[PASSED] Land Reclamation Regulations

[Honeydewistania]

The World Assembly,

Worried that unregulated land reclamation can lead to ecological damages with long term economic damage, as well as dangers to the health of both people and the environment;

Acknowledging the use of land reclamation by member nations to increase their land area for necessary purposes such as halting urban spread into pristine terrestrial ecosystems, or extending port facilities of growing coastal cities;

Very concerned about the loss of biodiversity hotspots and areas vital for the reproduction of commercially important marine species, as an unintended consequence of land reclamation;

Especially aware of the vulnerability of shallow marine ecosystems and the coastal areas, yet understanding the occasional necessity for their development;

Searching for a way to balance ecological concerns with the necessities of urban development;

Hereby:

1. Defines:
   1. “land reclamation” as the oceanic construction of new dry land in a nation’s territory;
   2. “impact study” as an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation;
2. Mandates thats a good faith effort to obtain and apply materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for the physical stage of land reclamation must be made, unless obtaining those materials is incredibly infeasible or costly, in which the best possible alternative must be used;
3. Subject to clause 5 of this resolution, orders member nations to prevent a land reclamation project from proceeding if environmental damage that will severely imperil the health of marine life or those that live nearby;
   1. Clarifies that if the potential damage cause can and will be mitigated to a reasonable level, they will not violate this resolution;
4. Requires member nations to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate this resolution;
5. Requires that results of impact studies must be submitted to the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA), and tasks the ESWA with:
   1. issuing special permits to land reclamation projects that may violate this resolution only if:
      1. not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population; or
      2. not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
   2. issuing normal permits to land reclamation projects that will not violate this resolution;
   3. prohibiting land reclamation from taking place if it violates the restrictions laid out by this resolution;
6. Mandates that land reclamation projects that are issued permits as a result of clause 5a must cause as little environmental damage as feasible, and prohibits land reclamation projects from proceeding if they are denied a permit by the ESWA.

Co-authored by Honeydewistania.

This resolution will again be submitted by Orca and Narwhal. Preamble credit goes to Araraukar. Be harsh as necessary in feedback and critiques, so we can craft a resolution worth being in the WA's books.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

and tasks the ESWA with issuing permits to proceed with land reclamation if the impact studies determine that either:

1. proceeding with land reclamation complies with this resolution;
2. potential damage that will violate the restrictions laid out by this resolution can be mitigated to an acceptable level;
3. not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population;
4. not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
5. Mandates that land reclamation projects that are issued permits as a result of clauses 5b, 5c and 5d must cause as little environmental damage as feasibly possible.

I could be for it if you get rid of this clause, what you're suggesting to create would require an astronomical amount of resources.

[Merni]

Some comments in red.

The World Assembly,

Worried that unregulated land reclamation can lead to ecological damages with long term economic damages, as well as dangers to the health of both people and the environment; maybe use "damage" instead of "damages"?

Acknowledging the use of land reclamation by member nations to increase their land area for necessary purposes such as halting urban spread into pristine terrestrial ecosystems, or extending port facilities of growing coastal cities;

Very concerned about the loss of biodiversity hotspots and areas vital for the reproduction of commercially important marine species, as an unintended consequence of land reclamation;

Especially aware of the vulnerability of shallow marine ecosystems and the coastal areas, yet understanding the occasional necessity for their development;

Searching for a way to balance ecological concerns with the necessities of urban development;

Hereby:

1. Defines:
   1. “land reclamation” as the oceanic construction of new dry land for urban use in a nation’s water; why is "oceanic" placed there? and why only "urban use", whatever that means?
   2. “impact study” as an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation;
2. Mandates that member nations must make a good faith effort to obtain and apply materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for used in the physical stage of land reclamation, unless obtaining those materials is incredibly infeasible or costly, in which the best possible alternative must be used;
3. Orders member nations to prohibit land reclamation if environmental damage in the form of the following can be caused: "is likely to be caused" may be better -- I can cause any amount of damage, but I hopefully won't.
   1. the destruction of biodiverse areas such as coral reefs;
   2. significant disruption to the food chains of animals or their abilities to breed, nest or incubate;
   3. the destruction of plants or fungi with a unique and rare medicinal value;
   4. any other damage that will severely imperil the health of marine life or those that inhabit nearby inhabit what nearby? "live nearby" would be better;
   how do a-c not fall into d, which is far more broad, anyway? why do you need a-c separately?
4. Requires member nations to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate the restrictions laid out in clause 2;
5. Requires that results of impact studies must be submitted to the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA), and tasks the ESWA with issuing permits to proceed with land reclamation if the impact studies determine that either: may be better with "or" at the end of each point
   1. proceeding with land reclamation complies with this resolution; why should the ESWA issue a permit in this case? It would be much better if members could proceed in this case anyway, and the ESWA could order a reclamation to be stopped if it finds that it doesn't comply (if that is necessary at all).
   2. potential damage that will violate the restrictions laid out by this resolution can be mitigated to an acceptable level;
   3. not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population;
   4. not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
   5. Mandates that land reclamation projects that are issued permits as a result of clauses 5b, 5c and 5d must cause as little environmental damage as feasibly possible. what's the difference between "feasibly possible" and "feasible"?

