[PAUSED] Aquatic Waste Responsibility Act

[Sincluda]

[FIXING: PLEASE STAND BY]

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is a waste (heh) of time if you don't do anything to tackle pollution at its source. People will always be able to dump more stuff into the ocean than you can filter and remove.

[Imperium Anglorum]

3. Member states are required to enact at least one law to minimize the production, or dumping of, non-degradable waste.

First, your commas are broken, they cut off 'of' from 'production', leading to the ungrammatical construct 'minimise the production _ non-degradable waste'.

Second, it doesn't do anything.

The Imperial Parliament enacts as follows... No person may dump, into any water body which flows to the ocean, used food service containers between the hours of 12 am and 3 am in the morning, Londinium time.

The above would be a compliant and sufficient law that has almost no impact.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Instead of trying clean international waters where wastes from both members (who you can regulate) and non-members (who you can't regulate) will end up, try to make sure nations actually clean their own territorial waters. Unless I'm mistaken, most garbage is thrown in territorial waters and makes its way to the international waters. On top of that, perhaps you can encourage nations to move away from non-biodegradable materials. I simply don't think cleaning the entire oceans on hundreds of planets is a feasible endeavor.

[Jedinsto]

Planning on submitting tomorrow at around 11 am EST.
If I see anything by or at that time I'll change it.

Not a good idea, wait at the very least another week or two for feedback.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: I frankly don't understand the reason behind such hard mandates in clause 2. We already have GAR 511 which means recycling is mandatory. Not only does this mean nations already have an incentive to reduce their non biodegradable wastes but also, as long as that 30% more waste doesn't end up in the rivers and oceans, and are properly managed, who cares? GAR 511 is the reason I said to simply encourage.
Also perhaps specifically mention territorial waters instead of oceans, unless you are still planning on cleaning the entire ocean.

[Niveusium]

The current resolution looks good but we need to cover the major problem of private corporations contaminating the waters due to unethical production and waste management. How do you aim to deal with that part? Should the government of which also help clean up the waste that is dumped by private corporations? Should the government put taxes on private corporations to help fund it? Should private corporations themselves be held responsible for cleaning the water?

Would vote for the current resolution in its current state but it really is lacking. If you do not cover private corporations, it can easily act as a large loophole for people who do not want to follow the resolution.

[Niveusium]

Since we are holding nations accountable for cleaning up waste in the ocean, you need to make sure you cover all bases here.

1. How will we hold private corporations for reckless polluting accountable?
2. Should nations be accountable for the wastes produced by private corporations? If so, how can we discourage private corporations from continuing their reckless behavior?
3. Patch that part up so countries can't use a loophole and give their wastes to private corporations to dump and avoid responsibility for cleaning up their waters.
4. What should we do about the remaining waste floating around in international waters? Who should be responsible for cleaning it? Should we clean it at all?
5. How can we encourage not dumping wastes into the water? This type of stuff is costlier than other solutions, hence why we dump all the wastes in the water anyways. How can we prevent it? Should we phase out certain materials? Should we ban the usage of certain materials that are hard for nature to break down?
6. When the wastes are cleaned up, what should a nation do with the wastes? Obvious ones like recycling are going to be considered, but what about non-recyclable items? What should we encourage them to do with non-recyclable items? Should they burn it? Should they keep it in a landfill?

Food for your thought. Keep up the drafting!

[Ardiveds]

Since we are holding nations accountable for cleaning up waste in the ocean, you need to make sure you cover all bases here.

1. How will we hold private corporations for reckless polluting accountable?
2. Should nations be accountable for the wastes produced by private corporations? If so, how can we discourage private corporations from continuing their reckless behavior?
3. Patch that part up so countries can't use a loophole and give their wastes to private corporations to dump and avoid responsibility for cleaning up their waters.

OOC: Regarding these, it stands to reason that if nations are forced to clean their nation's waters and shores, rhey will most likely crack down on private entities dumping waste into such places. Also, if a resolution says X is illegal, it applies to both the governments of members and legal and natural persons subject to those governments' laws.

Regarding the proposal, I don't get why the mandate of clause 1 is only for one year? If you think making something illegal will instantly make it disappear within an year, you're mistaken. This is like banning cocoain and then closing down the narcotic control division after one year.

