NATION

PASSWORD

[NEW DRAFT] Land Reclamation Regulations

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1971
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

[NEW DRAFT] 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 that member nations must make a good faith effort to obtain and apply 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, unless obtaining those materials is incredibly infeasible or costly, in which the best possible alternative must be used;
  3. 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;
  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:
    1. issuing special permits to land reclamation projects only if:
      1. the potential damage that will violate the restrictions laid out by this resolution can be mitigated to an acceptable level; or
      2. not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population; or
      3. not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
    2. 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 Honeydewistania on Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:44 am, edited 6 times in total.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
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
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet

User avatar
The Unified Missourtama States
Envoy
 
Posts: 266
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'm here to chew bubblegum and spend 9 hours a day on nationstates.net, and I don't have any bubblegum.

User avatar
Merni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1314
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 | OOC unless I say so
The Labyrinth | GA Committee List | Who isn't endorsing you

Admins: Please allow blocking WA TGs!
E -7.75 S -3.64
Fora
Economics = greed.
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
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1971
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

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.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
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
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet

User avatar
Merni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1314
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 | OOC unless I say so
The Labyrinth | GA Committee List | Who isn't endorsing you

Admins: Please allow blocking WA TGs!
E -7.75 S -3.64
Fora
Economics = greed.
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
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1971
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

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.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
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
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet

User avatar
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 288
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?

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1971
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

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.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
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
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1971
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

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

Bump
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
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
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1971
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

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

Another bump :meh:
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
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
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15302
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: 5066
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: Military Oversight announces Doctrinal Reform Plan, upcoming military trials | Former Intelligence Director Taraen Vallir, additional operatives executed | 200 year old Varat destroyer found in Balder orbit at historic shipyard location, presumed malfunction of still-installed warp drive | Archive Systems, Hyperpulse Network briefly disabled following accidental release of experimental assistance program | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads