NationStates Jolt Archive

As heading asks, Please endorse the preservation of fish stock proposal.
heres what the proposal is about:-

Preservation of Fish Stock (Failed due to lack of endorsements)

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses

This proposal is aimed at the preservation of fish numbers by preventing fishing in fish breeding grounds.

As a large number of nations depend on fish for food and trade, we propose that the UN create fish breeding zones. These zones will be off limits to both commercial and recreational fishing during certain times of the year.

This will prevent breeding adults from being killed before producing young, thereby preventing the extinction of fish species from over-fishing.

Where necessary the ban on fishing in these zones will be made permanent to prevent the destruction of breeding grounds by excessive fishing, as some commercial fishing practices are very damaging to the sea bed.

It is hoped that nations who's coasts these zone are near will patrol them, with any poachers caught facing trial in those nations & their vessels sold off by that nation to cover cost. The UN will pick up the remainer of the bill in performing these patrols to ease the burden on nations affected.

As nearly all nations benifit from fish products we consider it fair that all nations share the burden of protecting these zones.

I tried to keep it simple and to the point, while trying to cover the major points.

[Quaestor Keating looks up from his plate of baked Salmon] "who, me?"

[Quaestor Keating looks up from his plate of baked Salmon] "who, me?"

Well if it doesn't go through you'll end up eating plankton instead of Salmon or tuna or lobsters or prawns etc.

Are these breeding grounds in international waters? If so, it'll be a cinch to push this one through. If not, however, it might be a bit of a problem getting the support of those nations (you know the kind I'm talking about) who want to stick their nose in UN policy making but don't want their total authority being lessened in any way by the UN.

ooc:- For some reason I was kicked from the pacific, if I lose all my endorsements will this proposal be deleted?

IC:- Both international & territorial waters I'm afraid, Fish don't recognise nations borders. If they don't carry it out....well they will have to pay WAY more for fish from regions that do.

When Surrender Monkey left the UN, the Interior Ministry gave UN employees 3 days to leave the country.

UN intereferance in internal affairs of our People's Republic will not stand.

The War Ministry would like to state:
"Any UN ship attempting to patrol territorial waters of our nation will be sunk on sight."

Actually, this is the sort of proposal that I thought those with a more nationalistic and spendthrift bent might like.

Really it means the protection of Our fish and many of these zones exist as regions set up by individual or groups of nations.

The Australian Navy recently spent a month or so chasing a Uruguay registered 'fish-pirate' across the Indian Ocean and they were eventually stopped and impounded, etc, by the South African Navy. It cost the Australians about $A4 000 000. Don't know how much it cost the SA taxpayers - but they got the fish!

I suppose the difference would be in the use of UN Plaicekeepers to take some of the burden to prevent some nations dwindling fish stocks being stolen by these pelagic plunderers. Therefore, a saving! and fish! (but not for all, ok)

Face it though, the proposal appeals on the grounds of economic self-interest. A few marine biologists, quite a few whales and an alarming amount of white pointers would appreciate the gesture (as would the fish concerned, to a point) and it would certainly assist in maintaining the shadow of a biodiverse marine ecosystem. Just don't expect our capitalist friends to buy it on that argument.

Senoir Policy Official
Salty Division
Economic Superstructure Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

Over fishing is a problem. But shouldn't this be made into an issue for a country to decide and not an U.N. resolution?

8)

People PLEASE read the proposal again; no where does it say that the UN will enforce this in nations waters. In fact the UN will help cover the cost of a nation policing this, so nations rights are preserved this proposal just makes it legal for nations to arrest foreign vessels caught poaching.

Surrender Monkey...as mentioned above NO UN force will enter your waters, it will be up to you to enforce this and if you don't its your nation that will suffer the most as your aquaculture industry goes under.

1337HAXORS the UN helps determine international law, and as the loss of fish breeding grounds are a world problem the world needs to move as one in protecting them. Remember fish don't respect national borders.

[Quaestor Keating looks up from his plate of baked Salmon] "who, me?"

Salmon spawns in fresh water, this resolution dosen't apply.

At least this is what we believe...

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like a few point's clairified.

1 Who will decide where these "protected area's" will be. As the nation's who have these area's will be getting a subsidy to the protection of their waters, something which most countries are very proactive about, what is the benefit to landlocked countries, and countries that have no "protected areas"?

2 How will this proposal do anything other than to help the 'have' nations become stronger? (Any Nation that has the naval forces to chase down and prosecute will get a UN subsidy, the poorer nations whthout this capability, well...)

We support the protection of fish breeding grounds, but feel that any subsidy should be limited to international waters, where no single nation will gain a military advantage. We also feel that this resolution should look into and ban the most destructive fishing methods, and work towards gathering information about fish habits, breeding, numbers,and other useful information so that we can all make an educated decision about this issue.

Oceananic fish don't respect countries boarders but how about fresh-water fish? Will this resolution protect them?

8)

[Quaestor Keating looks up from his plate of baked Salmon] "who, me?"

Salmon spawns in fresh water, this resolution dosen't apply.

At least this is what we believe...

true....but the proposal doesn't specify the ocean only.

It is hoped that nations who's coasts these zone are near will patrol them, with any poachers caught facing trial in those nations & their vessels sold off by that nation to cover cost. The UN will pick up the remainer of the bill in performing these patrols to ease the burden on nations affected.


This section would seem to indicate that the zone's in mention are not the rivers and lakes af a nation. Including rivers and lakes in this legislation would, we suspect, greatly increase the opposition to this legislation.

Actually, banning certain industrial fishing and fish-farming methods would be far more effective in promoting the sustainability of fish stocks. Recreational fishing is hardly the problem, nor is subsistence fishing. For more information on this read Vandana Shiva's excellent book Stolen Harvest.

[Quaestor Keating looks up from his plate of baked Salmon] "who, me?"

Well if it doesn't go through you'll end up eating plankton instead of Salmon or tuna or lobsters or prawns etc.

Ah we can have fish farms for that kind of thing.

[Quaestor Keating looks up from his plate of baked Salmon] "who, me?"

Well if it doesn't go through you'll end up eating plankton instead of Salmon or tuna or lobsters or prawns etc.

Ah we can have fish farms for that kind of thing.

......and where do you get the fish? Also poor countries can't afford the start up costs of these things, are you saying it would be cheaper to pay them to build enough to feed their populations?...be cheaper to protect.

[Quaestor Keating looks up from his plate of baked Salmon] "who, me?"

Well if it doesn't go through you'll end up eating plankton instead of Salmon or tuna or lobsters or prawns etc.

Ah we can have fish farms for that kind of thing.

......and where do you get the fish? Also poor countries can't afford the start up costs of these things, are you saying it would be cheaper to pay them to build enough to feed their populations?...be cheaper to protect. Add to that the fact that modern fish farming methods require feed made from fish caught in 'the wild' :roll:

this thing is about fishing regulations? lazy right now

I support this proposal... in theory. You see, I can't find it on The UN's proposal lists!

Surrender Monkey...as mentioned above NO UN force will enter your waters, it will be up to you to enforce this and if you don't its your nation that will suffer the most as your aquaculture industry goes under.
It is presumptious in the extreme to prognosticate doom for our nation's aquaculture industry by failing to subscribe to supranational regulation trampling on our national sovereignty.

It is fortunate that no UN force will enter our waters. They'd be target practice.