[Niveusium]

Since we are holding nations accountable for cleaning up waste in the ocean, you need to make sure you cover all bases here.

1. How will we hold private corporations for reckless polluting accountable?
2. Should nations be accountable for the wastes produced by private corporations? If so, how can we discourage private corporations from continuing their reckless behavior?
3. Patch that part up so countries can't use a loophole and give their wastes to private corporations to dump and avoid responsibility for cleaning up their waters.

OOC: Regarding these, it stands to reason that if nations are forced to clean their nation's waters and shores, rhey will most likely crack down on private entities dumping waste into such places. Also, if a resolution says X is illegal, it applies to both the governments of members and legal and natural persons subject to those governments' laws.

Regarding the proposal, I don't get why the mandate of clause 1 is only for one year? If you think making something illegal will instantly make it disappear within an year, you're mistaken. This is like banning cocoain and then closing down the narcotic control division after one year.

Understandable on the point you've made, but it could be a loophole. Private corporations can be considered to be separate from the government. To cover all bases is important with things like this so we don't need to repeal it because it no longer works.
The government could easily give the waste to private entities and get them to dump it in the waters without being really being responsible for it.
The only problem I have with this is that it doesn't do anything to prevent pollution. We're not nipping the problem at the bud. Why are we polluting? Why are our practices leading to pollution? Are there choices we can make to reduce and eliminate the usage of waste?

[Niveusium]

The new draft looks fantastic. You've covered nearly all of the bases and I'd say I can't see anything wrong with it. You should wait for someone to confirm that it's good and if there is anything to touch upon before submitting

I feel like it's good and it treats a good symptom of pollution but in my opinion, this does not actually nip the problem at the bud here. But that's another story for another time and likely another resolution and if included, this bill would not end

[Barberria]

Wow! This is awesome! While we don't like putting any restrictions whatsoever, we will not hesitate in the name of environment!

[Jedinsto]

"Nowhere close to as strong as would be desired, but should this go to vote, you have my support. In the future, I would like to see an attack at the cause instead of the symptom. This draft has come a long way, and is a step in the right direction."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't know why it has become something of a trend to put drafts chronologically instead of reverse chronologically, but I'd appreciate it if you (the OP) could put the current draft – and that current draft only – in the OP and confine past (and presumably irrelevant) drafts to another post.

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Too many words, our delegation suspects - it would be superfluous, for instance, to require member governments to create a "government-sponsored task force" or to have such a lengthy definition of what a "poor government" actually is. I invite Ambassador Whatshisface from Sincluda to please consider the below... Rewrite(TM) of sorts; we do ask that you retain the co-authorship notice if you choose to adopt most or all of the below text, and so on:

The World Assembly,

Concerned that the unabated buildup of non-biodegradable waste in oceans, seas, and other bodies of water will continue to cause extreme harm to the survival of certain species and to the environment at large,

Believing that requiring member states to set up a taskforce to remove the non-biodegradable waste that they are responsible for, while potentially damaging to less economically developed countries and economies that have been centred around trade in plastics (for instance), will be highly beneficial in improving marine environments across the WA, and

Clarifying that this resolution only applies to member states' territorial waters, rather than international waters (which are not only not claimed by any nation but very possibly more contaminated with non-biodegradable waste),

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. All member states must create a taskforce whose goal it shall be to thoroughly and efficiently remove non-biodegradable waste from their territorial waters, and monitor this taskforce to determine how much (if it all) it is succeeding in carrying out such removal. Governments shall not treat members of these taskforces inferiorly to other classes of government officials who receive similar wages on average to these members.
2. Each taskforce set up in accordance with this article must report to their government one month after their creation the volume of plastic they have removed from their home nation's territorial waters and the area of territorial waters they have covered in doing so. This report must be used by said governments to determine how long it will take these taskforces to remove all other non-biodegradable waste from their territorial waters.
3. Members who can prove to the WA General Accounting Office (GAO) that they do not have sufficient financial resources to fulfil their obligations under Articles 1 and 2, and only such member states, shall be entitled to receive as much funding (and no more) from the GAO as they need to fulfil those obligations.
4. Members are strongly encouraged to recycle, research the effects of, or research alternatives to any non-biodegradable waste retrieved by a taskforce set up under Article 1.
5. Each member must commence research on biodegradable alternatives to non-biodegradable materials. Once each such alternative has been proven safe for manufacturing, the relevant member state must immediately authorise that alternative for domestic manufacturing, completely halt the manufacture of the non-biodegradable material(s) that is to be replaced by the alternative within twenty years, and immediately share their findings with the international community.
6. Members must make the dumping of non-biodegradable waste into bodies of water by any entity illegal; the minimum punishment for doing so must be a fine. Members are encouraged to make these fines proportional to the scale of such dumping that takes place.

