[Accelerator - GA - Passed] Land Reclamation Regulation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cretox

Cretox

Somehow, Palpatine has returned
TNP Nation
Cretox State
Discord
Cretox#0125
ga.jpg

Land Reclamation Regulation
Accelerator Draft Discussion and Review
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild
Primary Author: Orca and Narwhal | Coauthor: Honeydewistania | Onsite Topic​
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, 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 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.
Click to expand...
Note: This is an internal discussion on a draft proposal accepted to the WA Accelerator Program. Please rip this draft apart and offer any comments you may have; the objective here is to help the author make this proposal better. If the author does not have access to this subforum, comments will be communicated to them by the Minister or an assigned Deputy. Detailed feedback is appreciated and encouraged!
Sponsorship Voting Instructions:
  • Vote Accept if you want the Ministry and Delegate to sponsor the proposal upon submission.
  • Vote Reject if you want the Ministry and Delegate to not sponsor the proposal upon submission.
Detailed opinions on whether to sponsor this proposal are likewise appreciated and encouraged!
Accept Reject
20
 
Last edited:
Not sure yet. Last time this was at vote, there were a lot of concerns over the heavy-handiness of the proposal. How has this been addressed?
 
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:
Defines:
“land reclamation” as the oceanic construction of new dry land in a nation’s territory;
“impact study” as an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation;
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;
Click to expand...
So they have to spend all their time checking to see what would be the least damaging for the environment?
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:
the destruction of biodiverse areas such as coral reefs;
significant disruption to the food chains of animals or their abilities to breed, nest or incubate;
the destruction of plants or fungi with a unique and rare medicinal value;
Click to expand...
Too heavy-handed, especially the ban of destruction of medicinal plants.
Requires member nations to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate the restrictions laid out in clause 2;
Click to expand...
Fine
Requires that results of impact studies must be submitted to the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA), and tasks the ESWA with:
issuing special permits to land reclamation projects only if:
the potential damage that will violate the restrictions laid out by this resolution can be mitigated to an acceptable level; or
not proceeding with land reclamation will severely imperil the health of a nation’s population; or
not proceeding with land reclamation will cause greater environmental damage than doing so;
prohibiting land reclamation from taking place if it violates the restrictions laid out by this resolution;
Click to expand...
Member states shouldn’t have to go to a WA committee every time they want to build something. Try another way.
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.
Click to expand...
This is redundant.
Co-authored by Honeydewistania.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, gnomes run the WA committees. The committee is the ‘neutral’ party that can decide if an area is good enough for land reclamation or not, as biased nations would easily consider a shopping mall more important than rare aquatic life and consider not destroying habitats as a disruption to the economy. And honestly you should ask the question ‘what value do medicinal plants bring?’ Out aloud to yourself.
 
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
Click to expand...
The wording here could be cleaned up.

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
Click to expand...
Grammar needs fixing.

[Defines] “land reclamation” as the oceanic construction of new dry land in a nation’s territory
Click to expand...
While I opposed the previous version of this for being heavy-handed, I think that restricting the definition to only encompass oceanic reclamation and assuming that nations will act in their self-interest makes this work well enough.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top