[DRAFT] Coastline Management Act

[Cappedore]

COASTLINE MANAGEMENT ACT

Category: Environment

Area of Effect: All (Strong)

The General Assembly,

Noticing that, compared with certain other areas of environmental management, there is a relatively limited international legal and policy relating to coastal defence and shoreline management,

Noting that coastal erosion can be a severe threat to nearby wildlife, local economy, coastal settlements and could cost lives if left untreated,

Understanding that the international community has a duty to preserve natural habitats of coastal creatures to prevent possible extinction of endangered creatures,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Mandates that member states apply these strategies to areas affected by the sea:

1. Requires member states to apply a strategy of beach nourishment, the act of widening beaches by using sand and shingle, increasing the distances that waves have to travel and therefore slowing them down which prevents erosion;
2. Requires member states to apply managed retreat strategies on appropriate coastlines, where they allow certain areas of the coast to erode and flood naturally due to their low value, encouraging the natural development of beaches by natural eroded material.
3. Requires member states to build a plethora of groynes at right angles on beaches, protecting cliff sides from upland erosion and providing a barrier to flooding.

2. Creates and tasks the Committee on the Preservation and Conservation of Coastlines (CPCC) to:

1. Conduct annual assessments of the condition of coastal defences;
2. Conduct annual assessments of flood risk associated with coastal defences
3. Provide emergency response to erosion incidents;
4. Raise awareness of erosion risk in the international community;
5. Provide regulation of other water bodies; and
6. Apply conservation duty and environmental impact.

3. Mandates member states provide a co-ordinated, centrally-regulated approach to coastal protection works supported by the international community of member states;

4. Requires that all member nations must apply these defences to whatever coastlines they may have, including other bodies of water and areas that are directly and indirectly affected by the sea;


5. Requires member states to cooperate with the Committee on the Preservation and Conservation of Coastlines to create newer strategies for coastal protection that are not already stated in this resolution;

6. Encourages member states to educate students more about the risks, causes and results of coastal erosion, including the negative effects it can have on local wildlife and habitats.


7. Mandates that member nations impose these strategies for defence of the coast and mandates it international law to ensure that coastlines are properly defended and assessed to avoid risk to life, damage to wildlife, and damage to coastal habitats.

The Security Council of the World Assembly,

Noticing that, compared with certain other areas of environmental management, there is a relatively limited international legal and policy dimension relating to coastal defence and shoreline management,

Defining coast protection as protection from erosion and permanent occupation of the land by sea,

Noting that a plethora of member states within the world assembly do indeed have coastlines and that some are popular tourist locations and are frequented by visitors all year round, especially during summer months,

Understanding that the international community has a duty to preserve natural habitats of sea creatures, some of which make home among the coasts of member nations,

Stating that this proposal aims to provide a co-ordinated, centrally-regulated approach to coastal protection works supported by the international community of member states,

Stating that, under this proposal, such works relate to the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, maintenance, demolition or removal of works for the purpose of protecting land against erosion or encroachment by the sea.

Understanding that this may not relate to some member states, especially those without coastlines,


Hereby declares the following guidelines for coastal member states:

Article I: The Role of Member States

1. Provision of publicly funded coastal defence works to protect coastal areas from erosion or flooding;
2. Funding and co-ordinating of responses to major flooding and erosion events;
3. Control of development in areas perceived at risk from flooding and erosion, and the minimisation of impacts of new developments on coastal flooding risks.

Making provisions for:

1. Consenting arrangements to balance risk and interests;
2. Consultation between key interest groups;
3. Provisions for nature conservation and landscape protection.

Article II: Supervisory Duty of Member States

This can apply to respective environment agencies / professionals / operating bodies within member states:

1. Assessment of the condition of coastal defences;
2. Assessment of flood risk associated with coastal defences
3. Emergency response to flooding incidents;
4. Awareness of flood risk in the community
5. Regulation of other bodies; and
6. Application of conservation duty and environmental impact.

Article III: Provisions for other relevant plans and programmes

This can apply to member states that may not have coastlines, but still have heightened risk to environment and land relating to the sea or indeed bodies of water.

1. Water Level Management Plans: Provisions to set out water level management requirements in a defined floodplain area undertaken by the relevant operating authority within member states.
   
2. River Basin Management Plans: Provisions to set out the objectives for the water bodies within a river basin district and explain in broad terms how they are to be achieved, undertaken by the relevant operating authority within member states.
   
3. Catchment Abstraction Management Plans: Provisions to set out strategies for water resource management at a local level. Will make information on water resources and licensing practice available to the public to provide a consistent approach to local water resources management. Undertaken by the relevant operating authority within member states.
   