Co-authored with Tinhampton.

A random staffer: Did somebody say "sus?" Amogus!

D-A Smith: Also, this looks like Strong - not Mild. Your current sixth draft contains not an encouragement, recommendation or subtle exhortation in sight!

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Noting the surge of non-degradable waste ending up in the oceans.

Where does the "surge" come from? Or why is it needed? You could just say "noting the amount of..." and it would have the same effect. Though I'd suggest starting with "worried" instead of "noting", as the preamble is where you're trying to lay down the reasons why you want to pass the legislation.

Concerned that: The buildup of non-biodegradable waste within oceans without cleanup is causing extreme harm to the environment and is killing multiple animals, and can potentially cause the extinction of many more.

Why are you separating the first verb from the rest of the sentence? Also, leave "without cleanup" out, as, again, you're trying to explain what the problem is. And "causing extinction of (individual) animals" makes no sense. Basically, don't lump "multiple animals" and "animal species" together like this. Consider moving the bit about extinction to its own preamble clause, because that way you could make it more like "pushing already endangered species closer to extinction". That'll get more of a gut reaction out of people. Many might not give a shit about individual animals dying, but would care about whole species going the way of the dodo.

Angered that: So many nations have refused to correct their mistakes and clear their waste, as well as not working at preventing the dumping of non-biodegradable waste. This legislation aims to correct that.

Again, no reason to separate the first verb from the rest of the sentence (this goes for the rest of the preamble). What does "correct their mistakes and clear their waste" mean? And the last bit is a bit... essay-ish? Don't explain what you want to do, just do it.

The preamble (bits that come before the active clauses) should answer the questions "WHAT is the problem you want to fix?", "WHY is it an international issue?" and "WHY isn't it already addressed by existing resolutions?" This is one of the few cases where the international issue is quite obvious, but the "what" and the second "why" are what you should be addressing in the preamble. Right now it sounds more like an essay you've written for school.

Believing that: member states should create their own taskforce to clean up their own waste that they are responsible for. It is important that territorial oceans get cleared of waste before that waste is lost in the near-infinite expanse of international oceans.

Why do you want a taskforce specifically? Wouldn't it be better to create a general system that is continuous and widespread instead of dependant on a single small group of people or ships? Or are you talking about a bureaucratic taskforce, because that sounds even more inefficient.

Use "territorial waters" and "international waters", because that's more inclusive than "oceans".

Acknowledging that: member states may face economic consequences as plastic is a universal tool that generates a lot of trade for countries.

...what? Like, I seriously don't understand what this is trying to say or why it is here. Of course there are going to be economical consequences, given you're asking nations to pay for this whole cleanup. That's like saying "I want you to buy this thing I'm selling, but you may face some money-loss to acquire it". This works against what you want to do with the preamble. You want to convince people that this idea of yours is an idea they want to support. You don't want to remind them that it might be bad for them financially.

Recognizing that: some member states may be more impoverished than others, which means that it may be harder for them to clean up their own waters.

Same here. You can address this issue in the active clauses, but don't tell people you're going to let the poor nations off the hook. Many non-roleplayers make their choice to vote for or against based solely on the preamble.

Understanding that: International waters may be too vast and too contaminated to clean up. This is still clearly a problem, but not one to be addressed by this legislation.

This should be an active clause, a clarification, not buried in the preamble.

Hoping that: this legislation can create a healthier ocean and overall environment for all.

Again, this is not an essay. You should be saying "Hoping to improve oceanic environmental health".

