[PASSED] Sustainable Fishing Act

[Cowardly Pacifists]

AT VOTE - Please go here to cast your vote on this proposal!

Notes on the current draft: Provisions 3 and 10 are new and should be referred to as the Auralian Amendments. Provision 6 has been modified and Provision 7 has been added pursuant to the Knootian Compromise of 2012.

Current Draft:

Sustainable Fishing Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

AWARE that fish and other aquatic species are important sources of food, economic growth, and revenue for many nations and their people;

CONCERNED that many aquatic ecosystems are over-exploited;

WORRIED that without proper safeguards, populations of aquatic animals may be harvested out of existence;

CONVINCED that imperilling or extinguishing whole populations of aquatic life would cause serious ecological problems and bring disaster to the people who rely on those populations;

DETERMINED to ensure the long-term viability of aquatic populations within the jurisdiction of Member Nations and - to the extent possible - international waters;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES "Overfishing" (for the purposes of this Act) as: "Harvesting a population of an aquatic species in a manner that is impossible for that population to support over time, resulting in an overall decline in the health of the population and imperilling its long term viability."

2. DEFINES "Maximum Sustainable Yield" (for the purposes of this Act) as: "The maximum number of individuals - possibly within specified ranges for age and size - that can be harvested from a population without resulting in Overfishing."

3. DEFINES "Invasive Species" (for the purposes of this Act) as: "A species that is not native to a particular ecosystem whose presence has proven disruptive or harmful to the local ecology," and clarifies that actions taken to control Invasive Species do not fall under this Act's restrictions on Overfishing;

4. REQUIRES that Member Nations determine and publish the Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations inhabiting their national waters and any international waters over which they have an internationally-recognized jurisdictional right.

5. PROHIBITS Overfishing in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters over which Member Nations have an internationally recognized jurisdictional right.

6. REQUIRES Member Nations to prohibit Overfishing by their own people in all other waters if the other nations that harvest those particular waters agree to refrain from Overfishing in them as well.

7. ENCOURAGES Member Nations to prohibit Overfishing by their own people in all waters regardless of whether other nations agree to do so.

8. TASKS the World Assembly Science Programe (WASP) with the following duties: :

• To provide Member Nations with any and all assistance they require to determine Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations in their national, territorial, and jurisdictional waters;
• To evaluate and determine the Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations in unclaimed waters;
• To propose plans for sharing international stocks among nations in a way that will prevent Overfishing of those stocks.

9. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES Member Nations to work collaboratively with other nations to manage international and migratory aquatic species populations in a way that ensures their long-term sustainability.

10. CLARIFIES that Member Nations may temporarily permit Overfishing in order to meet the needs of an emergency, so long as (a) Overfishing is permitted only to the extent necessary to meet the emergency, (b) no populations are reduced to levels from which they would be unable to recover (in the WASP’s opinion), and (c) the Overfishing period is followed by a period in which the targeted populations are allowed to recover.

Co-authored by: [nation=short]Bears Armed[/nation]

Sustainable Fishing Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

AWARE that fish and other aquatic animals are critically important sources of food, economic growth, and revenue for many nations and their people;

CONCERNED that many aquatic ecosystems are over-exploited;

WORRIED that without proper safeguards, populations of fish or other aquatic animals may be harvested out of existence;

CONVINCED that imperiling or extinguishing whole populations of aquatic life would cause serious ecological problems and bring disaster to the people that rely on those populations for food and prosperity;

DETERMINED to ensure the long-term viability of aquatic species populations within the jurisdiction of Member Nations and - to the extent possible - international waters;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES "Overfishing" (for the purposes of this resolution) as: "Harvesting a population of an aquatic species in a manner that is impossible for that population to support over time, causing an overall decline in the health and long term viability of the population as a whole."

2. DEFINES "Maximum Sustainable Yield" (for the purposes of this resolution) as: "The maximum number of individuals - possibly within specified ranges for age and size - that can be harvested from a population without resulting in Overfishing."

3. REQUIRES that Member Nations determine and publish the Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations inhabiting their national waters and any international waters over which they have an internationally-recognized jurisdictional right.

4. PROHIBITS Overfishing in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters over which Member Nations have an internationally recognized jurisdictional right.

5. REQUIRES Member Nations to prohibit Overfishing by their own people in all other waters if the other nations that harvest those particular waters agree to refrain from Overfishing in them as well.

6. ENCOURAGES Member Nations to prohibit Overfishing by their own people in all waters regardless of whether other nations agree to do so.

7. TASKS the World Assembly Science Programe (WASP) with the following duties: :

• To provide Member Nations with any and all assistance they require to determine Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations in their national, territorial, and jurisdictional waters;
• To evaluate and determine the Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations in unclaimed waters;
• To propose plans for sharing international stocks among nations in a way that will prevent Overfishing of those stocks.

8. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES Member Nations to work collaboratively with other nations to manage international and migratory aquatic species populations in a way that ensures their long-term sustainability.

9. CLARIFIES that Member Nations may temporarily permit Overfishing in order to meet the needs of an emergency, so long as (a) Overfishing is permitted only to the extent and duration necessary to meet the emergency, (b) no aquatic species populations are actually extinguished by the temporary Overfishing, and (c) the temporary Overfishing period is followed by a period in which the targeted populations are allowed to recover.

10. CLARIFIES that notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Member Nations may take reasonable action to protect an ecosystem from invasive aquatic species, including removing those species from their non-native habitat.

