NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Land Reclamation Regulations

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

[PASSED] Land Reclamation Regulations

Postby Honeydewistania » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:55 am

The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

Hereby:

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

Co-authored by Honeydewistania.


This resolution will again be submitted by Orca and Narwhal. Preamble credit goes to Araraukar. Be harsh as necessary in feedback and critiques, so we can craft a resolution worth being in the WA's books. :)
Last edited by Jakker on Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:01 pm, edited 13 times in total.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
The Unified Missourtama States
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 397
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Unified Missourtama States » Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:23 am

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

I could be for it if you get rid of this clause, what you're suggesting to create would require an astronomical amount of resources.
"I can confirm that TUMS has some high quality content." - Noahs Second Country
"Why are Morover and TUMS in the 'probably insane' collection?" - Virgolia
"We're all sexist in some weird way (Well, except TUMS)." - Vylixan
"Prominent member of the cards community." - HumanSanity
"Fuck off with that shit, TUMS." - Bran Astor
TUMS, The Unified Missourtama States
Minister of World Assembly, South Pacific
Author, Security Council
Executive Administrator, The Card Gardening Society

Quebecshire wrote:Do the fascists of this site have nothing better to do than LARP as churches?

User avatar
Merni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1403
Founded: May 03, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Merni » Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:26 am

Some comments in red.
Honeydewistania wrote:The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

Hereby:

  1. Defines:
    1. “land reclamation” as the oceanic construction of new dry land for urban use in a nation’s water; why is "oceanic" placed there? and why only "urban use", whatever that means?
    2. “impact study” as an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation;
  2. Mandates that member nations must make a good faith effort to obtain and apply materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for used in the physical stage of land reclamation, unless obtaining those materials is incredibly infeasible or costly, in which the best possible alternative must be used;
  3. Orders member nations to prohibit land reclamation if environmental damage in the form of the following can be caused: "is likely to be caused" may be better -- I can cause any amount of damage, but I hopefully won't.
    1. the destruction of biodiverse areas such as coral reefs;
    2. significant disruption to the food chains of animals or their abilities to breed, nest or incubate;
    3. the destruction of plants or fungi with a unique and rare medicinal value;
    4. any other damage that will severely imperil the health of marine life or those that inhabit nearby inhabit what nearby? "live nearby" would be better;
    how do a-c not fall into d, which is far more broad, anyway? why do you need a-c separately?
  4. Requires member nations to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate the restrictions laid out in clause 2;
  5. Requires that results of impact studies must be submitted to the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA), and tasks the ESWA with issuing permits to proceed with land reclamation if the impact studies determine that either: may be better with "or" at the end of each point
    1. proceeding with land reclamation complies with this resolution; why should the ESWA issue a permit in this case? It would be much better if members could proceed in this case anyway, and the ESWA could order a reclamation to be stopped if it finds that it doesn't comply (if that is necessary at all).
    2. potential damage that will violate the restrictions laid out by this resolution can be mitigated to an acceptable level;
    3. not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population;
    4. not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
    5. Mandates that land reclamation projects that are issued permits as a result of clauses 5b, 5c and 5d must cause as little environmental damage as feasibly possible. what's the difference between "feasibly possible" and "feasible"?
Last edited by Merni on Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
COVID19 still exists! | Donate your free time
The Labyrinth | GA Committee List

Admins: Please allow blocking WA TGs!
E -8.0 S -3.18
Not all Indians are Indians
Fora
Wrote 532 GA
meth
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. — Ronald Reagan
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.' — Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)
You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. — Ardchoille
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion [...] but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. — Samuel P. Huntington (even he said that!)

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:39 am

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

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

How? I’m just saying that the WA has to look at some data, and rubber stamp it. Member nations that have the resources to even think of land reclamation have enough to do surveys.
Merni wrote:Some comments in red.
Honeydewistania wrote:The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

Hereby:

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


Thank you, it’ll be changed.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Merni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1403
Founded: May 03, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Merni » Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:16 am

OOC: you still haven't clarified how 3a-3c aren't already covered in 3d. Also, why should the ESWA need to issue a permit if reclamation complies with the resolution (5a)? It would be much better if members could proceed in this case anyway, and the ESWA could order a reclamation to be stopped if it finds that it doesn't comply (if that is necessary at all).
COVID19 still exists! | Donate your free time
The Labyrinth | GA Committee List

Admins: Please allow blocking WA TGs!
E -8.0 S -3.18
Not all Indians are Indians
Fora
Wrote 532 GA
meth
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. — Ronald Reagan
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.' — Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)
You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. — Ardchoille
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion [...] but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. — Samuel P. Huntington (even he said that!)