Hereby enacts the following:

You're using italics, underlining AND bolding. Why? Make the text effective all on its own and you don't need to embellish it.

1. Member states must create and monitor a government-sponsored cleanup taskforce to remove non-biodegradable waste from their territorial oceans. Governments can supply this taskforce however they choose.

See what I said before about forcing a puny taskforce on all nations? You're going into too fine detail here. You could leave out all the nonsense of a taskforce and just mandate nations do their best to clean their territorial waters (do NOT use "oceans"). Leave it up to the nations how they best want to do it. Just specify you want them to take the waste out of the sea, instead of just pushing it out to international waters.

Now, what all do you count in "non-biodegradeable waste"? Because metal isn't biodegradeable, yet there are valid environmental reasons to sink metal ships (look it up, they're basically artificial reefs and hiding places for fish) intentionally. Are you trying to mandate them to be cleared out?

a. Governments must make sure that the taskforce is actually succeeding in thoroughly and efficiently removing waste.

Why government (the ministers) instead of the state (the organization of the nation)? Also, how? Are you going to THOROUGHLY remove waste from a body of water where stuf drifts in an out? Especially when it drifts in? Do you understand that even if all member nations stopped letting a single scrap of plastic into the seas, if non-members kept doing that, you could never completely clean up the member nations' waters? This isn't a taskforce operation cleaning a small pond. This is a continuous, never-ending effort you want to set up. Also, what counts as "efficiently"? If there's not a lot of trash out there, then the ones collecting it can't by definition be effective and will likely cause more pollution by burning fuel in their ship's engines compared to what they remove from the water.

b. The taskforce will measure the amount of plastic gathered and how much of the territorial ocean they traversed. The collections from the first month will be used to calculate how long it will take for the task force to clear the rest of their territorial ocean. The taskforce will continue to work for the calculated time as they were in the first month.

So many issues with this. How can you calculate how long clean-up (the right verb is "clean", not "clear") takes at a known rate, if you don't know the total amount of material needing to be cleaned? You have left the pre-action research part out entirely.

c. Defines "poor government" as a government that does not have the money required to fund the creation and development of the taskforce.

First time you've mentioned development of this thing you want to create. Maybe you should mandate it first before saying some nations can't do it? Also, how are you going to make sure the nations are unable rather than unwilling to spend money on this thing?

And, once more, you mean "state", NOT "government".

I. Poor governments are allowed to draw from the World Assembly General Fund to fund the development of their taskforce.

State, not government, and you're only letting them draw funds for the development, not the running of?

II. Poor governments, and only poor governments, can accept donations from other governments to fund their taskforce. These are donations, and the donating governments are prohibited from using this donation as a negotiation tool, or requesting a quid pro quo.

States, not governments. And why ban donations as negotiation tools? Or asking... what do you even mean with quid pro quo here? The poor nation paying the richer nation to set up their people?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Just nix all mentions of any trask force, let poor nations get money from WAGF for pre-action research and planning, and allow cooperation between nations to get the job done. That's better than asking for literal donations from one nation to another.

d. While governments are given the power to choose who will work on the taskforce and how they come to work on it (along what the wages/benefits will be, if any), they must treat the workers on the same level they treat other government employees/volunteers.

What are government volunteers? And does that mean nations (or states, not governments) are allowed to treat the cleaners as unpaid volunteers? Shouldn't they be professionals instead of random volunteers?

e. The non-biodegradable materials retrieved can be used for any of the following methods, as chosen by the government of each individual member state (and multiple can be chosen at once): Recycling/reusing for practical purposes, studying/researching effects of non-biodegradable material, studying/researching alternatives to non-biodegradable material.

Again, way too detailed. And you're ONLY allowing recycling/reusing, not for example burning to generate electricity, or burying in a landfill. Why?

The researching of alternatives is a random off-topic thing here.

2. Member states will begin research on safer, biodegradable alternatives to non-biodegradable materials. The safeness of the alternatives must be ensured, and when they are, the government must take strides to replace the non-biodegradable materials with the new alternatives.
a. How the transition from non-biodegradable materials to biodegradable alternatives is enacted is up to the government, as long as they manage to completely halt the manufacturing of non-biodegradable materials within 20 years of the alternative being authorized for manufacturing.
b. If any one member state finds/develops a safe and efficient alternative to non-biodegradable waste, they must share their findings with the international community. Before it is shared, it must reach the proper safety standards required for manufacturing.

Again, off-topic for the issue you're trying to address, which is clean-up. There already are resolutions that address this kind of thing, and also, isn't it better to use recyclable non-degrading material (like glass) and then recycling it? Especially when bio-degradeable materials tend to mean something for which forests need to be cleared for (either to use the cellulose from the trees or make room for farming the stuff you're going to use).

The subclause b. is possibly contradiction of an existing resolution - there's a resolution allowing people to apply for and enforce patents on their discoveries. You are trying to say they can't do either. That's a contradiction. You can encourage the sharing, but not mandate it. Also, "proper safety standards" vary from culture to culture and tech level to tech level. And like it or not, tech levels do matter to people who like roleplaying their nations.

3. Member states are required to make the dumping of non-biodegradable waste into bodies of water illegal. This law will be enforced upon everyone within the nation, including entities such as corporations or branches of government.

...why mandate nations to make it illegal when you're speaking as the WA, whose laws go over the national laws? Just declare it illegal. But do make it intentional dumping so that if a ship capsizes in a storm, they're not also charged for messing with the environment for something they neither intended or wanted to do.

a. Should this law be violated, governments must enforce the minimum punishment to be a fine, although this can be increased if desired.

Too far into the details, again. You make it illegal, let nations worry about the punishments. The WA is very unwieldy when it comes to meting out punishments.

[Brilliantly]

OOC: This is my first proposal. Not asking for gentle feedback or anything, just constructive feedback.
Oh, and I need help with Industry Affected here. I'm pretty sure it's "All Businesses" but I still need help with strength.
Older drafts are on a post on page 2.

Draft 6 (CURRENT)
Changes from last draft: Made clarifications, greatly expanded clause 1, expanded clauses 2 & 3.
The World Assembly,

Noting the surge of non-degradable waste ending up in the oceans.

Concerned that: The buildup of non-biodegradable waste within oceans without cleanup is causing extreme harm to the environment and is killing multiple animals, and can potentially cause the extinction of many more.


Full support

Angered that: So many nations have refused to correct their mistakes and clear their waste, as well as not working at preventing the dumping of non-biodegradable waste. This legislation aims to correct that.

Believing that: member states should create their own taskforce to clean up their own waste that they are responsible for. It is important that territorial oceans get cleared of waste before that waste is lost in the near-infinite expanse of international oceans.

Acknowledging that: member states may face economic consequences as plastic is a universal tool that generates a lot of trade for countries.

Recognizing that: some member states may be more impoverished than others, which means that it may be harder for them to clean up their own waters.

Understanding that: International waters may be too vast and too contaminated to clean up. This is still clearly a problem, but not one to be addressed by this legislation.

Hoping that: this legislation can create a healthier ocean and overall environment for all.

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states must create and monitor a government-sponsored cleanup taskforce to remove non-biodegradable waste from their territorial oceans. Governments can supply this taskforce however they choose.
a. Governments must make sure that the taskforce is actually succeeding in thoroughly and efficiently removing waste.
b. The taskforce will measure the amount of plastic gathered and how much of the territorial ocean they traversed. The collections from the first month will be used to calculate how long it will take for the task force to clear the rest of their territorial ocean. The taskforce will continue to work for the calculated time as they were in the first month.
c. Defines "poor government" as a government that does not have the money required to fund the creation and development of the taskforce.
I. Poor governments are allowed to draw from the World Assembly General Fund to fund the development of their taskforce.
II. Poor governments, and only poor governments, can accept donations from other governments to fund their taskforce. These are donations, and the donating governments are prohibited from using this donation as a negotiation tool, or requesting a quid pro quo.
d. While governments are given the power to choose who will work on the taskforce and how they come to work on it (along what the wages/benefits will be, if any), they must treat the workers on the same level they treat other government employees/volunteers.
e. The non-biodegradable materials retrieved can be used for any of the following methods, as chosen by the government of each individual member state (and multiple can be chosen at once): Recycling/reusing for practical purposes, studying/researching effects of non-biodegradable material, studying/researching alternatives to non-biodegradable material.