4. Coastal Habitat Management Plans: Provisions to address the long-term cumulative implications of flood and coastal defence schemes for habitat change and, where necessary, recommend modifications to these strategies and schemes to prevent further losses or identify habitat restoration works to compensate for unavoidable losses.
   
5. Sustainable Drainage Systems: Provisions to set out a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in more sustainable fashion than some conventional techniques.

The General Assembly of the World Assembly,

Noticing that, compared with certain other areas of environmental management, there is a relatively limited international legal and policy dimension relating to coastal defence and shoreline management,

Defining coast protection as protection from erosion and permanent occupation of the land by sea,

Noting that a plethora of member states within the world assembly do indeed have coastlines and that some are popular tourist locations and are frequented by visitors all year round, especially during summer months,

Understanding that the international community has a duty to preserve natural habitats of sea creatures, some of which make home among the coasts of member nations,

Stating that this proposal aims to provide a co-ordinated, centrally-regulated approach to coastal protection works supported by the international community of member states,

Stating that, under this proposal, such works relate to the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, maintenance, demolition or removal of works for the purpose of protecting land against erosion or encroachment by the sea.

Stating that all member nations must apply the policies listed below to whatever coastlines they may have, including other bodies of water and areas that could be affected by the sea,

Hereby requests that the appropriate operating bodies / governments of member nations implement the provisions listed below:

Article I: The Role of Member States

1. Provision of publicly funded coastal defence works to protect coastal areas from erosion or flooding;
2. Funding and co-ordinating of responses to major flooding and erosion events;
3. Control of development in areas perceived at risk from flooding and erosion, and the minimisation of impacts of new developments on coastal flooding risks.

Also requesting that the appropriate operating bodies / governments of nations do arrange the appropriate provisions as listed below:

1. Consenting arrangements to balance risk and interests;
2. Consultation between key interest groups; (locals living in the surrounding area, environmentalist groups/charities and indeed local government in member states with devolution)
3. Provisions for nature conservation and landscape protection.

Article II: Supervisory Duty of Member States

This can apply to respective environment agencies / professionals / operating bodies within member states:

1. Assessment of the condition of coastal defences;
2. Assessment of flood risk associated with coastal defences
3. Emergency response to flooding incidents;
4. Awareness of flood risk in the community
5. Regulation of other bodies; and
6. Application of conservation duty and environmental impact.

The General Assembly of the World Assembly,

Noticing that, compared with certain other areas of environmental management, there is a relatively limited international legal and policy dimension relating to coastal defence and shoreline management,

Defining coast protection as protection from erosion and permanent occupation of the land by sea,

Noting that a plethora of member states within the world assembly do indeed have coastlines and that some are popular tourist locations and are frequented by visitors all year round, especially during summer months,

Understanding that the international community has a duty to preserve natural habitats of sea creatures, some of which make home among the coasts of member nations,

Stating that this proposal aims to provide a co-ordinated, centrally-regulated approach to coastal protection works supported by the international community of member states,

Stating that, under this proposal, such works relate to the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, maintenance, demolition or removal of works for the purpose of protecting land against erosion or encroachment by the sea.

Stating that all member nations must apply the policies listed below to whatever coastlines they may have, including other bodies of water and areas that could be affected by the sea,

Hereby requests that the appropriate operating bodies / governments of member nations implement the provisions listed below:

Article I: The Role of Member States

1. Provision of publicly funded coastal defence works to protect coastal areas from erosion or flooding;
2. Funding and co-ordinating of responses to major flooding and erosion events;
3. Control of development in areas perceived at risk from flooding and erosion, and the minimisation of impacts of new developments on coastal flooding risks.

Also requesting that the appropriate operating bodies / governments of nations do arrange the appropriate provisions as listed below:

1. Consenting arrangements to balance risk and interests;
2. Consultation between key interest groups; (locals living in the surrounding area, environmentalist groups/charities and indeed local government in member states with devolution)
3. Provisions for nature conservation and landscape protection.

Article II: Supervisory Duty of Member States
This proposal shall ensure that the appropriate operating bodies of member states are following the guidelines below to ensure that coastlines (or anywhere affected by the sea) of member states are kept secure.

1. Assessment of the condition of coastal defences;
2. Assessment of flood risk associated with coastal defences
3. Emergency response to flooding incidents;
4. Awareness of flood risk in the community
5. Regulation of other bodies; and
6. Application of conservation duty and environmental impact.