[Honeydewistania]

and tasks the ESWA with issuing permits to proceed with land reclamation if the impact studies determine that either:

1. proceeding with land reclamation complies with this resolution;
2. potential damage that will violate the restrictions laid out by this resolution can be mitigated to an acceptable level;
3. not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population;
4. not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
5. Mandates that land reclamation projects that are issued permits as a result of clauses 5b, 5c and 5d must cause as little environmental damage as feasibly possible.

I could be for it if you get rid of this clause, what you're suggesting to create would require an astronomical amount of resources.

How? I’m just saying that the WA has to look at some data, and rubber stamp it. Member nations that have the resources to even think of land reclamation have enough to do surveys.

Some comments in red.

The World Assembly,

Worried that unregulated land reclamation can lead to ecological damages with long term economic damages, as well as dangers to the health of both people and the environment; maybe use "damage" instead of "damages"?

Acknowledging the use of land reclamation by member nations to increase their land area for necessary purposes such as halting urban spread into pristine terrestrial ecosystems, or extending port facilities of growing coastal cities;

Very concerned about the loss of biodiversity hotspots and areas vital for the reproduction of commercially important marine species, as an unintended consequence of land reclamation;

Especially aware of the vulnerability of shallow marine ecosystems and the coastal areas, yet understanding the occasional necessity for their development;

Searching for a way to balance ecological concerns with the necessities of urban development;

Hereby:

1. Defines:
   1. “land reclamation” as the oceanic construction of new dry land for urban use in a nation’s water; why is "oceanic" placed there? and why only "urban use", whatever that means?
   2. “impact study” as an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation;
2. Mandates that member nations must make a good faith effort to obtain and apply materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for used in the physical stage of land reclamation, unless obtaining those materials is incredibly infeasible or costly, in which the best possible alternative must be used;
3. Orders member nations to prohibit land reclamation if environmental damage in the form of the following can be caused: "is likely to be caused" may be better -- I can cause any amount of damage, but I hopefully won't.
   1. the destruction of biodiverse areas such as coral reefs;
   2. significant disruption to the food chains of animals or their abilities to breed, nest or incubate;
   3. the destruction of plants or fungi with a unique and rare medicinal value;
   4. any other damage that will severely imperil the health of marine life or those that inhabit nearby inhabit what nearby? "live nearby" would be better;
   how do a-c not fall into d, which is far more broad, anyway? why do you need a-c separately?
4. Requires member nations to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate the restrictions laid out in clause 2;
5. Requires that results of impact studies must be submitted to the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA), and tasks the ESWA with issuing permits to proceed with land reclamation if the impact studies determine that either: may be better with "or" at the end of each point
   1. proceeding with land reclamation complies with this resolution; why should the ESWA issue a permit in this case? It would be much better if members could proceed in this case anyway, and the ESWA could order a reclamation to be stopped if it finds that it doesn't comply (if that is necessary at all).
   2. potential damage that will violate the restrictions laid out by this resolution can be mitigated to an acceptable level;
   3. not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population;
   4. not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
   5. Mandates that land reclamation projects that are issued permits as a result of clauses 5b, 5c and 5d must cause as little environmental damage as feasibly possible. what's the difference between "feasibly possible" and "feasible"?

Thank you, it’ll be changed.

[Merni]

OOC: you still haven't clarified how 3a-3c aren't already covered in 3d. Also, why should the ESWA need to issue a permit if reclamation complies with the resolution (5a)? It would be much better if members could proceed in this case anyway, and the ESWA could order a reclamation to be stopped if it finds that it doesn't comply (if that is necessary at all).

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: you still haven't clarified how 3a-3c aren't already covered in 3d. Also, why should the ESWA need to issue a permit if reclamation complies with the resolution (5a)? It would be much better if members could proceed in this case anyway, and the ESWA could order a reclamation to be stopped if it finds that it doesn't comply (if that is necessary at all).

better?

[Ardiveds]

OOC: why does clause 6 mention clauses 5c and 5d when there only 5a and 5b present?

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: why does clause 6 mention clauses 5c and 5d when there only 5a and 5b present?

whoops. fixed.

[Honeydewistania]

Bump

[Honeydewistania]

Another bump

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm slowly playing catch-up with GA, so this is on my list of things to do here, but didn't make it on today's list, sorry. Something to consider, though: maybe the committee should only be involved in things that can have an impact on the biodiversity hotspots, or which can have large scale impact on the local coastal ecosystem (or something like that, exact wording choice up to you), instead of every single thing where land reclamantion happens even in theory?

The definition is also still a bit weird. Constructing a pier would not count as "construction of new dry land", even if it (intentionally, as part of the design) created the conditions for sand and silt accumulation, which would result in new dry land being formed, eventually. If that semi-natural process is intentionally left out, then that might want to be specified somewhere.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Worth noting, there doesn't seem to be anything about the ESWA granting permits to land reclamation that doesn't have a severe environmental impact, or, otherwise requires minimal mitigation in the first place, which, would be a concern as land reclamation may only proceed with an ESWA permit.

[Honeydewistania]

Bump

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Why does clause 4 reference clause 2? Would it not make more sense for clause 4 to reference the restrictions of clause 3?

Also, clause two currently reads

"materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for the physical stage of land reclamation that cause as little environmental damage as possible for as little environmental damage as possible, "

which seems nonsensical to me and in any instance repeats the phrase often enough that Limp Bizkit is writing a sequel to the "Hot Dog Song" about it.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Why does clause 4 reference clause 2? Would it not make more sense for clause 4 to reference the restrictions of clause 3?

Also, clause two currently reads

"materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for the physical stage of land reclamation that cause as little environmental damage as possible for as little environmental damage as possible, "

which seems nonsensical to me and in any instance repeats the phrase often enough that Limp Bizkit is writing a sequel to the "Hot Dog Song" about it.

Wtf, no idea how that happened. Fixed

[Kenmoria]

“Would it not make more sense to put clause 5 before clause 3, given that clause 3 references clause 5?”

[Honeydewistania]

“Would it not make more sense to put clause 5 before clause 3, given that clause 3 references clause 5?”

"True, but clause 4 references clause 3. Yes, it’s a bit messy "

[Orca and Narwhal]

If there are no more major suggestions we will be submitting the proposal tomorrow

[Maowi]

[*]Subject to clause 5 of this resolution, orders member nations to prevent a land reclamation project from proceeding if environmental damage that will severely imperil the health of marine life or those that live nearby, including but not limited to:

1. the destruction of biodiverse areas such as coral reefs;
2. significant disruption to the food chains of animals or their abilities to breed, nest or incubate;
3. the destruction of plants or fungi with a unique and rare medicinal value;

"I am all for caution when it comes to disrupting marine ecosystems, but the wording on this is incredibly restrictive. The examples serve no purpose, due to the "but not limited to" phrase, and I'm not sure the spirit of the examples is really captured in the actual mandate. Barring extreme exceptions, all land reclamation projects will severely imperil the health of some marine life forms, so that more or less all planned projects will have to go through the clause 5 process. I don't think requiring mitigation of damage for all these projects would be a bad idea at all, but if that is what you want to do ... then do it directly. And your third example above, referring particularly to the "unique and rare medicinal values" of organisms, is not really covered in the main part of clause 3."

[Honeydewistania]

"We hope this has been cleared up to an acceptable level."

[Maowi]

"We hope this has been cleared up to an acceptable level."

"I believe your modified structuring of the draft fixes the issues I pointed out, but I do have some more suggestions for cleaning up the wording - with which I have annotated this copy."

The World Assembly,

Worried that unregulated land reclamation can lead to ecological damages with long term economic damage, as well as dangers to the health of both people and the environment;

Acknowledging the use of land reclamation by member nations to increase their land area for necessary purposes such as halting urban spread into pristine terrestrial ecosystems, or extending port facilities of growing coastal cities;

Very concerned about the loss of biodiversity hotspots and areas vital for the reproduction of commercially important marine species, as an unintended consequence of land reclamation;

Especially aware of the vulnerability of shallow marine ecosystems and the coastal areas, yet understanding the occasional necessity for their development;

Searching for a way to balance ecological concerns with the necessities of urban development;

Hereby:

1. Defines:
   1. “land reclamation” as the oceanic construction of new dry land in a nation’s territory;
   2. “impact study” as an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation;
2. Mandates thats a good faith effort to obtain and apply materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for the physical stage of land reclamation must be made, unless obtaining those materials is incredibly infeasible or costly, in which case the best possible alternative must be used;
3. Subject to clause 5 of this resolution, orders member nations to prevent a land reclamation project from proceeding if it is likely to cause environmental damage that will severely imperil the health of marine life or those that live nearby;
   1. Clarifies that if the potential damage caused can and will be mitigated to a reasonable level, they will not violate this resolution the land reclamation project may proceed;
4. Requires member nations to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate this resolution;
5. Requires that results of impact studies must be submitted to the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA), and tasks the ESWA with:
   1. issuing special permits to land reclamation projects that may would otherwise violate this resolution only if:
      1. not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population; or
      2. not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
   2. issuing normal permits to land reclamation projects that will not violate this resolution;
   3. prohibiting land reclamation from taking place if it violates the restrictions laid out by this resolution;
6. Mandates that land reclamation projects that are issued permits as a result of clause 5a must cause as little environmental damage as feasible, and prohibits land reclamation projects from proceeding if they are denied a permit by the ESWA.

Co-authored by Honeydewistania.

[Orca and Narwhal]

Proposal has been updated and submitted

[Brittanical]

'Bureaucracy solves everything' - every donkey who claims to recycle.

[Kenmoria]

“Could you clarify clause 3a for me, ambassador Heperle? It is of course too late to give feedback, but the clause is worded in a rather ambiguous way and I am having trouble parsing.”

[Flying Eagles]

As an unfortunate side note, an obvious grammatical error slipped in. In Clause 2, “thats” should read “that”.