[Passed] GA Resolution: Borderzone Mining And Drilling

[Lenlyvit]

General Assembly Resolution

Borderzone Mining And Drilling

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

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild

Proposed by: Simone Republic

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the Assembly’s efforts to protect member states’ environment, ensure a safe water supply (GAR#223, GAR#441, GAR#453), regulate oil drilling activities (GAR#95, GAR#409 and GAR#510), and mining (GAR#148, GAR#263, GAR#346)

Noting that no regulation covers cases where land based mining, drilling and other forms of extraction of natural resources occur near national borders;

1. Hereby requires:

a. A member state that proposes approving mining, drilling and dredging activities ("mining state") (and, hereafter, for convenience, collectively referred to as "mining") wholly within its national land borders must seek the approval of any member state(s) ("bordering member state(s)") that share a land border with the mining state if either the mining state or any of the bordering member state(s) reasonably believes that the mining activities conducted by the mining state will affect the environment (including natural and/or cultural environment) of the bordering member state(s) or the health and well-being of their citizens;

b. Any mining activities that transcend the borders of more than one member state (either above ground or underground) require the approval of all of the member states affected by such activities;

c. A bordering member state may require a mining state to conduct such environmental impact studies and other assessments as the bordering member state (and the mining state) together deem appropriate, with all costs to be borne by the mining state (and if mining activities involve multiple member states, such costs and benefits to be allocated based on mutual negotiations)

d. A bordering member state may require a mining state to assess the costs of any remedial measures as the bordering member state deems appropriate on any mining and drilling activities that affect the bordering member state, and for the mining state to determine whether such activities are ultimately beneficial (in all aspects to the well-being of both the mining state and the bordering member state and not merely financial well-being) prior to the commencement of any mining activities, and for the mining state to fully indemnify the bordering member state(s) for any remedial costs incurred;

e. Hereby requires that any disputes between member states concerning this resolution shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly;

2. Hereby encourages member states to negotiate similar arrangements if they share a land border with a non member state;

3. Hereby clarifies that for the purpose of this resolution:

a. the terms "land based", "land borders" or similar terms also include partially submerged tidal flats, marshlands, and very shallow waters and other similar geological features applicable to individual member states;

b. the term "mining" includes drilling (as a matter of convenience in wording as defined in the preamble), plus dredging and other technologies used in the extraction of natural resources, and includes all of exploratory, scientific/research-related and commercial mining.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Jabberwocky]

3a. the terms "land based", "land borders" or similar terms also include partially submerged tidal flats, marshlands, and very shallow waters and other similar geological features applicable to individual member states;

This clause is vague enough to cause eventual dispute.
Otherwise FOR.

[Pantso]

(tl;dr: Delegates prerogative)

The Republic of Pantso has several concerns about this bill:

A border state could withhold approval for political or economic reasons based on a flimsy environmental excuse. Since mining operations are inherently destructive to the environment and have a very wide-reaching impact, any border state could claim virtually any mining operation is likely to have an environmental impact and force studies, delays, etc. While Pantso is generally extremely skeptical of the value of this kind of destructive industry (mines are terribly dirty and wreak havoc on our nice clean pants), it is unacceptable that the resolution permits a nation to cynically put its own political and economic agenda ahead of its neighbors under the guise of a false concern for the environment.

The resolution permits the border state to require the mining state to endure the cost of all studies, remedial action, etc. for the mining operation before it is put into effect. This effectively puts the mining state at the mercy of the border state, who can demand expensive and time-consuming research far beyond what is necessary (the necessity being determined by the bordering state).

Overall, the Republic of Pantso believes this resolution could easily be used by non-mining states to cynically sabotage the economies of states that rely on the exploitation of natural resources, holding their resources for ransom in exchange for economic or political favors.

This puts Pantso in an awkward situation; as an island nation with few mines we are virtually free from the kind of environmental damage the resolution is intended to account for; however our IT industry demands imports of metals and rare earths from other nations (who apparently wear dirty pants) with strong mining operations. Passage of this resolution would have very little direct impact to Pantso but could have wide-reaching ramifications for some of its trading partners. We cannot in good conscience demand that other nations be subjected to rules that we ourselves are not subjected to, especially considering our concerns for exploitation of the rules, even though the goals of the resolution are closely in line with our own.

As such, Pantso will vote Against in the WA but will continue to work with other nations to properly balance the demands of economy, the health and safety of human life, and the beauty and majesty of the world in which we live. As to the XKI vote, we recognize that given our conflict of interest what is best for Pantso may not be best for the region. We again put our trust in Lenlyvit to do what is best for the XKI.

[Vivolkha]

A member state that proposes approving mining, drilling and dredging activities ("mining state") (and, hereafter, for convenience, collectively referred to as "mining") wholly within its national land borders must seek the approval of any member state(s) ("bordering member state(s)") that share a land border with the mining state if either the mining state or any of the bordering member state(s) reasonably believes that the mining activities conducted by the mining state will affect the environment (including natural and/or cultural environment) of the bordering member state(s) or the health and well-being of their citizens

Sure, leave it up to the bordering state to decide what your nation can do based on vague criteria. If two bordering states have tense relations, this resolution allows for unacceptable meddling in the policies of a sovereign state.

A bordering member state may require a mining state to conduct such environmental impact studies and other assessments as the bordering member state (and the mining state) together deem appropriate, with all costs to be borne by the mining state (and if mining activities involve multiple member states, such costs and benefits to be allocated based on mutual negotiations)

Same as above.

A bordering member state may require a mining state to assess the costs of any remedial measures as the bordering member state deems appropriate on any mining and drilling activities that affect the bordering member state, and for the mining state to determine whether such activities are ultimately beneficial (in all aspects to the well-being of both the mining state and the bordering member state and not merely financial well-being) prior to the commencement of any mining activities, and for the mining state to fully indemnify the bordering member state(s) for any remedial costs incurred

And again.

the terms "land based", "land borders" or similar terms also include partially submerged tidal flats, marshlands, and very shallow waters and other similar geological features applicable to individual member states

Overly ambiguous definition.

This resolution is a disaster for the sovereignty and economic development of member states. Against