Article III: The Coastline and Shoreline Management Committee

This proposal shall establish the Coastline and Shoreline Management Committee of the World Assembly. This committee shall be responsible for making provisions for member nations to improve and protect any areas that may be affected by the sea, or indeed other bodies of water.

This committee shall provide the following plans to member states to take place seven days after the passage of this resolution.

Water Level Management Plans: Member states must make provisions to set out water level management requirements in a defined floodplain area undertaken by the relevant operating authority.

River Basin Management Plans: Provisions to set out the objectives for the water bodies within a river basin district and explain in broad terms how they are to be achieved, undertaken by the relevant operating authority.

Sustainable Drainage Systems: Provisions to set out a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in more sustainable fashion than some conventional techniques.

[Bears Armed]

Quick comments:

1/. This probably isn't 'Regulation: Safety'. To me, it reads more as 'Environmental: All'.
(I think that 'Regulation: Safety', in a "Coastal Management" context, would be more along the lines of providing lifeguards, tide tables, etc, at bathing beaches...)
2/. You've still got "The Security Council" at the start of the text.
3/. As written, the line "Understanding that this may not relate to some member states, especially those without coastlines," is slightly iffy: Replacing it with a specification that all member nations must apply these policies to whatever coastlines (or, as you explain later, other areas that could be affected by the sea) they have would be better.
4/. The operative clauses are so vague about what member nations must do for each of the tasks that you list that it's currently impossible to tell whether this is 'Strong' or just 'Mild'. You really need to go into more details, although hopefully without ("one size fits none") micro-management, even though that might require splitting this into two or three separate proposals on different aspects of the overall subject.

[Cappedore]

Quick comments:

1/. This probably isn't 'Regulation: Safety'. To me, it reads more as 'Environmental: All'.
(I think that 'Regulation: Safety', in a "Coastal Management" context, would be more along the lines of providing lifeguards, tide tables, etc, at bathing beaches...)
2/. You've still got "The Security Council" at the start of the text.
3/. As written, the line "Understanding that this may not relate to some member states, especially those without coastlines," is slightly iffy: Replacing it with a specification that all member nations must apply these policies to whatever coastlines (or, as you explain later, other areas that could be affected by the sea) they have would be better.
4/. The operative clauses are so vague about what member nations must do for each of the tasks that you list that it's currently impossible to tell whether this is 'Strong' or just 'Mild'. You really need to go into more details, although hopefully without ("one size fits none") micro-management, even though that might require splitting this into two or three separate proposals on different aspects of the overall subject.

I could just delete the article regarding the 'plans and programmes' so they can be saved for future proposals? I believe that each of them would need their own proposal unless you don't mind this one being incredibly long.

Either that, or I could find a way to merge them into another article on this proposal? I do see a simpler way by doing this.

[Bears Armed]

Quick comments:

1/. This probably isn't 'Regulation: Safety'. To me, it reads more as 'Environmental: All'.
(I think that 'Regulation: Safety', in a "Coastal Management" context, would be more along the lines of providing lifeguards, tide tables, etc, at bathing beaches...)
2/. You've still got "The Security Council" at the start of the text.
3/. As written, the line "Understanding that this may not relate to some member states, especially those without coastlines," is slightly iffy: Replacing it with a specification that all member nations must apply these policies to whatever coastlines (or, as you explain later, other areas that could be affected by the sea) they have would be better.
4/. The operative clauses are so vague about what member nations must do for each of the tasks that you list that it's currently impossible to tell whether this is 'Strong' or just 'Mild'. You really need to go into more details, although hopefully without ("one size fits none") micro-management, even though that might require splitting this into two or three separate proposals on different aspects of the overall subject.

I could just delete the article regarding the 'plans and programmes' so they can be saved for future proposals?

What would that leave?

I believe that each of them would need their own proposal

Possibly. We'd have to see what you could manage.

unless you don't mind this one being incredibly long.

That isn't up to GenSec: The automated part of the submissions process simply won't accept more than 5'000 characters (including not only letters & numbers but also punctuation, spaces, & line-breaks).

Either that, or I could find a way to merge them into another article on this proposal? I do see a simpler way by doing this.

Try it, and let's see...
(The convention is that you add each new draft to the thread's opening post, placing the older ones there into spoilers so that they're still available for comparison.)

[Cappedore]

I could just delete the article regarding the 'plans and programmes' so they can be saved for future proposals?

What would that leave?

It would only leave behind Articles I and II.

Either that, or I could find a way to merge them into another article on this proposal? I do see a simpler way by doing this.

Try it, and let's see...
(The convention is that you add each new draft to the thread's opening post, placing the older ones there into spoilers so that they're still available for comparison.)