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:29 am

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

better?
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Ardiveds
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 422
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:43 am

OOC: why does clause 6 mention clauses 5c and 5d when there only 5a and 5b present?
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:45 am

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

whoops. fixed.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:26 am

Bump
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:47 pm

Another bump :meh:
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15384
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:24 pm

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

The definition is also still a bit weird. Constructing a pier would not count as "construction of new dry land", even if it (intentionally, as part of the design) created the conditions for sand and silt accumulation, which would result in new dry land being formed, eventually. If that semi-natural process is intentionally left out, then that might want to be specified somewhere.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5165
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tinfect » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:45 pm

OOC:
Worth noting, there doesn't seem to be anything about the ESWA granting permits to land reclamation that doesn't have a severe environmental impact, or, otherwise requires minimal mitigation in the first place, which, would be a concern as land reclamation may only proceed with an ESWA permit.
Last edited by Tinfect on Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Preliminary trials of Military Doctrinal Reform prototypes to begin; IRPC 5-115, 5-298, 5-076 public details, Project Lead interviews released | Aeravahn occupation expands to 17% of the Exterior Territories, Internal Security orders full-stop to Civilian expeditions to Exterior | TCO - Vigilant Star declared missing following exit of Iraet orbital region | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:41 pm

Bump
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Envoy
 
Posts: 334
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:53 am

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

Also, clause two currently reads
"materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for the physical stage of land reclamation that cause as little environmental damage as possible for as little environmental damage as possible, "
which seems nonsensical to me and in any instance repeats the phrase often enough that Limp Bizkit is writing a sequel to the "Hot Dog Song" about it.
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:38 pm

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

Also, clause two currently reads
"materials that cause as little environmental damage as possible for the physical stage of land reclamation that cause as little environmental damage as possible for as little environmental damage as possible, "
which seems nonsensical to me and in any instance repeats the phrase often enough that Limp Bizkit is writing a sequel to the "Hot Dog Song" about it.

Wtf, no idea how that happened. Fixed
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6530
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:13 am

“Would it not make more sense to put clause 5 before clause 3, given that clause 3 references clause 5?”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:17 am

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

"True, but clause 4 references clause 3. Yes, it’s a bit messy :p "
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Orca and Narwhal
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Sep 12, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Orca and Narwhal » Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:13 pm

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

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1141
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:51 am

Honeydewistania wrote:[*]Subject to clause 5 of this resolution, orders member nations to prevent a land reclamation project from proceeding if environmental damage that will severely imperil the health of marine life or those that live nearby, including but not limited to:
  1. the destruction of biodiverse areas such as coral reefs;
  2. significant disruption to the food chains of animals or their abilities to breed, nest or incubate;
  3. the destruction of plants or fungi with a unique and rare medicinal value;


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

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2582
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:02 am

"We hope this has been cleared up to an acceptable level."
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1141
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:57 am

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


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

Honeydewistania wrote:The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

Hereby:

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

Co-authored by Honeydewistania.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Orca and Narwhal
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Sep 12, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Orca and Narwhal » Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:03 pm

Proposal has been updated and submitted

User avatar
Brittanical
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Nov 05, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Brittanical » Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:22 am

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

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6530
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:14 am

“Could you clarify clause 3a for me, ambassador Heperle? It is of course too late to give feedback, but the clause is worded in a rather ambiguous way and I am having trouble parsing.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Flying Eagles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 183
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Flying Eagles » Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:26 am

As an unfortunate side note, an obvious grammatical error slipped in. In Clause 2, “thats” should read “that”.
Last edited by Flying Eagles on Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
I say dumb things sometimes. Sorry.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jedinsto

Advertisement

Remove ads