Co-authored by: [nation=short]Bears Armed[/nation]

Sustainable Fishing Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

AWARE that fish and other aquatic animals are critically important sources of food, economic growth, and revenue for many nations and their people;

CONCERNED that many aquatic ecosystems are over-exploited;

WORRIED that without proper safeguards, populations of fish or other aquatic animals may be harvested out of existence;

CONVINCED that imperiling or extinguishing whole populations of aquatic life would cause serious ecological problems and bring disaster to the people that rely on those populations for food and prosperity;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES "Overfishing" (for the purposes of this resolution) as: "Harvesting a population of an aquatic species in a manner that is impossible for that population to support over time, causing an overall decline in the health and long term viability of the population as a whole."

2. DEFINES "Maximum Sustainable Yield" (for the purposes of this resolution) as: "The maximum number of individuals - possibly within specified ranges for age and size - that can be harvested from a population without resulting in Overfishing."

3. REQUIRES that Member Nations determine and publish the Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations inhabiting their national waters and any international waters over which they have an internationally-recognized jurisdictional right.

4. PROHIBITS Overfishing in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters over which Member Nations have an internationally recognized jurisdictional right.

5. REQUIRES Member Nations to prohibit Overfishing by their own people in all other waters.

6. TASKS the World Assembly Science Programe (WASP) with the following duties: :

• To provide Member Nations with any and all assistance they require to determine Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations in their national, territorial, and jurisdictional waters;
• To evaluate and determine the Maximum Sustainable Yield of aquatic species populations in unclaimed waters;
• To propose plans for sharing international stocks among nations in a way that will prevent Overfishing of those stocks.

7. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES Member Nations to work collaboratively with other nations to manage international and migratory aquatic species populations in a way that ensures their long-term sustainability.

Co-authored by: Bears Armed

Sustainable Fishing Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

AWARE that many nations rely on their territorial seas, rivers, lakes, and waters for the fish they use to feed their people and fuel their national economies;

SHOCKED that a large number of aquatic ecosystems are over exploited, and that many fish populations are harvested at levels that imperil their long-term survival;

CONCERNED that without proper safeguards, several fish populations may be fished out of existence;

WORRIED that if nations imperil or extinguish fish populations living in their national waters, the consequences would affect the economic and environmental health of the entire world.

DETERMINED to ensure the long term viability of national and international fishing stocks;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions:

1. "Overfishing" is defined as: "Harvesting a population of an aquatic species in a manner that is impossible for that particular population to support over time, causing an overall decline in the health and long term viability of the population as a whole."

2. "Maximum Yield" is defined as: "The maximum number of individuals that can be harvested from a population without resulting in Overfishing."

3. Overfishing in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters is prohibited.

4. Member Nations shall evaluate their national waters - including their territorial waters and all other waters over which they claim a jurisdictional right - to determine the Maximum Yield of populations inhabiting those waters, and publish that information to all interested parties.

5. The World Assembly Science Programme (WASP) is tasked with the following duties:

• To provide Member Nations with any and all assistance required to determine Maximum Yield in their national waters and to comply with any other provisions of this Act, including scientific, monetary, and administrative assistance;
• To evaluate and determine the Maximum Yield of populations in unclaimed international waters;
• To propose plans for sharing international stocks among nations in a way that will prevent Overfishing of those stocks.

6. Recognizing that many aquatic species are migratory or reside primarily in international waters, Member Nations are strongly encouraged to work collaboratively with other nations to manage international and migratory species populations in a way that ensures their long-term sustainability.

Co-authored by: Bears Armed

Sustainable Fishing Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

AWARE that many nations rely on their territorial seas, rivers, lakes, and waters for the fish they use to feed their people and fuel their national economies;

SHOCKED that a large number of aquatic ecosystems are over exploited, and that many fish populations are harvested at levels that imperil their long-term survival;

CONCERNED that without proper safeguards, several fish populations may be fished out of existence;

WORRIED that if nations imperil or extinguish fish populations living in their national waters, the consequences would affect the economic and environmental health of the entire world.

DETERMINED to ensure the long term viability of national and international fishing stocks;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions:

1. "Overfishing" is defined as: "Harvesting a fish population in a manner that is impossible for that particular population to support over time, causing an overall decline in the health and long term viability of the population as a whole."

2. "Maximum Yield" is defined as: "The maximum number of individual fish that can be harvested from a population without resulting in Overfishing."

3. Overfishing of the fish stocks in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters is prohibited.

4. Member Nations shall evaluate their national waters - including their territorial waters and all other waters over which they claim a jurisdictional right - to determine the Maximum Yield of fish populations inhabiting those waters, and publish that information to all interested parties.

5. The World Assembly Science Programme (WASP) is tasked with the following duties:

• To provide Member Nations with any and all assistance required to determine Maximum Yield in their national waters and to comply with any other provisions of this Act, including scientific, monetary, and administrative assistance;
• To evaluate and determine the Maximum Yield of fish populations in unclaimed and international waters;
• To propose plans for sharing international fishing stocks among nations in a way that will prevent Overfishing of those stocks.

Well, after I pretty much failed to read the Gem Trading Accord properly in my attempt to repeal that resolution, I decided to move away from repeal drafting for a time. Here's my latest attempt at a proposal. Enjoy.

I also drafted this proposal from the other side, because I think that it could be a good Advancement of Industry proposal if slight edits were made. I'd probably prefer the Environmental version, but I am curious what folks think. Link to Sustainable Fishing Act (Advancement of Industry). (Edit: Off the table. This one is pretty close to submission and that one never really got any play anyway.)

It's pretty rough, so if you have any suggestions for improvement I'd be glad to hear them.

