NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, could you PLEASE endorse my UN proposal on Ballast Water,
I believe it to cover an important environmental issue...

Ballast water is a major vector for invasive marine species. By mandatory cycling of ballast water member nations waters we will reduce the introduction and spead of weedy invasive species such as zebra mussel and northern pacific sea star with minimum disruption to industry.

It is currently on the top of page 13 of the UN proposals
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/26631/page=UN_proposal/start=60

but is easily found using the proposal search for "Ballast Water"

For those interested, here is the proposal:

The NationStates United Nations,

OBSERVING that it is common practice for international cargo ships to release ballast water upon arriving at their destination ports or in waters near these ports,

REALIZING that it is necessary for these ships to use ballast material during long voyages across international waters, and that ballast material is extremely useful in allowing ships to remain level while loading and unloading cargo while in port,

AWARE that ballast water is a primary source of the introduction of nonindigenous or alien species into fragile aquatic ecosystems,

CONCERNED that nonindigenous species frequently have no natural predators in the new ecosystems they are introduced into,

NOTING that often these species compete with or threaten and prey upon native species, including many endangered species,

NOTING FURTHER that protecting biodiversity is of interest to both local and international interests, in that losses in biodiversity have resulted in damages and losses in the stock of commercial fisheries,

1. RECOMMENDS that international cargo ships using ballast water exchange or cycle this water while in ocean waters exceeding 1,600 meters in depth;
2. FURTHER RECOMENDS that independant nations pass legislation to mandate the installation of nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers on all international cargo ships;
3. CALLS UPON nations to adopt similar standards for domestic cargo ships that travel through international waters;
4. SUGGESTS that the uptake of ballast water should be minimized when propellers may stir up sediments and bottom dwelling organisms, or in periods of darkness, when the quality of the ballast water can not be easily accessed;
5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that cargo ships, when possible, develop and put into practice routine schedules to clean out the ballast tanks either mid-ocean or in dry docks, in order to minimize the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms; and
6. REQUESTS governments work with the shipping industries based in their countries to assess additional methods of minimizing the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms.

A quick question on wording: having been involved in the earlier debates with Mikitivity and others on this proposal, are we right in thinking that the wording has been changed? We seem to recall that the earlier proposal mandated a depth of 2000m for water cycling, while this proposal merely makes *recommendations*. Are we correct?

nope it has always been recommends, I only made the depth slightly shallower as someone thought 2000m was too deep.

nope it has always been recommends

Very well, our mistake. We shall draw our regional delegate's attention to this proposal.

nope it has always been recommends, I only made the depth slightly shallower as someone thought 2000m was too deep.

Well, it was my nation that was the prime proponent of the 2,000 m depth requirement, and though 1,600 m still good, I think that the delegate that objected to the 2,000 m wasn't consulting any science. Well, at least the delegate that was trying to suggest that the oceans were rarely 2,000 m in depth.

That said, I'd like to reaffirm that even with the 1,600 m depth limit that individual nations can still adopt more stringent protections if they so choose, and with that in mind, I'd like to call upon all UN Delegates to endorse this wonderful proposal.

It is about time that we not only do something to protect the environment, but this is one of the first UN resolutions of this sort that actually addresses an international problem, and thus has standing for this body to address.

Remember, your nation's right to travel the high seas, does not include any right to put your neighbors as serious environmental risk. Though the level of impacts and risks associated with ballast water are still not totally understood, environmental biologists, economists, and international shipping firms do agree that a coordinated effort is needed.

We agree that this proposal is refreshingly international in topic and scope.

Sophista agrees with the sentiments issued forth. This is a resolution worthy of the United Nations' consideration, and well worth the endorsements of any regional delegate.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

We agree that this proposal is refreshingly international in topic and scope.

Quite unique isn't it? A matter other than sex, appearing as a proposal. It's almost like christmas, but better as you don't have to buy gifts!

I'm going to go and approve it :)

We agree that this proposal is refreshingly international in topic and scope.

Quite unique isn't it? A matter other than sex, appearing as a proposal. It's almost like christmas, but better as you don't have to buy gifts!

I'm going to go and approve it :)

On behalf of the nations in strong support of environmental and commerical legislation, I'd like to remind all UN members and delegates to search for:

"Ballast Water"

as the proposal has been resubmitted. Last time it was only a few endorsements (around 20) short of reaching the resoultion queue.

Naturally, if you have questions about the proposal, now would be an appropriate time to discuss the measure.
Thanks,
10kMichael