I'd like to stress that perhaps forming some form of committee may be appropriate for the plans and programmes article, and it would make it much easier to write.

[Cappedore]

I've made a second draft and I've removed Article III, is that any better or would it be better if a method was found to try and implement Article III? Like I said I can do it easily if committee formation is involved.

[Cappedore]

Bump!

I've added a third draft and the proposal now implements a committee. I am hoping this clears up any issues of the proposal being vague? I've also made some other significant edits. Feel free to have a read and tell me what you think.

[Bears Armed]

I'll take a look at it tomorrow, when I have more time.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC and IC as marked. Also, would help you get feedback if you moved older drafts (the spoilered ones) to another one of your posts in this thread. Keep the first post as clutter-free as possible. At the very least move them to the end of the current draft, please.

COASTAL AND SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
Category: Environment
Area of Effect: All (Strong)

OOC: Not currently seeing anything that would make this Strong instead of Mild. It may change once you actually write in all the things you want the proposal to do, rather than wish them to happen, but right now not seeing anything to justify the strength chosen.

The General Assembly of the World Assembly,

OOC: One or the other, don't need both.

Noticing that, compared with certain other areas of environmental management, there is a relatively limited international legal and policy dimension legislation relating to coastal defence and shoreline management,

OOC: Struck out the nonsense, replacement suggestion in blue.

IC: "You might want to start the entire proposal by explaining why coastline protection - the way you see it - is important. Don't forget that environmental protections usually require cutbacks on industries, and so some nations may be unwilling to engage in protections that they see no point of.

Defining coast protection as protection from erosion and permanent occupation of the land by sea,

OOC: Definitions should be in the active clauses, not the preamble. Also, that makes no sense. How are rising sea levels protecting the coast?

Noting that a plethora of member states within the world assembly do indeed have coastlines and that some are popular tourist locations and are frequented by visitors all year round, especially during summer months,

IC: "This reads more like a brochure for tourist bureau. And you are not advertizing the beaches, you are wanting to - based on the environmental slant - protect them from the activities of people. Which tends to be the opposite of tourism. You should perhaps be explaining why coastal erosion is bad, instead."

Understanding that the international community has a duty to preserve natural habitats of sea creatures, some of which make home among the coasts of member nations,

IC: "By definition, sea creatures live in the sea, while coastal creatures live on the coasts. But that aside, if you want natural habitats to be protected, you should actually write in some clauses that mandate the protection of such natural habitats."

Stating that this proposal aims to provide a co-ordinated, centrally-regulated approach to coastal protection works supported by the international community of member states,

Stating that, under this proposal, such works relate to the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, maintenance, demolition or removal of works for the purpose of protecting land against erosion or encroachment by the sea.

Stating that all member nations must apply the policies listed below to whatever coastlines they may have, including other bodies of water and areas that could be affected by the sea,

OOC: When the proposal passes, it's a resolution, not a proposal. So replace every bit of "proposal" with "resolution". However, such stating of aims is unnecessary and just takes space. If you want all those to happen, you need to write them in the active clauses (after "hereby"). "Stating" is making a statement, it doesn't actually affect the target of the statement.

Hereby requests that the appropriate operating bodies / governments of member nations implement the provisions listed below:

OOC: And don't do that either. "Request" is one of those problematic verbs that can be read as soft and hard mandate both. I can request you jump off a bridge, but you can choose to ignore my request.

Article I: The Role of Member States

OOC: These subtitles are not necessary either. You have started the whole thing with "the General Assembly", so you should have the GA mandating things for the member nations, not this nonsense.

Provision of publicly funded coastal defence works to protect coastal areas from erosion or flooding;

IC: ""Provision" doesn't sound very convincing. "Provide" would be less ambiguous. But what are "coastal defence works"? You could just mandate that member nations protect coastal areas from erosion. I would leave out the flooding part, because flooding is often a natural process that is necessary for maintaining of a coastline, as it brings in and piles on loose material that is needed to protect the actual shoreline from wave erosion."

OOC: You would also be mandating nations stop tides and hurricanes. Which are not realistically possible. Nor healthy for the coastal ecosystems.

Funding and co-ordinating of responses to major flooding and erosion events;

OOC: I might be just tired, but exactly what is this wanting to do? Like, give me an actual Real Life example, please?

Control of development in areas perceived at risk from flooding and erosion, and the minimisation of impacts of new developments on coastal flooding risks.

IC: "I don't know who gave you the Bureaucrat's Guide To Saying Much With Little Effect, but I doubt they had your best interests in mind. Forget the clever wordings and instead use actual words to actually give things for the member nations to do. If you want them to build breakwaters to protect coasts from erosion, or limit water craft speeds to avoid creating erosive waves, then actually write those mandates instead of what you now have. And I repeat that including flooding is a bad idea as most often it is due to natural processes such as tides or storms and is thus something the native ecosystems are adapted to, or at least can cope with, and stopping them entirely would be bad for the ecosystems in question, not good."

Also requesting that the appropriate operating bodies / governments of nations do arrange the appropriate provisions as listed below: mandates

OOC: Easy fix.

Consenting arrangements to balance risk and interests;

OOC: No idea what this means.

Consultation between key interest groups; (locals living in the surrounding area, environmentalist groups/charities and indeed local government in member states with devolution)

OOC: Also no idea what this wants. Like, what are they consulted on? And what for?

Provisions for nature conservation and landscape protection.

IC: "Once more, "provision" is not a word you want to use, if you want to mandate something. Also, have you checked the existing resolutions? There already exists a resolution on the protection of wetlands - which many coastlines are - for example."

Article II: Supervisory Duty of Member States

OOC: Same as before about these subtitles.

This proposal shall ensure that the appropriate operating bodies of member states are following the guidelines below to ensure that coastlines (or anywhere affected by the sea) of member states are kept secure.

OOC: Same as before, "resolution" instead of "proposal", and actually mandate stuff you want to see happen, rather than state what the proposal would do if you actually bothered to write the mandates. Forget "shall", write up the mandates.

Assessment of the condition of coastal defences;

OOC: The sentence structure doesn't work anyway; "Supervisory duty of member states the proposal shall ensure guidelines to ensure coastlines assessment of the condition". Just doesn't work. Right now they're all separate sentences that have nothing to do with one another. I don't even know, from looking at it, who's supposed to do this assessing. The GA? The nations? This is under "supervisory duty", which suggests the nations just supervise someone else doing the assessing. And as with the "provision vs. provide", don't use "assessment", use "assess", if you must, and clearly give the task to someone. Preferably the member nations. Same goes for all the following ones.

Assessment of flood risk associated with coastal defences

IC: "Does this affect only the flooding risk that is because of the coastal defences, whatever they are, rather than flooding risk in general in areas where the undefined things exist? And what good does the answer of the assessing do?"

OOC: You should define "coastal defences" early on, after the "hereby". It's completely undefined right now, so I can't even tell if it means natural defences like mangrove swamps and river deltas and sandbars, or artificial built ones like breakwaters and sand traps.

Emergency response to flooding incidents;

IC: "Why should a natural inundation of natural swampland need any kind of emergency response? Storm surges flood coastal areas. That's not an emergency situation. It might be unusual condition, but not an emergency."

Awareness of flood risk in the community

IC: "What community? The mangrove tree community? I'm fairly certain they evolved to deal with such risks."

OOC: The whole proposal is terminally vague about whether it's talking about artificial built environments or natural ones. Given the category I'd think the latter, but then bits like "the community" don't really fit.

Regulation of other bodies; and

IC: "Which bodies? People's bodies? Animals' bodies? Plants' bodies? Water bodies?"

Application of conservation duty and environmental impact.

OOC: ...what? This is completely unrelated to anything and everything.

Article III: The Coastline and Shoreline Management Committee

This proposal shall establish the Coastline and Shoreline Management Committee of the World Assembly. This committee shall be responsible for making provisions for member nations to improve and protect any areas that may be affected by the sea, or indeed other bodies of water.

This committee shall provide the following plans to member states to take place seven days after the passage of this resolution.

OOC: Same as before about subtitles and using "this proposal" and "shall". Also, you don't literally need the committee at all, so don't bother making one. You can make member nations do all the stuff - as they should - to protect their own coastline (though you'll need to actually write in the clauses, not just say you'd like that to happen), and slapping on a committee would be just slapping on extra costs that are unneeded by everyone. Remember that committees are paid by the GA, which gets its moneys from all WA nations, including ones without coastlines.

Water Level Management Plans: Member states must make provisions to set out water level management requirements in a defined floodplain area undertaken by the relevant operating authority.

River Basin Management Plans: Provisions to set out the objectives for the water bodies within a river basin district and explain in broad terms how they are to be achieved, undertaken by the relevant operating authority.

Sustainable Drainage Systems: Provisions to set out a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in more sustainable fashion than some conventional techniques.

OOC: These are huge nonsequitors and there are resolutions about water management aplenty, so I think you should focus on coastlines and nothing else, here.

