NationStates Jolt Archive

could delegates please endorse my proposal on Ballast water, It is right at the start of the UN proposals...

the proposal looks like this:

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.


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.

could delegates please endorse my proposal on Ballast water, It is right at the start of the UN proposals...

So frustrating (not the proposed resolution, that I'm in favor of)! Now it only needs 6 more endorsements! =) But, it also is minutes away from being Wed.
Best of luck!

10kMichael

Ever heard of LINKING your proposal?

Bishop Dean, Minister of Prickness fro all Psychotropics

You only need one more approval, but I would reject it, because I am trying to improve my economy, and your proposal would set back my attempts.

Ever heard of LINKING your proposal?

Bishop Dean, Minister of Prickness fro all Psychotropics

When something is in the proposal queue, its page changes over time. Others have done it, but if you read their post a few hours (maybe more like a half day later), you won't find it.

I think reposting the text, which was done here, also encourages discussion on the exact points.

The proposal is now before the full UN assembly for voting. We have cast our vote in favour.

Ann Clayborne
Speaker for the Environment

A significant majority in the Heshloni parliament has made this statement concerning the UN proposal up for vote:

"While the average Heshloni citizen believes that the environment is something to be protected, the effects this issue will have on our economic stability will be utterly disasterous when compounded with our current political troubles. We urge others to strongly consider the effects of this proposal. Alternative solutions need to be explored."

Heshloni Ambassador

Bringing all cargo ships into compliance with this proposal (UV detox in every cargo hold and ballast tank?) would be fantasticly expensive. Surely there are more cost-effective ways of achieving your objective. What about using fine-mesh screens on all inlets and outlets to the ballast tanks? That would prevent the spread of macroscopic organisms. Sterilizing the interior of the ship would not prevent the spread of microscopic organisms from region to region since they would be carried on the exterior of the ship and the crew. Another concern with the proposal is that there is no explicit provisions for punitive action against non-compliant states. The proposal needs to have more realistic and cost-effective recommendations, and clearly stated consequences for violators.

Bringing all cargo ships into compliance with this proposal (UV detox in every cargo hold and ballast tank?) would be fantasticly expensive.

Not as expensive as you might think. In fact, as has been previously stated, implementation of nitrogen deoxification hardware has been shown to dramatically reduce the deterioration of hulls and bulkheads. Furthermore, the cost of implementing a nitrogen deox system is far less than applying the enourmously expensive chemically-treated paint system currently used to protect hulls, and the paints have to be reapplied every six to eight months.

What about using fine-mesh screens on all inlets and outlets to the ballast tanks? That would prevent the spread of macroscopic organisms.

Fine mesh screening wouldn't survive the ocean. Not only would the intense salinity quickly destroy any mesh screens, but large debris would quickly puncture any such apparatus. The protections necessary to prevent this damage would become cost prohibitive.

Sterilizing the interior of the ship would not prevent the spread of microscopic organisms from region to region since they would be carried on the exterior of the ship and the crew.

Since I know very few crewmen in the shipping industry who celebrate every new port by leaping into the ocean, collecting as many organisms on their skin as possible, and not showering until they reach a new port of call, your crew member argument means nothing. Clearly, anyone who bathes regularly would remove this organisms, even if they ever made it onto the person in the first place. As for the exterior of the hull, microscopic organisms can't survive on this surface when the ship is in motion. The combination of constant abuse my currents and the continual change of water temperature would quickly annihiliate any such hijackers.

The arguments on enforcement and punative damages are irrelevant. The UN Compliance Ministry does a fine job of ensuring that all nations take the necessary steps to implement this resolution. Their work is 100% effective.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

thanks Sophista for an excellent rebuttal to some common misconceptions

Although Frigben notes with trepidation the economic effects of this resolution, we feel that the tone of the author in making strong recommendations instead of outright mandating these changes is enough for us to cast our vote in favour.