[GA - defeated] Preventing Marine Wildlife Collisions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Simone

Ursine thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Preventing Marine Wildlife Collisions
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild
Proposed by: The Ice States | Onsite Topic


Recognising that ship strikes against marine wildlife, for example cetaceans, are a major factor contributing to species endangerment and extinction, as well as unnecessary harm to intelligent, self-aware beings;

Believing, however, that combined regulation, enacted by the World Assembly and appropriately enforced by its member nations, would be greatly beneficial in miniming this danger; and thus

Seeking to create such regulation;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.



  1. Definitions:The following provisions are to be applied for the interpretation of this resolution:
    1. "Vessel" means watercraft operated by a state or otherwise for commercial or private purposes, regardless of whether it is currently present in member nation or international jurisdiction.

    2. "Marine wildlife" refers only to animals, present in a body of water, of such size as to be likely to suffer death or severe injury upon collision with a vessel.

  2. Recommendations: Sustainability Executive for Aquatic Life (hereinafter SEAL) is a subcommittee of the WA Endangered Species Committee. SEAL may recommend a restriction (hereinafter "Section 2 restriction") on the travel of vessels through an area of waters, if it determines that vessels in that area are likely to cause disproportionate ecological harm via collision with marine wildlife, and a practical alternative exists for vessels to avoid the said area or otherwise comply with the restrictions. Such restrictions shall have the ultimate goal of preventing collisions between vessels and marine wildlife. Section 2 restrictions may include, but are not necessarily limited to, speed limits, prohibition of certain kinds or designs of vessels, or the outright prohibition of vessels from the relevant area.

  3. Enforcement:No member nation may operate any vessels in a manner which violates a Section 2 restriction, except to the extent that such operation is an absolute necessity for humanitarian, military, environmental or policing purposes.
    1. Additionally, a member nation must penalise any entity under its jurisdiction operating vessels which violate a Section 2 restriction. Such penalties must be sufficient to reasonably deter entities in that member nation from violating Section 2 restrictions. This provision does not apply to vessels operating purely for humanitarian or environmental purposes, inasmuch as the relevant violation is an absolute necessity for the said purposes.

    2. SEAL may designate recommended alternative routes or designs for vessels in order to ensure compliance with Section 2 restrictions; recommendations under this sentence need not be enforced under the above provisions.

  4. Reporting: Should a vessel engage in a collision with endangered marine wildlife, the entity which operates that vessel, if that entity is under World Assembly jurisdiction and has access to sufficient information to reasonably be aware of the said collision, must promptly submit a report to SEAL, specifying the nature of the collision, the location in which it occurred, and any other information deemed relevant by SEAL. To avoid deterring the submission of truthful reports, a report submitted by an entity operating a vessel shall not be used to penalise that entity for violating Section 2 restrictions. SEAL may, at its discretion, accept reports submitted by non-member nations or any other entity not required to submit a report under this section.

  5. Interpretation: Absent clarification otherwise, terms in the singular include the plural thereof and vice versa. Should a provision of this resolution contradict a past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. Vessels operated directly by the World Assembly or a committee thereof are to comply with this resolution as if they were operated by a member nation.

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!


ForAgainstAbstainPresent
1801
 
Last edited:
Overview
This resolution proposal creates a new Sustainability Executive for Aquatic Life as a subcommittee of the WA Endangered Species Committee to specifically regulate on the travel of vessels through an area of waters if it determines that vessels in that area are likely to cause disproportionate ecological harm via collision with marine wildlife, and a practical alternative exists for vessels to avoid the said area or otherwise comply with the restrictions, and that no member nation may operate any vessels in a manner which violates a Section 2 restriction, subject to certain exceptions.

Recommendation
The initial version of this proposal impeded emergency transport or blockades and was a non-starter; we are still opposed to this proposal because a resolution on sensible navigation in waters (in effect the replacement for GA34) would cover all kinds of similar scenarios (and not just collisions with mammals, for example collisions with oil drills, wind farms, aquaculture farms etc) without creating yet another WA bureaucracy to handle a sub-set of regulations that should be under the purview of WA Nautical Commission or the ITSC.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the at-vote GA resolution, "Preventing Marine Wildlife Collisions".
 
Last edited:
I consider it quite a minor issue. I already made substantial comments forumside over potential military blockades.
 
Last edited:
Against

Really quite poor.

Additionally, what's this meant to mean?

To avoid deterring the submission of truthful reports, a report submitted by an entity operating a vessel shall not be used to penalise that entity for violating Section 2 restrictions.

The exemptions are ridiculous and unclear, and the idea overall doesn't make sense. A moderate suggestion would be to spend more time on sensible resolutions than composition of hilarious acronyms.
 
Additionally, what's this meant to mean?
That clause is meant to address situations when an entity submits a self-incriminating report. If an entity submits a report under Section 4 which implies the entity violated Section 2 restrictions, the self-report cannot be used to penalise the entity for the violation. In practice this would just mean keeping the report confidential as member nations are the ones enforcing the penalties under 3a, and in all other cases it is enforced by the Compliance Commission; SEAL is not otherwise privy to the enforcement. It therefore seems quite hard to abuse this; an entity recklessly violating Section 2 restrictions and then self-reporting would do nothing to prevent member nations from enforcing the penalties independently of the self-report.
-----
To put the issue in real life into perspective, as it's quite hard to explain this in detail in the preamble: about two thousand whales die each year from ship strikes (BBC, 2012), which corresponds to about 2% of the total whale population each year. Often female and younger whales are particularly vulnerable as they spend more time in surface waters. This is particularly dangerous to endangered species of whales; a notable example of this is the North Atlantic right whale; per that link, "between 1970 and October 2006, 37% of all recorded North Atlantic right whale deaths were attributed to collisions".

Measures such as speed limits, as well as avoiding areas where vulnerable whales are present, are highly effective in reducing this risk; in the case of NA right whales, these measures have quartered fatal ship strikes in the US East Coast (WDC, nd). This resolution aims to reduce the risk of ship strikes by implementing similar measures in the NS-verse.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top