I think I might be able to turn this into an "Advancement of Industry" proposal if I focus more on ensuring the long term viability of the fishing industry, rather than protecting fish stocks. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on that and whether more folks would support this as an AI proposal rather than an Enviro proposal. (Edit: Done... see above)

Best Regards.

[Patricant]

I like this alot. The WA did need something like this, I voice full support and will help you out in any way.

[Patricant]

ENSURING that Overfishing Watch Agencies will be created to ensure overfishing will not occur,

I think that this might help a bit. Although I am not sure where to put it.

[Patricant]

Has this proposal died?

[Flibbleites]

Has this proposal died?

It's only been posted here for four hours, apparently you are unaware that writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Patricant]

Has this proposal died?

It's only been posted here for four hours, apparently you are unaware that writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Now I know, but your correcting speed is a 40-yard dash. (Compliment).

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

This looks nice. We shall start by stating that we support the principal.

We were going to write some legislation on this subject. But with an entirely different approach to do with Exclusive Economic Rights. Which brings us to our comments. But we'll start with the preamble, which is unusual, as we usually just skip it.

WORRIED that if nations imperil or extinguish fish populations living in their national waters, the consequences would affect the economic and environmental health of the entire world;

Can we have a slightly stronger word that Worried? Hang on, I'll check my list...
Noting, Observing, Hoping, Aware, Cognizant, Considering, Acknowledging, Remarking, Confirming, Affirming, Concerned, Again noting, Dismayed, Mortified, Outraged, Appalled, Shocked, Enraged, Flabbergasted, Infuriated, Devastated, Disturbed, Alarmed, Pining for the fiords, Stunned...

Maybe "Observing with Alarm"?

3. Overfishing is prohibited within Member Nations and international waters.

How many International Waters does the WA currently administer? None, right?
We propose that we permit Member Nations to Administer Safeguarding Zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories, with amended delineations as appropriate; from over-exploitation; subject to World Assembly Nautical Commission arbitration as appropriate. Something like the following might be appropriate?

3. Overfishing by and under the Jurisdiction of Member Nations is prohibited.

Z. Member Nations are permitted to claim and administer safeguarding zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories for the sole purpose of administration of economic resources, subject to their jurisdiction and WA legislation. In the case of disputes arising from the delineation of these zones, it is the duty and right of the World Assembly Nautical Commission (WANC) to make binding arbitration concerning such a dispute between WA member nations, or non-member nations who volunteer to accept this service; subject to guidelines in other WA legislation.

Can we please add the word 'properly'? At present that doesn't seem to be required.

4. Member Nations shall properly evaluate their national waters to determine the Maximum Yield of fish populations inhabiting those waters. Member Nation shall publish that information to the fishing industries operating within their borders.

5. The World Assembly Fishing Agency (WAFA) is established to assist nations in evaluating their national waters and determing Maximum Yield from those waters. On request by any nation, the WAFA shall provide any and all assistance required to comply with the provisions of this Act, including scientific, monetary, and administrative assistance.

Can we suggest putting the WAFA under the WANC; and add after 'any and all assistance required to comply with' ', interpret, regulate, and enforce', and add 'diplomatic,' after 'monetary,' ? That way the WAFA actually might even be able to be useful.

I think I might be able to turn this into an "Advancement of Industry" proposal if I focus more on ensuring the long term viability of the fishing industry, rather than protecting fish stocks. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on that and whether more folks would support this as an AI proposal rather than an Enviro proposal.

That sounds sounded good. Then I checked the General Assembly Proposal Categories and got stuck.

Area of Effect

First choice is Environmental Deregulation. Rather than devoting the whole proposal category to reverse the effects of "Environment', we've chosen a middle ground of 'all business'.

Second, Labor Deregulation. This one is going to benefit corporations at the expense of the worker. Surprise!

Third, Protective Tariffs. This opposes international 'Free Trade' by adding protectionism for national industry.
Example - GA#118 – Ethics in International Trade

Fourth, Tort Reform. Removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business. Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?
Example - GA#106 – Assitance Givers Protection

Well, we're certainly not deregulating the Environment, I'm not sure that we're deregulating Labo(u)r, I can't see that we're erecting tarrifs, and neither do we seem to be doing Tort reform, so

[Bears Armed]

3. Overfishing is prohibited within Member Nations and international waters.

How many International Waters does the WA currently administer? None, right?
We propose that we permit Member Nations to Administer Safeguarding Zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories, with amended delineations as appropriate; from over-exploitation; subject to World Assembly Nautical Commission arbitration as appropriate. Something like the following might be appropriate?

Z. Member Nations are permitted to claim and administer safeguarding zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories for the sole purpose of administration of economic resources, subject to their jurisdiction and WA legislation. In the case of disputes arising from the delineation of these zones, it is the duty and right of the World Assembly Nautical Commission (WANC) to make binding arbitration concerning such a dispute between WA member nations, or non-member nations who volunteer to accept this service; subject to guidelines in other WA legislation.

Already covered by 'Law of the Seas': Follow the link from my sig...

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Covered for delineation of Zones within Law of the Seas, but not for Safeguarding Zones as we suggest, we believe?

(Emphasis ours:)

FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission (or ‘WANC’), gives this agency the right and duty of binding arbitration in any disputes about this resolution’s interpretation that might arise between WA member nations, and also allows it to provide arbitration in relevant disputes involving any non-member nations who actually volunteer to accept this service;

[Bears Armed]

Covered for delineation of Zones within Law of the Seas, but not for Safeguarding Zones as we suggest, we believe?

(Emphasis ours:)

FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission (or ‘WANC’), gives this agency the right and duty of binding arbitration in any disputes about this resolution’s interpretation that might arise between WA member nations, and also allows it to provide arbitration in relevant disputes involving any non-member nations who actually volunteer to accept this service;

Fish are a natural resource, and

B) All of the waters within 200 nautical miles of a member nation's sea border, whether these are within its own Territorial Waters or are International Waters, and any further waters that are enclosed by these, shall be counted as its 'Exclusive Economic Zone' (‘EEZ’) within which it has sole authority over the exploration and use of natural resources;

[Quelesh]

Would this proposal affect only commercial fishing operations, or would it affect individual subsistence fishermen as well?

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Mallorea and Riva]

Would this proposal affect only commercial fishing operations, or would it affect individual subsistence fishermen as well?

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

The law is what the law says, and the law makes no distinction based upon who is doing the fishing.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far. Long post warning.

ENSURING that Overfishing Watch Agencies will be created to ensure overfishing will not occur,

I think that this might help a bit. Although I am not sure where to put it.

I don't like creating committees if I don't have to. I already created one committee in this resolution, anticipating that some nations would claim they don't have the resources or infrastructure to comply with #4. I'd really rather not create a second.

And I'm not sure an enforcement agency is required for this proposal. The proposal flatly prohibits Overfishing and nations would already be obliged to comply with that provision in good faith. That said, if others agree flagrant non-compliance would be an issue here, I'm willing to reconsider your suggestion.

This looks nice. We shall start by stating that we support the principal.

Thanks. It's nice to have Libraria and Ausitoria on board from the beginning for a change!

WORRIED that if nations imperil or extinguish fish populations living in their national waters, the consequences would affect the economic and environmental health of the entire world;

Can we have a slightly stronger word that Worried? Hang on, I'll check my list...
Noting, Observing, Hoping, Aware, Cognizant, Considering, Acknowledging, Remarking, Confirming, Affirming, Concerned, Again noting, Dismayed, Mortified, Outraged, Appalled, Shocked, Enraged, Flabbergasted, Infuriated, Devastated, Disturbed, Alarmed, Pining for the fiords, Stunned...
Maybe "Observing with Alarm"?

Maybe. I usually just let the preamble go all organic because it's precise wording has zero affect on the way the law functions. I do understand your point though, so I'll make some slight tweaks in the next draft and we'll see how that looks. Probably not "observing with alarm," since technically you can't "observe" something you believe will happen in the future.

3. Overfishing is prohibited within Member Nations and international waters.

How many International Waters does the WA currently administer? None, right?
We propose that we permit Member Nations to Administer Safeguarding Zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories, with amended delineations as appropriate; from over-exploitation; subject to World Assembly Nautical Commission arbitration as appropriate. Something like the following might be appropriate?

3. Overfishing by and under the Jurisdiction of Member Nations is prohibited.

Z. Member Nations are permitted to claim and administer safeguarding zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories for the sole purpose of administration of economic resources, subject to their jurisdiction and WA legislation. In the case of disputes arising from the delineation of these zones, it is the duty and right of the World Assembly Nautical Commission (WANC) to make binding arbitration concerning such a dispute between WA member nations, or non-member nations who volunteer to accept this service; subject to guidelines in other WA legislation.

I agree with Bears Armed that WA nations do administer international waters in the way you suggest under the Law of the Seas. However, I thank you for helping me see a related problem. As written, I prohibit overfishing in international waters but I don't have anyone determining what that means. Member Nations only have to determine maximum yield for fish populations within their own territory - including the seas up to 200 miles off shore per LotS; nobody is currently charged with determining the maximum yield of fish that reside further out than that.

I think I'll include a provision in the next draft charging the WAFA with determining the maximum yield for fish populations in unclaimed or international waters. That should adequately address this problem. Thanks again for bringing that to my attention, albeit indirectly.

Can we please add the word 'properly'? At present that doesn't seem to be required.

4. Member Nations shall properly evaluate their national waters to determine the Maximum Yield of fish populations inhabiting those waters. Member Nation shall publish that information to the fishing industries operating within their borders.

I'm not sure the proposal needs to qualify the mandatory evaluation in this way. There's already a good faith performance requirement under Rights and Duties; do we really think nations are going to say: "well, we conducted the mandatory evaluation, we just didn't do a proper job. So 'ha ha' we complied with the Act in good faith but still managed to imperil our fish populations." I think not.

5. The World Assembly Fishing Agency (WAFA) is established to assist nations in evaluating their national waters and determing Maximum Yield from those waters. On request by any nation, the WAFA shall provide any and all assistance required to comply with the provisions of this Act, including scientific, monetary, and administrative assistance.

Can we suggest putting the WAFA under the WANC; and add after 'any and all assistance required to comply with' ', interpret, regulate, and enforce', and add 'diplomatic,' after 'monetary,' ? That way the WAFA actually might even be able to be useful.

I will consider all of this for the next draft. Though I envision the WAFA as merely a compliance tool to help nations that might not have the technology or infrastructure to conduct a thorough evaluation. It's sort of a preemptive answer to the "I'm a developing nation who can't afford to conduct an evaluation of my seas; how dare you put this burden on me" argument.

I'm not sure what diplomacy might need to be conducted for a scientific evaluation of a nations territorial seas. And I really don't want the WAFA acting as the fish police and interpreting, regulating and enforcing the overfishing ban. National infrastructures can comply with the overfishing mandate on their own. I've left no wiggle room with that provision - member nations may use whatever enforcement means they choose, but they must prohibit overfishing.

I am open to your suggestion that the WAFA merge with the WANC. I do have a few concerns with that. One is that I don't like tying new responsibilities to an older agency because I'm afraid (perhaps unnecessarily) that the resolution creating that agency might one day be repealed, leaving my bill with a reference to a defunct agency. Also, in this case WAFA and WANC have decidedly different in purposes. Though both deal with water, WAFA is a scientific research agency while WANC was founded to provide dispute mediation services for international border disputes. That might not be all that important, but it's like buying a fruit cup at McDonalds... just doesn't feel quite right.

I would also like approval from Bears Armed before I consider that suggestion further. As the author of the Law of the Seas, I would want his permission to use the committee he created for other than its original purpose.

I think I might be able to turn this into an "Advancement of Industry" proposal if I focus more on ensuring the long term viability of the fishing industry, rather than protecting fish stocks. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on that and whether more folks would support this as an AI proposal rather than an Enviro proposal.

That sounds sounded good. Then I checked the General Assembly Proposal Categories and got stuck...
Well, we're certainly not deregulating the Environment, I'm not sure that we're deregulating Labo(u)r, I can't see that we're erecting tarrifs, and neither do we seem to be doing Tort reform, so

I still think this idea could be made into an "environmental deregulation" proposal if some things were changed. Obviously, as written, it would not pass muster in that category.

Anyway, the only reason I'm considering that is because anyone who visits the Armed Republic these days will probably notice that our economy is faltering a bit. I'm a little concerned with adding to that by crafting a proposal that would benefit the environment at the expense of industry. Perhaps I'll actually draft my version of this as a AoI proposal and just see what people think...

*snip

I completely agree that there is no need for this proposal to permit "Safeguarding Zones" as Libraria and Ausitoria suggest. Nations already have a sizable Exclusive Economic Zone that they administer under the Law of the Seas.

Incidentally, does the Bears Armed Mission (or anyone else for that matter) think that this proposal (as currently written) might conflict with the Law of the Seas? I don't think it does, but I just want to make sure.

Would this proposal affect only commercial fishing operations, or would it affect individual subsistence fishermen as well?

Good question. I meant for it to affect everyone. I mean, what does it matter who takes a particular fish if the net result is overfishing? Be it a massive conglomerate or a lone hermit, fishing above the maximum sustainable yield is detrimental to the fishing population.

Under this proposal, nations would have an obligation to prohibit overfishing however that may occur. If nations wish to protect their subsistence fisherfolks, they could figure out about how many fish those folk take (I imagine it would not be many in the grand scheme) and limit their fishing industries accordingly so that the combination of commercial fishing and subsistence fishing never threatens the long term viability of fish populations.

Would this proposal affect only commercial fishing operations, or would it affect individual subsistence fishermen as well?

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

The law is what the law says, and the law makes no distinction based upon who is doing the fishing.

Beat me to it... quite right.

[Patricant]

How many International Waters does the WA currently administer? None, right?
We propose that we permit Member Nations to Administer Safeguarding Zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories, with amended delineations as appropriate; from over-exploitation; subject to World Assembly Nautical Commission arbitration as appropriate. Something like the following might be appropriate?

Z. Member Nations are permitted to claim and administer safeguarding zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories for the sole purpose of administration of economic resources, subject to their jurisdiction and WA legislation. In the case of disputes arising from the delineation of these zones, it is the duty and right of the World Assembly Nautical Commission (WANC) to make binding arbitration concerning such a dispute between WA member nations, or non-member nations who volunteer to accept this service; subject to guidelines in other WA legislation.

Already covered by 'Law of the Seas': Follow the link from my sig...

Law of the Seas has to do with naval operations mostly, the proposal has to do with fishing.

[Bears Armed]

ENSURING that Overfishing Watch Agencies will be created to ensure overfishing will not occur,

I think that this might help a bit. Although I am not sure where to put it.

I don't like creating committees if I don't have to. I already created one committee in this resolution, anticipating that some nations would claim they don't have the resources or infrastructure to comply with #4. I'd really rather not create a second.

And I'm not sure an enforcement agency is required for this proposal.

Not to mention that it would probably fall foul of the "No WA Police" rule...

I agree with Bears Armed that WA nations do administer international waters in the way you suggest under the Law of the Seas. However, I thank you for helping me see a related problem. As written, I prohibit overfishing in international waters but I don't have anyone determining what that means. Member Nations only have to determine maximum yield for fish populations within their own territory - including the seas up to 200 miles off cost per LotS

Technically speaking the 'Exclusive Econmic Zone' isn't a part of the nation's actual 'territory'. I suggest referring to "territorial waters, and any other waters within which they are internationaly recognised as having exclusive rights over natural resources" to make sure that the EEZs are covered.

I am open to your suggestion that the WAFA merge with the WANC. I do have a few concerns with that. One is that I don't like tying new responsibilities to an older agency because I'm afraid (perhaps unnecessarily) that the resolution creating that agency might one day be repealed, leaving my bill with a reference to a defunct agency. Also, in this case WAFA and WANC have decidedly different in purposes. Though both deal with water, WAFA is a scientific research agency while WANC was founded to provide dispute mediation services for international border disputes. That might not be all that important, but it's like buying a fruit cup at McDonalds... just doesn't feel quite right.

Re-using existing agencies is fine: If the resolution that created one gets repealed then that agency just loses its original role and remains in existence to handle any other duties that it was subsequently given. We've already had Modly rulings on this point.
I suggest placing WAFA under WASP, which is the 'World Assembly Science Programme' (created by my own resolution 'Meteorological Cooperation', and already re-used several times since then).

I would also like approval from Bears Armed before I consider that suggestion further. As the author of the Law of the Seas, I would want his permission to use the committee he created for other than its original purpose.

Permission granted, if you decide that it is the right agency to use.

Incidentally, does the Bears Armed Mission (or anyone else for that matter) think that this proposal (as currently written) might conflict with the Law of the Seas? I don't think it does, but I just want to make sure.

No, you're okay:The national jurisdiction recognised under LotS specifcally applies "subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights"...


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Already covered by 'Law of the Seas': Follow the link from my sig...

Law of the Seas has to do with naval operations mostly, the proposal has to do with fishing.

Follow the link from my sig... and READ the existing resolution concerned.

[Patricant]

Law of the Seas has to do with naval operations mostly, the proposal has to do with fishing.

Follow the link from my sig... and READ the existing resolution concerned.

I understand, your resolution deals mostly with territorial boundaries and technicalities. The proposal in discussion deals with mostly overfishing, regulations on the subject, and to a very minor extent, boundaries. I believe they are different enough that the proposal is ready.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Okay I've cleaned up the first draft a bit based on the feedback I've gotten so far. I don't think I've changed enough yet to call it a new draft, so I just edited over the old one.

I've also included a link to the counterpart Advancement of Industry proposal I drafted. I'd appreciate comments as to which version is more appropriate. Thanks!

[Paysopolis]

Great proposal.

[Patricant]

Great proposal.

Agreed, .

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Fish are a natural resource, and

B) All of the waters within 200 nautical miles of a member nation's sea border, whether these are within its own Territorial Waters or are International Waters, and any further waters that are enclosed by these, shall be counted as its 'Exclusive Economic Zone' (‘EEZ’) within which it has sole authority over the exploration and use of natural resources;

We're not exactly understanding what's the duplication? If it's that the WANC seems to be getting the same power twice, we were proposing giving the WANC power to delineate further zones adjacent to their territories, i.e. adjacent to their EEZs defined in Law of the Seas that they already possess; which isn't included in the Law of the Seas.
Alternatively if it's about administration of resources, our proposed clause confirms the power of nations to administer maritime resources under their jurisdiction; WANC only gets the power to delineate?
Or have we misunderstood?

This looks nice. We shall start by stating that we support the principal.

Thanks. It's nice to have Libraria and Ausitoria on board from the beginning for a change!

Ah yes, sorry for being objectionable earlier.

3. Overfishing of the fish stocks in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters is prohibited.

After looking again at Law of the Seas (2, B), EEZs may consist of parts of International Waters, which means this clause covers parts of the same area twice. This also means that the follow point may include parts of EEZs:

[*]To evaluate and determine the Maximum Yield of fish populations in unclaimed and international waters;

We propose that we permit Member Nations to Administer Safeguarding Zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories, with amended delineations as appropriate; from over-exploitation; subject to World Assembly Nautical Commission arbitration as appropriate. Something like the following might be appropriate?

3. Overfishing by and under the Jurisdiction of Member Nations is prohibited.

Z. Member Nations are permitted to claim and administer safeguarding zones in International Waters adjacent to their territories for the sole purpose of administration of economic resources, subject to their jurisdiction and WA legislation. In the case of disputes arising from the delineation of these zones, it is the duty and right of the World Assembly Nautical Commission (WANC) to make binding arbitration concerning such a dispute between WA member nations, or non-member nations who volunteer to accept this service; subject to guidelines in other WA legislation.

I agree with Bears Armed that WA nations do administer international waters in the way you suggest under the Law of the Seas. However, I thank you for helping me see a related problem. As written, I prohibit overfishing in international waters but I don't have anyone determining what that means. Member Nations only have to determine maximum yield for fish populations within their own territory - including the seas up to 200 miles off shore per LotS; nobody is currently charged with determining the maximum yield of fish that reside further out than that.

I think I'll include a provision in the next draft charging the WAFA with determining the maximum yield for fish populations in unclaimed or international waters. That should adequately address this problem. Thanks again for bringing that to my attention, albeit indirectly.

Our pleasure. Our real concern concerns was - and is that - we are worried that international waters will become a free-for-all: everybody would attempt to dash in, fish the population to the sustainable yield, and then run away and come back next year. Member quotas would be needed to sort out who gets to fish. We see you've looked at this:

[*]To propose plans for sharing international fishing stocks among nations in a way that will prevent Overfishing of those stocks.

But this is giving the WA jurisdiction over natural resources and - presumably - international waters. Also, when it comes to non-members, they will ignore all this. How are we going to defend international waters which aren't under the jurisdiction of either our member nations, or the WA directly? If the WA had to defend this jurisdiction, we're into the whole world of WA Armed Forces. And it's also illegal if they're claiming International Waters which also happen to EEZs.
As we can't really let the WA run it, that is why we suggest, and continue to suggest; that international waters outside EEZs be administered by adjacent member nations. Then we don't have to worry about non-WA nations or overexploitation in international waters outside of our jurisdictions.

I am open to your suggestion that the WAFA merge with the WANC.

What we were proposing was creating the WAFA under the WANC, but that was when we were looking more at the diplomatic aspect of ensuring regulatory bodies at sea. If the WAFA is really not going to be attempting to regulate everything at sea to the last millimetre, you're right; the WAFA and WANC are totally different. And WASP can do it.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

*snip

We're not exactly understanding what's the duplication? If it's that the WANC seems to be getting the same power twice, we were proposing giving the WANC power to delineate further zones adjacent to their territories, i.e. adjacent to their EEZs defined in Law of the Seas that they already possess; which isn't included in the Law of the Seas.
Alternatively if it's about administration of resources, our proposed clause confirms the power of nations to administer maritime resources under their jurisdiction; WANC only gets the power to delineate?
Or have we misunderstood?

