NationStates Jolt Archive

We are in the process of putting together the above-mentioned proposal, and I was wondering if you could perhaps look it over and give us your thoughts on it.
Thanx:

PROPOSAL:
BASIC WATER SUPPLY ACT
To provide for the rights of free access to basic water supply and basic sanitation;

ACKNOWLEDGING
-that all spheres of Government must strive to provide water supply services and sanitation services sufficient for subsistence and sustainable economic activity;

RECOGNIZING
-that water is a scarce and unevenly distributed resource which occurs in many different forms which are all part of a unitary, interdependent cycle;

UNDERSTANDING
-that not all peoples are able to afford the basics needed for day-to-day living.
____________________________________

The main object of this Act is to provide for-
The right of access to free basic water supply and the right to basic sanitation;

-Subject to the national water resource strategy, the Minister may determine this basic water supply quantity.

-A person may use water in or from a water resource for purposes such as reasonable domestic use, domestic gardening, animal watering, fire fighting and recreational use.

-Any water-usage, over and above the free basic water supply, will be paid for by the user.

-Procedures for the limitation or discontinuation of water services must not result in a person being denied access to basic water services for non-payment, where that person proves, to the satisfaction of the relevant water services authority, that he or she is unable to pay for basic services.

-If the water services provided by a water services institution are unable to meet the requirements of all its existing consumers, it must give preference to the provision of basic water supply and basic sanitation to them.
__________________________

“basic sanitation”
-the prescribed minimum standard of services necessary for the safe, hygienic and adequate collection, removal, disposal or purification of human excreta, domestic waste-water and sewage from households, including informal households;

“basic water supply”
-the prescribed minimum standard of water supply services necessary for the reliable supply of a sufficient quantity and quality of water to households, including informal households, to support life and personal hygiene;

“consumer”
-any end user who receives water services from a water services institution, including an end user in an informal settlement;

“water services provider''
-any person who provides water services to consumers or to another water services institution;


Yours in good (and bad) government
Minister of Water & Sanitation
Diva-Rule

The proposal says nothing about drinking water.

I suggest you include a line about access to drinking water or equipment to make the proposed water supply drinkable.

"...to support life..."
This phrase refers to drinking water.

"...to support life..."
This phrase refers to drinking water.

Hmmm, just a suggestion, un-treated water could support life, treated or clean water will support healthy life in the beneficial interests of the effected citizenry. For example, if you could have nice clean treated water, or, pond water, which would you probably chug a glass of, or more importantly provide to people with less effective immune systems, e.g. Children, the elderly, the ill ...

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

"...to support life..."
This phrase refers to drinking water.

Hmmm, just a suggestion, un-treated water could support life, treated or clean water will support healthy life in the beneficial interests of the effected citizenry. For example, if you could have nice clean treated water, or, pond water, hich would you probably chug a glass of?



“basic water supply”
-the prescribed minimum standard of water supply services necessary for the reliable supply of a sufficient quantity and quality of water* to households, including informal households, to support life and personal hygiene;

*quality of water: refers to the cleanness of the water. Would it still be necessary to add "treated" with that there, as one would assume that quality refers to clean, drinkable water...?

*quality of water: refers to the cleanness of the water. Would it still be necessary to add "treated" with that there, as one would assume that quality refers to clean, drinkable water...?

Yes, if only for clarity I would think. :wink:

Quality is a variable factor. Better to clearly state it must be of good quality from treatment to ensure no miss-use of the legislation happens. After all, one can assume all one wants with many a thing, but, one would assume also one would prefer a resolution would be ... water tight ?

:wink:

Hope that is of help, in general, I rather like this proposal.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Ok then - here is the proposal we will be putting up for vote within the next 24 hours. I request that you give the proposal your utmost consideration.
Also - thanx to those members who have provided feedback (note the additions between *'s).
If you can think of anything else to change before the proposal is posted, let me know!

PROPOSAL:
BASIC WATER SUPPLY ACT
To provide for the rights of free access to basic water supply and basic sanitation;

ACKNOWLEDGING
-that all spheres of Government must strive to provide water supply services and sanitation services sufficient for subsistence and sustainable economic activity;

RECOGNIZING
-that water is a scarce and unevenly distributed resource which occurs in many different
forms which are all part of a unitary, interdependent cycle;

UNDERSTANDING
-that not all peoples are able to afford the basics needed for day-to-day living.
____________________________________

The main object of this Act is to provide for-
The right of access to free basic water supply and the right to basic sanitation;

-Subject to the national water resource strategy, the Minister may determine this basic water supply quantity.

-A person may use water in or from a water resource for purposes such as reasonable domestic use, domestic gardening, animal watering, fire fighting and recreational use.

-Any water-usage, over and above the basic water supply, will be paid for by the user.

-Procedures for the limitation or discontinuation of water services must not result in a person being denied access to basic water services for non-payment, where that person proves, to the satisfaction of the relevant water services authority, that he or she is unable to pay for basic services.