[WayNeacTia]

This committee shall provide the following plans to member states to take place seven days after the passage of this resolution.

If I may suggest dropping this line? It will cause less issues in the debate later.

[Cappedore]

This committee shall provide the following plans to member states to take place seven days after the passage of this resolution.

If I may suggest dropping this line? It will cause less issues in the debate later.

Of course, I'm a little busy tomorrow but I'll see what I can do tomorrow evening.

For now, I did what PPU asked and moved the last 2 drafts to the bottom of the main post. Should be easier to navigate now :)

[WayNeacTia]

This committee shall provide the following plans to member states to take place seven days after the passage of this resolution.

If I may suggest dropping this line? It will cause less issues in the debate later.

Of course, I'm a little busy tomorrow but I'll see what I can do tomorrow evening.

For now, I did what PPU asked and moved the last 2 drafts to the bottom of the main post. Should be easier to navigate now

Sounds fantastic. Everything else looks good to me, and this is a subject that does need to be legislated on, so I am prepared to support it.

[Cappedore]

I have added a new draft, apologies for the long wait. This new draft pretty much overhauls the entire resolution, and I've made necessary amendments that would ensure that the resolution is seen as Strong instead of Mild.

I've also renamed this to the 'Coastal Management Act' as opposed to 'Coastal and Shoreline Management Act'. Pretty much just simplifies it without the nonsense.

[Tinhampton]

You have a rogue "Hereby" in Article 7 that should be removed.

Why can member states not be trusted to discharge the responsibilities that the CPCC is given in your Article 2?

[Cappedore]

You have a rogue "Hereby" in Article 7 that should be removed.

Rogue "Hereby" has been removed.

Why can member states not be trusted to discharge the responsibilities that the CPCC is given in your Article 2?

I could modify that / add a clause that perhaps mentions that the CPCC is important as it delivers transparent and unbiased information and assessments.

On providing emergency responses, that can be removed.

[Cappedore]

Bumping this for now.

If you're just seeing this, please feel free to make comments / give feedback where necessary. Thanks :)

[Kurogasa]

Out of curiosity, what unit of measurement is a "plethora" and how exactly will it be checked if a nation has deployed the required amount?.

[Cappedore]

Out of curiosity, what unit of measurement is a "plethora" and how exactly will it be checked if a nation has deployed the required amount?.

The length and spacing between the groynes is determined by the force of the waves, the strength of the longshore drift, and the amount of sediment engineers want to capture, so that's really up to the measurements of member states.

Usually, wooden groynes last around 25 years. The entire point of a groyne is to limit the effect of longshore drift by capturing sediment whilst it is being transported.

[Kurogasa]

Out of curiosity, what unit of measurement is a "plethora" and how exactly will it be checked if a nation has deployed the required amount?.

The length and spacing between the groynes is determined by the force of the waves, the strength of the longshore drift, and the amount of sediment engineers want to capture, so that's really up to the measurements of member states.

Usually, wooden groynes last around 25 years. The entire point of a groyne is to limit the effect of longshore drift by capturing sediment whilst it is being transported.

So nations are REQUIRED to build an undisclosed amount on beaches and let the member states judge by themselves how many are needed?...no flaws in that.

[Cappedore]

The length and spacing between the groynes is determined by the force of the waves, the strength of the longshore drift, and the amount of sediment engineers want to capture, so that's really up to the measurements of member states.

Usually, wooden groynes last around 25 years. The entire point of a groyne is to limit the effect of longshore drift by capturing sediment whilst it is being transported.

So nations are REQUIRED to build an undisclosed amount on beaches and let the member states judge by themselves how many are needed?...no flaws in that.

Well... yes? Tides, wave force and longshore drift strength quite literally differs everywhere. I think nations are responsible enough to determine their own dimensions for the amount of groynes built on beaches. If needs be, I can always put 'OR' in between the clauses to simplify things a bit.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just mentioning I'm writing another long feedback post.

[Cappedore]

OOC: Just mentioning I'm writing another long feedback post.

Looking forward to it.

[Araraukar]

OOC and IC as marked. Second round of detailed feedback (PPU is also my account)!

Noticing that, compared with certain other areas of environmental management, there is a relatively limited international legal and policy relating to coastal defence and shoreline management,

IC: "That is not a bad thing, so I don't quite understand why you decided to start with this."

OOC: You should start with the description of what is the problem you're trying to fix. I'm guessing that the problem you want to address is coastal erosion. Start with what coastal erosion is and, given it is a natural process, how peoples' activities make it worse. I'd leave out the "because there is no law yet" entirely, because many people don't like resolutions being made just for the sake of having a resolution on some issue.

Noting that coastal erosion can be a severe threat to nearby wildlife, local economy, coastal settlements and could cost lives if left untreated,

IC: "And what of wildlife that needs coastal erosion to happen and whose ecosystems would be destroyed if silt was allowed to accumulate."

OOC: You need to make clear you're not trying to apply this to areas that are not sandy and silty normally. Bare rock is needed as the starting point for corals, for example, and many macro algae. Silt buildup kills coral reefs. So rather than encourage one ecosystem over all others, you need to specify what the actual problem is, from the environmental point of view.

Understanding that the international community has a duty to preserve natural habitats of coastal creatures to prevent possible extinction of endangered creatures,

IC: "Yes, which makes your silt-build-up fantasies all the more bizarre. Araraukar has long coastline and there are many different kinds of ecosystems, from the river deltas to rocky cliffs, mangrove wetlands and everything between. We understand that diverse ecosystems mean diverse marine life. Do you?"

The General Assembly hereby:

OOC: You already start the entire thing with "The General Assembly", so you don't need to repeat it here.

1. Mandates that member states apply these strategies to areas affected by the sea:

IC: "On a planet like Earth, there is no place on it that is not affected by the sea. I think you need to narrow that down a bit more. And even then coastal erosion is not a problem everywhere. It is a natural process, after all, that is part of the rock cyckle, after all."

OOC: You might want to start with definitions. Define coastal erosion - use the definition to specify the difference between the natural process and the overly accelerated one that's caused by peoples' activities - and then apply all the actions in the rest of the text only to areas where coastal erosion is a problem.

Requires member states to apply a strategy of beach nourishment, the act of widening beaches by using sand and shingle, increasing the distances that waves have to travel and therefore slowing them down which prevents erosion;

OOC: Your main clause says "mandates that member nations apply" so the subclauses don't need the "requires member states to apply" bits.

IC: "I have to say you wouldn't have passed your course on beach eco-maintenance back in Araraukar with a sloppy mess like this clause. You should make a definition clause right at the start, where you define all these terms you use, such as beach nourishment, and then you could use the terms in these clauses. Trying to do definitions mid-clause muddles things up. Additionally, just widening the beach, which most people understand to mean the bits visible above the water, does not do much good. If you mean to say you want to slow down wave action, then adding sand and whatever you think shingles are, is like trying to stop arterial spray with bandaid. To slow wave action on a beach for the purpose of slowing - note, slowing; you can't completely eliminate a natural process - erosion, you need to act on the waves before they get to the surf zone. In other words, you need to make them break earlier. Have you heard of breakwaters? I also see no mention whatsoever on requiring reduced speed of oceanic vessels and more locally leisure vessels near beaches under the threat of erosion, or halting harvesting of beach sand or digging drainage ditches or indeed any other kind of activity that actually is signifigant factor in beach erosion. Why?"

OOC: And before you list all those in the proposal, don't. It's the wrong approach. You should leave the specifics up to the nations to decide locally, not try to mandate them WA-wide. No matter how many you list, I promise you that you won't list them all. You also have nothing on beach protection, only repairing what's already damaged. So basically, for a proposal in the Environmental category, you're climbing the tree arse-first.

Rethink the entire thing, read more about beach erosion from RL sources and study various ways GLOBALLY that it can be combatted. What works in your RL location is not the only way. Look at the Dubai World Islands for example, they've literally built islands out of sand in the sea; find out what they've used to make the sand not wash away. Study beach vegetation and its role in keeping erosion to a minimum. Study river deltas, where the process happens normally and should be allowed to happen, or you risk losing the entire delta, if the channels become too blocked and the river finds another direction. Also study the NATURAL process and what storms do, because you cannot stop beach erosion entirely, nor should you try.

Requires member states to apply managed retreat strategies on appropriate coastlines, where they allow certain areas of the coast to erode and flood naturally due to their low value, encouraging the natural development of beaches by natural eroded material.

IC: "Again, definitions at the start of the active clauses, don't muddle up the actions with the definitions. And who is this "they"? And what is "low value"? Ecologically? Economically? Both? How can any beach be low value when you're mandating they all be protected to avoid some sand flea subspecies from going extinct?"

OOC: Most coasts in RL that are mostly-untouched-by-human-development are allowed to erode and flood and accumulate and drain all on their own not because they were low value but because they're undergoing the NATURAL process that's part of the rock cycle. Honestly this is starting to feel to me like you're not aware of the difference between the natural process and the artificially accelerated one that's caused by human activities in RL. (For WA please be aware there are many non-human nations, so using general "people" instead of "humans" would be preferable.)