I think the only point here is that nations already have authority over a certain zone of waters around their national borders. Let's just say that doing so "again" merely to mark of areas of responsibility re: overfishing seems like it probably could be a duplication, and I just want to avoid that. As you can see, I've tried to solve the problem by giving the WASP authority over any "unclaimed" seas. If a nation wants to voluntarily claim the responsibility of evaluating certain waters outside their territory and EEZ, fine. If not, the WASP will do it. Simple, yet effective.

3. Overfishing of the fish stocks in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters is prohibited.

After looking again at Law of the Seas (2, B), EEZs may consist of parts of International Waters, which means this clause covers parts of the same area twice. This also means that the follow point may include parts of EEZs:

[*]To evaluate and determine the Maximum Yield of fish populations in unclaimed and international waters;

I think I see your point. I believe if I remove the word "and" from between "unclaimed" and "international" in the latter of the the two quoted clauses, it should make it clear that the WASP only evaluates waters that are both international and unclaimed by a particular nation. Determing the Maximum Yield of any national or claimed international waters would be the responsibility of the individual nation.

Our real concern was - and is that - we are worried that international waters will become a free-for-all: everybody would attempt to dash in, fish the population to the sustainable yield, and then run away and come back next year. Member quotas would be needed to sort out who gets to fish. We see you've looked at this:

[*]To propose plans for sharing international fishing stocks among nations in a way that will prevent Overfishing of those stocks.

But this is giving the WA jurisdiction over natural resources and - presumably - international waters.

I don't want to give the WA jurisdiction over anything. That's why I said they should "propose" plans and not something more compelling. Perhaps I can make this more clear in the next draft.

What I envision is the WASP going out to a stretch of unclaimed international water, evaluating the fish stocks there, and then proposing resource sharing plans for interested nations to use as a reference in their own negotiations. Ultimately, it will be up to the nations that actually exploit the resource to come to an agreement about how much each nations should get. I feel once the maxiumum yield is calculated, rational nations are perfectly capable of negotiating amongst themselves how to most beneficially divide the shared resource while still complying with the Overfishing ban.

Any suggestions on how to make that plan clear would be appreciated.

Also, when it comes to non-members, they will ignore all this. How are we going to defend international waters which aren't under the jurisdiction of either our member nations, or the WA directly? If the WA had to defend this jurisdiction, we're into the whole world of WA Armed Forces. And it's also illegal if they're claiming International Waters which also happen to EEZs.

As always, there's nothing we can do about the actions of non-member nations. We obviously cannot "force" them to comply with our Overfishing ban or "defend" that resource under the WA banner. All we can do with the law is limit ourselves in a way we recognize as beneficial; we must then trust international relations and diplomacy to convince non-members to "do the right thing." I'd imagine that if members are restraining themselves to protect the long term availability of international fish stocks, non-members would see the value of that and enact similar provisions for themselves. If some non-members try to take advantage to over-exploit the stock, members and rational non-members would have every right to apply diplomatic and trade pressures to get them in line. It's International Relations 101.

What we were proposing was creating the WAFA under the WANC, but that was when we were looking more at the diplomatic aspect of ensuring regulatory bodies at sea. If the WAFA is really not going to be attempting to regulate everything at sea to the last millimetre, you're right; the WAFA and WANC are totally different. And WASP can do it.

I think tasking WASP with these duties will suffice. Why create a new Fishing Agency under another established agency? Just let the established agency handle it.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I think I see your point. I believe if I remove the word "and" from between "unclaimed" and "international" in the latter of the the two quoted clauses, it should make it clear that the WASP only evaluates waters that are both international and unclaimed by a particular nation. Determing the Maximum Yield of any national or claimed international waters would be the responsibility of the individual nation.

Department of nit-picking: anybody can claim anything and then agree on an de-facto boundary while maintaining their claims. Therefore can you please make that "areas outside acknowledged claims" instead of "unclaimed"? Other than that, great.

I don't want to give the WA jurisdiction over anything. That's why I said they should "propose" plans and not something more compelling. Perhaps I can make this more clear in the next draft.
...
Any suggestions on how to make that plan clear would be appreciated.

Don't worry, it's perfectly clear. Which is why we disagree with it: what makes you think nations will co-operate? It'll only take a single member or non-member nation to ignore it and fish the whole place to maximum capacity for the entire scheme to break down. Much better and less liable to cause diplomatic disputes if we apportion it out in the same way as EEZs.

If some non-members try to take advantage to over-exploit the stock, members and rational non-members would have every right to apply diplomatic and trade pressures to get them in line. It's International Relations 101.

Sounds like we're about to have a lot of wars/embargoes then, disputes over rights, disputes over the de-facto sovereignty of the WA over international oceans, opposition from non-WA members at the WA for setting standards that they have no control over... big countries exerting pressure over little countries in the name of the environment... nationalistic pressures, historical precedents... torpedoes from unknown submarines, pirates and privateers... well, probably not too much of that. But we should warn this assembly that if this gets to vote (which we look forward to), naval armaments company stocks will rise.

However, if that's the way we want things, fine by us. We have a good enough fleet for all our regions.

I think tasking WASP with these duties will suffice. Why create a new Fishing Agency under another established agency? Just let the established agency handle it.

Hear hear!

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I think I see your point. I believe if I remove the word "and" from between "unclaimed" and "international" in the latter of the the two quoted clauses, it should make it clear that the WASP only evaluates waters that are both international and unclaimed by a particular nation. Determing the Maximum Yield of any national or claimed international waters would be the responsibility of the individual nation.