2. Member states will begin research on safer, biodegradable alternatives to non-biodegradable materials. The safeness of the alternatives must be ensured, and when they are, the government must take strides to replace the non-biodegradable materials with the new alternatives.
a. How the transition from non-biodegradable materials to biodegradable alternatives is enacted is up to the government, as long as they manage to completely halt the manufacturing of non-biodegradable materials within 20 years of the alternative being authorized for manufacturing.
b. If any one member state finds/develops a safe and efficient alternative to non-biodegradable waste, they must share their findings with the international community. Before it is shared, it must reach the proper safety standards required for manufacturing.

3. Member states are required to make the dumping of non-biodegradable waste into bodies of water illegal. This law will be enforced upon everyone within the nation, including entities such as corporations or branches of government.
a. Should this law be violated, governments must enforce the minimum punishment to be a fine, although this can be increased if desired.

[The Grand Leader]

Are we allowed to incorporate the death penalty instead of a fine? We've been looking for more ways to execute people. It is a glorious affair here! Unfortunately, our playthings are far too compliant.

[Jedinsto]

Are we allowed to incorporate the death penalty instead of a fine? We've been looking for more ways to execute people. It is a glorious affair here! Unfortunately, our playthings are far too compliant.

Nope! Death penalty has been abolished in the WA.

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: In my view, this remains a Strong proposal. Our delegation does remains dissatisfied with the seventh draft in spite of this and will continue to propose the following changes:

The World Assembly,

Concerned that the unabated buildup of non-biodegradable waste in oceans, seas, and other bodies of water will continue to cause extreme harm to the survival of certain species and to the environment at large,

Believing that requiring member states to set up a taskforce to remove the non-biodegradable waste that they are responsible for, while potentially damaging to less economically developed countries and economies that have been centred around trade in plastics (for instance), will be highly beneficial in improving marine environments across the WA, and

Clarifying that this resolution only applies to member states' territorial waters, rather than international waters (which are not only not claimed by any nation but very possibly more contaminated with non-biodegradable waste),

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. All member states must create a taskforce whose goal it shall be to thoroughly and efficiently remove non-biodegradable waste across all of their territorial waters, and monitor this taskforce to determine how much (if it all) it is succeeding in carrying out such removal. Any ships operated by these taskforces may dock at any time while carrying out their functions under this article, provided that such docking does not threaten national security or violate prior and standing international law.
2. Governments shall not treat members of any taskforces created under Article 1 inferiorly to other classes of government officials who receive similar wages on average to these members.
3. Members who can prove to the WA General Accounting Office (GAO) that they do not have sufficient financial resources to fulfil their obligations under Article 1, and only such member states, shall be entitled to receive as much funding (and no more) from the GAO as they need to fulfil those obligations.
4. Members are strongly encouraged to research safe and biodegradable alternatives to non-biodegradable materials, and to share all findings from this research with the international community.
5. Members must make the dumping of non-biodegradable waste into bodies of water by any entity illegal. The minimum punishment for doing so must be a fine which is proportional to the scale of such dumping that takes place and of enough significance to deter such dumping.

Co-authored with Tinhampton.

[Brilliantly]

Support for this one because the proposal is a strong and good one in many ways.

[Tinhampton]

Smith: I take it that the Tinhamptonian delegation's proposed substantial retooling of the bill will not be considered by Ambassador Raiken.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: "Nobody has said anything since I last made a post sixteen hours ago" does not count as "a feedback drought."

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: We are opposed to the Act, given its reckless assumptions that government not only can stop people littering but is the only politically correct body that can do so.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: I think you should replace territorial oceans with territorial waters as Ara said.
Also I think creating an one time task force that just cleans the ocean once and then is disbanded is really useless. I mean sure governments may make dumping of waste illegal but do you really believe it will stop absolutely everyone from breaking the law? In fact, if you mandate that governments have to keep the waters clean, clause 4a would be unnecessary since the government is already incentivised to stop waste dumping since it’ll have to bear the cost of cleaning it.

[The Grand Leader]

It seems that the author, Sincluda, no longer exists on the forums, weirdly.