Requires member states to build a plethora of groynes at right angles on beaches, protecting cliff sides from upland erosion and providing a barrier to flooding.

OOC: I have no idea what groynes are, without looking them up, and I imagine majority of people who will eventually be voting on this, won't either.

IC: "First of all, what the actual fuck does flooding have to do with beach erosion? Asking this seriously. Floods, such as a storm surge, can accelerate coastal erosion, but even then it is the flow of water and increase in wave action that does the deed. The floods are unrelated to this, and if you want to be pendantic, every high tide is a flood. You can't prevent the tides without destroying the ecosystems you want to protect. What is "upland erosion" and why are you trying to stop erosion altogether? Erosion is a natural process. I wouldn't - and if your homeplanet operates at all like our Earth, neither would you - be here if erosion didn't happen. Coastlines are dynamic locations, they are not and will not be trapped in amber for your pleasure to remain unchanging for all eternity. Land rises, is eroded, becomes rock, rises, is eroded, becomes rock, and so forth. It is part of how planets work. The coastline ecosystems are adapted to the natural cycle, and now you want to stop it. Why? You still haven't given any reason beyond "some species might go extinct". There is already a resolution dealing with endangered species, have you read it? I remind you again that you are missing the point of erosion being a natural process, and until you do understand that, there's not much hope for your proposal."

1. Conduct annual assessments of the condition of coastal defences;
2. Conduct annual assessments of flood risk associated with coastal defences
3. Provide emergency response to erosion incidents;
4. Raise awareness of erosion risk in the international community;
5. Provide regulation of other water bodies; and
6. Apply conservation duty and environmental impact.

OOC: Marked in blue everything that should be given to the nations to do, and in red the ones I don't get what they are for. What "emergency response"? Like said before, you can't stop storms from affecting the coast. And what is "(a) conservation duty and environmental impact"? Do you mean taxes with "duty"? And environmental impact of what? Just doesn't make sense.

3. Mandates member states provide a co-ordinated, centrally-regulated approach to coastal protection works supported by the international community of member states;

OOC: This makes no sense either. How can every member state provide coordinated AND centrally-regulated something that has support from all other member states? Wouldn't that create a very fragmented and diffuse system mostly comprising of bureaucrats? And what are "coastal protection works"? How must they be supported? What do you want this clause to do in practice? Give me a RL example.

4. Requires that all member nations must apply these defences to whatever coastlines they may have, including other bodies of water and areas that are directly and indirectly affected by the sea;

IC: "What defences? And as mentioned before, everything on a planet with oceans is affected by the sea. And why must the whatever actions you think of as defences be applied everywhere, even if coastal erosion is not a problem there? Are you aware that wetlands have a separate resolution protecting them? Why do you want to develope every metre of coastline while most coastline ecosystems are better the less people mess with them?"

5. Requires member states to cooperate with the Committee on the Preservation and Conservation of Coastlines to create newer strategies for coastal protection that are not already stated in this resolution;

OOC: This is awful lazy writing. Write the clauses you want to implement, don't make up phantom clauses after mandating bad choice actions. Many of the things I mentioned before (such as speed limits for ships and other vessels to reduce amount and ferocity of waves hitting the shore) as ways to actually have an effect in coastal erosion are that easily written, they don't need to be buried into a random "also do everything I actually should have been writing down" mention.

6. Encourages member states to educate students more about the risks, causes and results of coastal erosion, including the negative effects it can have on local wildlife and habitats.

IC: "Given the direct negative effects the mandates you actually have written out would cause, I think this proposal as it is - it can and should be improved! - would be prime material for such an education on what not to do."

7. Mandates that member nations impose these strategies for defence of the coast and mandates it international law to ensure that coastlines are properly defended and assessed to avoid risk to life, damage to wildlife, and damage to coastal habitats.

OOC: That doesn't actually do anything not already done by previous clauses and given you mandate damaging coastal habitats (adding sand and stuff on a beach means burying existing life under much more sand and silt than they're used to, likely killing a whole lot of them, ANY alteration will always kill wildlife), it sounds contradictory and hypocritical. Also, "mandates it international law" is not proper sentence structure.

This needs a lot of work. I don't think it's unrepairable, far from it, but you need some serious re-thinking about your approach. And also you need to study the subject more in RL.

[Cappedore]

/Bump for now until I have the time / can be bothered to work on this a bit more. Thanks so far for your comments, please feel free to make some more :)

[Cappedore]

/bump

I'll be making an update on this later today. Please feel free to make any further additional comments in the meantime.