Department of nit-picking: anybody can claim anything and then agree on an de-facto boundary while maintaining their claims. Therefore can you please make that "areas outside acknowledged claims" instead of "unclaimed"? Other than that, great.

I'm pretty sure an area "outside acknowledged claims" is an "unclaimed" area. I think the current wording is fine. If nations want to "claim" an area then at least someone will perform the necessary evaluation. If that means they have to evaluate the fishing stocks in someone else's waters (because they "claim" those waters while agreeing that the waters are de-facto on the other side of the border) then so be it.

My goal is only to make sure that someone does the analysis. If a nation claims waters then they do the anlaysis, otherwise it falls to the WASP. It's that simple.

I don't want to give the WA jurisdiction over anything. That's why I said they should "propose" plans and not something more compelling. Perhaps I can make this more clear in the next draft.
...
Any suggestions on how to make that plan clear would be appreciated.

Don't worry, it's perfectly clear. Which is why we disagree with it: what makes you think nations will co-operate? It'll only take a single member or non-member nation to ignore it and fish the whole place to maximum capacity for the entire scheme to break down. Much better and less liable to cause diplomatic disputes if we apportion it out in the same way as EEZs.

I'm not about to apportion every last inch of international waters to a particular nation. There are far too many problems associated with that. International waters are "international" precisely because nobody owns them. Co-operation regarding international waters is pretty much a requirement. I highly doubt that apportioning every last inch of sea to a particular nation is going to resolve conflicts. And it's going to give everyone something to object to: namely, the WA getting involved in telling nations exactly which international waters they can and cannot fish in.

In short, nations simply must have the power and responsibility to negotiate the use of international resources among themselves. This proposal would at least help them do so by determining what level of fishing international waters can support.

If some non-members try to take advantage to over-exploit the stock, members and rational non-members would have every right to apply diplomatic and trade pressures to get them in line. It's International Relations 101.

Sounds like we're about to have a lot of wars/embargoes then, disputes over rights, disputes over the de-facto sovereignty of the WA over international oceans, opposition from non-WA members at the WA for setting standards that they have no control over... big countries exerting pressure over little countries in the name of the environment... nationalistic pressures, historical precedents... torpedoes from unknown submarines, pirates and privateers... well, probably not too much of that. But we should warn this assembly that if this gets to vote (which we look forward to), naval armaments company stocks will rise.

Oh come on! Do you really think a proposal that limits overfishing by member nations and tasks a committee to determine the maximum yield of international seas is going to cause a bunch of wars?! Have more sense than that.

Think of it this way - nations that want to go out and overfish are likely already doing that. They've probably already got the outlook that fish are a fixed resource and that it's better for their national fishermen to fish the seas clean than to allow any other nation to catch a single fish. If there's going to be conflicts over nations over-exploiting international resources, they are going to occur regardless of whether this proposal passes.

What this proposal would do, however, is help some nations understand that they are inadvertently overfishing, and give all nations the opportunity to re-evaluate their practices in light of the long term risks associated with overfishing. I highly doubt that any non-psychotic nations are going to go to war just because they finally have the numbers to prove that Empire A is taking too many fish. The nations that would go to war over such things are the same nations that are probably already at war with you because they don't like the color of your flag.

Frankly, embargoes and trade sanctions are an appropriate recourse against a nation that is knowingly over-exploiting a resource to the detriment of both the resource itself and their international neighbors. My guess is that such sanctions are already occurring where nations suspect their neighbors to be selfishly abusing a shared resource. I must again point out that this problem already exists and would not be created by this proposal; on the contrary, this proposal gives nations the information to help combat the problem but leaves the details to be worked out diplomatically among the individual nations (which must be the case when we're talking about an international resource shared by WA members and non-members alike).

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

My goal is only to make sure that someone does the analysis. If a nation claims waters then they do the anlaysis, otherwise it falls to the WASP. It's that simple.

Good point, we beg your pardon for raising that irrelevant issue.

What this proposal would do, however, is help some nations understand that they are inadvertently overfishing, and give all nations the opportunity to re-evaluate their practices in light of the long term risks associated with overfishing. I highly doubt that any non-psychotic nations are going to go to war just because they finally have the numbers to prove that Empire A is taking too many fish. The nations that would go to war over such things are the same nations that are probably already at war with you because they don't like the color of your flag.

Frankly, embargoes and trade sanctions are an appropriate recourse against a nation that is knowingly over-exploiting a resource to the detriment of both the resource itself and their international neighbors. My guess is that such sanctions are already occurring where nations suspect their neighbors to be selfishly abusing a shared resource. I must again point out that this problem already exists and would not be created by this proposal; on the contrary, this proposal gives nations the information to help combat the problem but leaves the details to be worked out diplomatically among the individual nations (which must be the case when we're talking about an international resource shared by WA members and non-members alike).

I think our difference lies in the old culprit: Int-Fed and Nat-Sov disputes. I believe that a clean dictatorial WA should manage the diplomatic division, you believe that messy free-wheeling nations should do it. At the same time, I believe nations should manage the stocks, and you believe the international community should share them. Whichever way it goes, it'll work out fairly similarly: and we'll make fishing sustainable. It's the question of means, and because in most things (like economics) we approve of free-wheeling, we would be happy to support this proposal.

So, no further questions, and we are happy to announce our support for this proposal as it stands, and hope it will be submitted soon.

[North United Kingdom]

I completely agree with this act. I think it's a great idea and as WA delegate for the Union of European Monarchists I will contact them to also make you gain more support. Although I think maybe more needs to be developed through leisure fishing as that happens as much as commercial fishing.