[SUBMITTED] Reducing Waste In Water

[Caribbia]

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the appalling amount of waste, litter and garbage contaminating the world’s seas and oceans this very moment;

Outraged by the inaction and dismissal of the situation taken by many governments and state leaders across the globe;

Revolted by the thoughtlessness and selfishness of contributing individuals, and by the devastating impacts all of this waste has had on the environment and marine life in our waters;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
   
   1. “Waste” as litter, garbage, or any other material polluting any body of water within the territorial waters or territory of a member state,
      
   2. “Waters” as any bodies of water within a state’s territorial boundaries such as lakes, seas, oceans and rivers,
      
   3. “Waste Quota” as a quota on the amount of waste in a state’s territorial waters, that being a maximum of 1.25 kilograms of waste per capita.
2. Mandates all member states to impose strict punishments on polluting their waters with waste in order to attempt to regulate the total amount of waste within their waters by either:
   
   1. Issuing fines to individuals found dumping waste into a state’s waters,
      
   2. Punishing these offenders by sentencing them to an appropriate amount of hours of community service cleaning out waste from that state’s waters,
      
   3. Issuing the offending individual(s) or corporation a warning which could result in a harsher punishment decided by the state if committed again,
      
   4. Any other punishment deemed appropriate or fitting by the state.
3. Establishes the Environmental and Marine Life Protection Committee (“EMLPC”), divided into smaller national subcommittees,
   
4. Tasks the EMLPC with carrying out yearly inspections of every state’s bodies of water to determine whether or not the waste quota has been crossed within the territorial waters of that nation,
   
5. Encourages all member states to show initiative in setting up national organizations to try to clean out their waters of waste,
   
6. Authorizes the EMLPC to:
   
   1. Penalize states non-compliant with the waste quota by issuing fines of an amount proportionate to how much the waste quota was broken by,
      
   2. Reduce such a penalty by a reasonable amount if the state is showing a sizable initiative to reduce the amount of waste in their waters,
      
   3. If any waste has been found to have flown into or been dumped into a state by another state, to penalize that state in lieu of the state that the waste was found in,
      
   4. Seize any waste found in the waters of a state, such as any recyclable material or material posing a threat to wildlife, with the exception of:
      
      1. Any waste of historical significance or value to the state,
         
      2. Any waste of cultural importance or value to the state,
         
      3. Any waste that could potentially act as evidence in a court case or other legal proceeding.
7. Mandates the EMLPC to:
   
   1. Report findings of any of the above to the government or state leader immediately upon discovery for further examination,
      
   2. Ensure that the reported item is not discarded back into that state’s waters or environment upon the completion of the examination, but instead is either:
      
      1. Given back to the EMLPC,
         
      2. Put through a recycling process overseen by the EMLPC,
         
      3. Kept by the government of that state for any suitable further usage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what are your thoughts? Let me know if I should change anything, thanks!

[Fachumonn]

I feel like this is covered somewhere? IDK. More feedback later.

[Caribbia]

I feel like this is covered somewhere? IDK. More feedback later.

I'm probably way off here, but are you possibly thinking of GA#548? Might seem similar at first but it has a completely different aim.

[Tinhampton]

Opposed. It should not be the World Assembly's responsibility to get rid of other peoples' waste.

[Caribbia]

Opposed. It should not be the World Assembly's responsibility to get rid of other peoples' waste.

It would not be the EMLPC's job to clean up the waste of other nations. All it is for is to monitor the amount of waste present in the territorial waters of every nation and issue fines to those who don't meet quota requirements.

It can seize specific items it deems to be of value, but taking anything is not mandated nor encouraged. This is very clearly specified in the resolution.

[Xanthorrhoea]

A couple of brief points at first glance:

1. Your 1a definition of waste includes sources of waste outside a nation's control such as debris from natural disasters. It doesn't seem fair that a small island nation ravaged by a tsumani then receives a 6a fine. It also includes waste dumped illegally by other nations. Why should I be fined by the EMLPC if a non-WA nation dumps all of their waste in rivers upstream and it floats down to me?

2. What is to stop me from gathering all of the waste in my nation's waters and dumping it in international waters 2km past the edge of my marine borders? It seems like the simplest way to avoid fines, but I don't think it's the intended effect of your proposal.

[Caribbia]

A couple of brief points at first glance:

1. Your 1a definition of waste includes sources of waste outside a nation's control such as debris from natural disasters. It doesn't seem fair that a small island nation ravaged by a tsumani then receives a 6a fine. It also includes waste dumped illegally by other nations. Why should I be fined by the EMLPC if a non-WA nation dumps all of their waste in rivers upstream and it floats down to me?

2. What is to stop me from gathering all of the waste in my nation's waters and dumping it in international waters 2km past the edge of my marine borders? It seems like the simplest way to avoid fines, but I don't think it's the intended effect of your proposal.

Thank you for the feedback! I've have made some changes to clarify some of your points

[Caribbia]

Alright then. Thank you to those that posted some questions or gave me feedback. It's a longshot at this early stage dictated by many people's personal opinions, but I have decided to submit. All the best.

[Tinhampton]

Why would you submit this after two days? Waste disposal is a complex issue; detailed resolutions about it should not be so hastily submitted, especially not by a new author and especially not when concerns have been levied during its short drafting period.

[Tinhampton]

2 hours ago: The People's Republic of Caribbia submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Environmental Board entitled "Reducing Water Waste".

Your resubmission is identical in content to Reducing Waste In Water, other than the title (and the beginning of Article 5, which now reads "Strongly encourages" instead of "Encourages"). If there were issues with Reducing Waste In Water - and there were plenty, I can reassure you - then those issues are still present in Reducing Water Waste.

Just to be absolutely clear:

• Reducing Waste In Water sets an arbitrary "Waste Quota" of 1.25kg/person, yet allows member states to set any punishment they want (except where prohibited by resolution) for anybody who dumps any amount of waste into water.
• Reducing Waste In Water requires a committee to go and wade through every cubic inch of water in every member state, every year, to determine whether they have broken their Waste Quotas. Either that or it has to extrapolate.
• Reducing Waste In Water allows that committee to punish non-member states for violating World Assembly law.
• Reducing Waste In Water only allows the reduction of Article 6a sanctions "if the state is showing a sizable initiative to reduce the amount of waste in their waters," completely erasing the important contributions that local governments, non-governmental organisations, and civil society can make to waste reduction.
• Reducing Waste In Water "authorizes" that committee to "seize any waste found in" member state waters, despite babbling on about how member states should create "organizations to try to clean out their waters of waste" anyway.
• Reducing Waste In Water forbids committee-collected waste from escaping committee oversight, except if the member state in question's government accepts it in order to do... what with it?
• Reducing Water Waste does all of those things, too, because you have failed to change anything of substance within it.

Proposals are best improved by redrafting - which has clearly not happened in this case - rather than by repeatedly resubmitting them with superficial changes. RWW should be withdrawn, redrafted for a few weeks, and then resubmitted... or it can be campaigned for and go to vote (although goodness knows when), where it will either be defeated or get repealed within a week.