets to every single clause here that the average reader will miss. Maybe it’s a mistake to write WA proposals in your professional field? It’s definitely killing me…Anyways, to reiterate, this is very heavily influenced by US environmental law on the topic, which, while borrowing heavily from the international Ramsar agreement, remains a somewhat specific view from a very particular philosophy. I’d love for somebody with the background to comment on how this will impact hydro-agriculture, if at all.

[Jackonia]

I am in favour of the proposal. Wetlands are an unappreciated asset to many Nations' Ecosystems and should be protected.

[Cardoness]

Very well written and encompassing. We agree that waterways, floodplains, and deltas are a bit much to tackle all in the same resolution with wetlands. We would like to see such future legislation but as for now we are quite happy with this. You have our support.

[Normlpeople]

"There seems to be an attempt, despite a 'voluntary purchase of credits' for a WA committee to tax member nations here. I would run this by a legality check first..."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The proposal formatting isn't terribly easy to read. Would you consider nesting clauses with list tags? I think it would help.

Wetlands being defined as habitats whose biological and physical properties are defined by the regular saturation of water during the growing season, and show evidence of hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation, excluding entirely aquatic environments.

"The grammar in this is pretty awkward, using a participle and then repeating 'defined'. Though we still believe the definition as a whole would be best left for WHAMO to determine.

"In terms of the requirements, would it be beneficial to require that member nations publicly delimit the boundaries of designated wetland areas, such as on maps? It could help prevent inadvertent violations."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

"The proposal formatting isn't terribly easy to read. Would you consider nesting clauses with list tags? I think it would help.

Wetlands being defined as habitats whose biological and physical properties are defined by the regular saturation of water during the growing season, and show evidence of hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation, excluding entirely aquatic environments.

"The grammar in this is pretty awkward, using a participle and then repeating 'defined'. Though we still believe the definition as a whole would be best left for WHAMO to determine.

"In terms of the requirements, would it be beneficial to require that member nations publicly delimit the boundaries of designated wetland areas, such as on maps? It could help prevent inadvertent violations."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

"I can do that. The formatting between the World Assembly standard and my personal computer are not quite compatible, so it generally ends up being the last thing I do. I can absolutely add a requirement for public demarcation on maps and the like, as well.

"I'll see about adjusting that and making some of the adjustments to the definition. If I change the second "defined" to "made distinct from other environs", would that make it a little clearer? It does for me, but my literary mind is not suited to brevity in writing. I really do want to keep the fairly specific definition in place to avoid too much dictionary wanking or, on the other end, claims of extreme micromanagement, as the Biodiversity Sanctuary draft elicited. Primarily by me, but others definitely chimed in.

"I want to emphasize that this isn't going to make it to submission any time soon. Maybe not ever. This has been an organizational nightmare for me, which is why so much of this is being done in small increments when I deign to take it off the furthest of back burners. Just to assuage any concerns out there about the timeline or content."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I'll see about adjusting that and making some of the adjustments to the definition. If I change the second "defined" to "made distinct from other environs", would that make it a little clearer? It does for me, but my literary mind is not suited to brevity in writing. I really do want to keep the fairly specific definition in place... /snip

"...characterized..." would seem to be an accurate one-for-one replacement.

I love it, but I foresee more than a little opposition based on the 1:1 restoration/mitigation/credit purchase requirement. Obviously a lot of nations are going to want to jump straight to buying credits, and it's not exactly clear how you'd measure a "ratio" of wetland destruction to mitigation credits. Which themselves are bought for money, OK, but... the money from purchasing them goes to WHAMO to fund its studies and assessments? For any reasonable (conservation-encouraging) price per hectare of mitigation credits, you'll wind up with leftover funds; perhaps also funding some kind of direct conservation grant with the money wouldn't be amiss?

I understand this won't be your top priority, but am excited to see where it goes.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'll see about adjusting that and making some of the adjustments to the definition. If I change the second "defined" to "made distinct from other environs", would that make it a little clearer? It does for me, but my literary mind is not suited to brevity in writing. I really do want to keep the fairly specific definition in place... /snip

"...characterized..." would seem to be an accurate one-for-one replacement.

"Acceptable. I'll check it against the master draft to see how it looks. I'm perilously close to the 3,500 character mark. as in, less than 20 characters off."

I love it, but I foresee more than a little opposition based on the 1:1 restoration/mitigation/credit purchase requirement. Obviously a lot of nations are going to want to jump straight to buying credits, and it's not exactly clear how you'd measure a "ratio" of wetland destruction to mitigation credits.

OOC: That mechanism is based off of the USACE mechanism, where companies pay about $30,000 for a credit when they affect wetlands. Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM), or those wetlands with a hydrophytic vegetative regime dominated by emergent or herbaceous vegetation that are not otherwise valued are assigned credits generally at a 1:1 ratio, so for every single acre of wetland affected, a single acre must be credited or replaced.. Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS), Palustrine Forested (PFO), High or Exceptional Value wetlands, those adjacent to certain quality waters, such as coldwater fisheries, and those in certain protected wildlife areas that are affected get a higher ratio. A PFO wetland, unless somehow degraded, merits a 4:1 credit to impact ratio. So, for every 1 acre of impact, four acres must be credited or replaced, as PFO wetlands are defined by their hydrophytic trees, which take longer to develop. So, credit costs are essentially pro-rated at whatever ratio they are affected, and thats just for freshwater palustrine regimes, which, relatively speaking, are fairly common. That is the attempt in this law. Confusing? Yes, but then, so is the Living Wage Act in many ways!

Which themselves are bought for money, OK, but... the money from purchasing them goes to WHAMO to fund its studies and assessments?

IC: "Purchasing is meant to be a last-chance option when all other options are unavoidable., but essentially yes." OOC: In the Real World, the choice between credits and other options is often left open for companies, allowing wealthy companies to simply buy their way out of the problem. I wanted to remove that option in this case.

For any reasonable (conservation-encouraging) price per hectare of mitigation credits, you'll wind up with leftover funds; perhaps also funding some kind of direct conservation grant with the money wouldn't be amiss?

"Well, there's also administration and the like. A later resolution can expand upon that, but I simply don't have the room to adequately include that. I'm actually looking at condensing the extraneous duties of WHAMO for that reason."

I understand this won't be your top priority, but am excited to see where it goes.

"Your, at least temporary, support is much appreciated, ambassador! I didn't expect this to receive the positivity it has! Its a long, long way from complete, and I'd like to see my project on codifying a set of laws in war complete before making more than sporadic improvements to this. I don't really expect this to be ready until after the last frost of the new year."

[Jarish Inyo]

The government of Jarish Inyo can not support this. We will not pay the WA for credits so we can use our territory as we choose to.

[Separatist Peoples]

The government of Jarish Inyo can not support this. We will not pay the WA for credits so we can use our territory as we choose to.

"Noted."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I'll see about adjusting that and making some of the adjustments to the definition. If I change the second "defined" to "made distinct from other environs", would that make it a little clearer? It does for me, but my literary mind is not suited to brevity in writing. I really do want to keep the fairly specific definition in place... /snip

"...characterized..." would seem to be an accurate one-for-one replacement.

Daisy offers a thumbs up.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Updated and organized. That list code took me a bloody hour to get right..."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"It's so beautiful...

"Coding aside, I'm assuming you're ok with us continuing to make comments on this even if you don't have immediate plans to pursue it.

"Rhetorically, I think you need to make more of a case as to why this is worthy of international attention. For example:

Recognizing that their stewardship is not only environmentally proper, but an economically sound decision;

"Of course: but there are plenty of unsound decisions the WA permits allows its members to make. Why is it legislating on this one? Perhaps something more on international impact (migratory wildfowl, for example) would help."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Bears Armed]

"Perhaps something more on international impact (migratory wildfowl, for example) would help."

And in some cases wetlands serve as 'nurseries' for some species of fish whose adults have international ranges, too..