-If the water services provided by a water services institution are unable to meet the requirements of all its existing consumers, it must give preference to the provision of basic water supply and basic sanitation to them.
__________________________

“basic sanitation”
-the prescribed minimum standard of services necessary for the safe, hygienic and adequate collection, removal, disposal or purification of human excreta, domestic waste-water and sewage from households, including informal households;

“basic water supply”
-the prescribed minimum standard of water supply services necessary for the reliable supply of a sufficient quantity and quality of *treated, clean* water to households, including informal households, to support life (*drinking water*) and personal hygiene;

“consumer”
-any end user who receives water services from a water services institution, including an end user in an informal settlement;

“water services provider''
-any person who provides water services to consumers or to another water services institution;

Yours in good (and bad) government
Minister of Water and Sanitation
Diva-Rule

-Any water-usage, over and above the basic water supply, will be paid for by the user.

Could you amend this slightly? All water is free in East Hackney and we wouldn't like a UN resolution to force us to charge for it. Something like "Any water usage over and above the basic supply need not be supplied free" or "There is no compulsion to supply water over and above blah blah blah" would do it.

As is rather often the case, Hackney has stolen our opportunity to have a good whine.

That change made, this is an excellent and much-needed proposal to which we will lend our full support.

Kamquin Dakar
Ministry of Trade and Industry

As is rather often the case, Hackney has stolen our opportunity to have a good whine.

We'll steal your good wine, too, if you don't stop whingeing.

We've only had one attempt at vinyard establishment so far, and it got eaten by blister beetles. We're trying again, but given the time it takes the damn vines to grow we'll be subsisting on beer, spirits and fermented maize porridge for the time being.
And if you steal any of those we'll unleash our weasels on your nation's rats.

We've only had one attempt at vinyard establishment so far, and it got eaten by blister beetles. We're trying again, but given the time it takes the damn vines to grow we'll be subsisting on beer, spirits and fermented maize porridge for the time being.
And if you steal any of those we'll unleash our weasels on your nation's rats.

Oh, don't worry. Our nation is positively awash with our own beers and spirits. And you're more than welcome to keep your fermented maize porridge. In fact, if you even try exporting it to East Hackney we'll consider it a chemical weapons attack...

Hmm. Maybe we need a Basic Alcohol Supply proposal.

(To be fair, I don't think we could export the porridge if we tried. It tends to go kind of... nasty... after a couple of days).

We'll drink to that.
*chink*
*glug*

In the meantime, yes, back to the subject at hand... Hopefully our concerns regarding the rewording will be taken on board...

-Any water-usage, over and above the basic water supply, will be paid for by the user.

-Procedures for the limitation or discontinuation of water services must not result in a person being denied access to basic water services for non-payment, where that person proves, to the satisfaction of the relevant water services authority, that he or she is unable to pay for basic services.

-If the water services provided by a water services institution are unable to meet the requirements of all its existing consumers, it must give preference to the provision of basic water supply and basic sanitation to them.

The above paragraphs assume that a nationalised authority or company is supplying water. In some nations, water may be a deregulated industry and run for profit. Using the current wording I believe more capitalist nations could use this as a loophole. Include other types of institutions that could sell water services.

I believe that all water is free since it is a natural resource of the planet and therefore we should not pay for it. We should however pay fairly for the delivery to our homes, maintenance of the water network and sanitation. As it stands you are charging for water, I think it would be better to charge for the services provided rather than the water itself. A fine distinction, but an important one I feel.


“basic sanitation”
-the prescribed minimum standard of services necessary for the safe, hygienic and adequate collection, removal, disposal or purification of human excreta, domestic waste-water and sewage from households, including informal households;

The above sentence I feel should start with “Including but not limited to the prescribed minimum standard….”. The sentence currently can be interpreted as only the services you mention in the rest of sentence. Again, I feel more capitalist nations could exploit this and only provide the bear necessity (exactly what is worded) under the resolution. By including the above selection a court will have a little latitude for interpretation. Otherwise a court would not be able to enforce the intent of this resolution and would have to stay within the letter of it.


“water services provider''
-any person who provides water services to consumers or to another water services institution

I feel the final sentence provide another loophole again, ‘any person’ is too restrictive, I believe it should read, “Any person, institution, company, authority or any other body responsible for the provision of water to consumers under this resolution.”

We feel it is worthy to note that most developed nations would by now already have achieved this standard since basic sanitation is a pre-requisite to building a healthy and productive society. It is only the very poor nations, who will actually have to act on this, but the question does beckon, can they afford it all and if not, how will they comply even if they wanted to? That said, in general it is good to have a standard by which basics requirements such as these can be compared.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Why no industrial regulation?
Industrial use depletes potable water sources.

The representatives of Telidia and Collaboration (and our reprehensibly alcohol-soaked neighbours East Hackney and Rehochipe) make valid points. This proposal is promising but needs tweaking.

John Boone
Speaker for Rights and Wellbeing

Why no industrial regulation?
Industrial use depletes potable water sources.

I agree with you Sir, but I believe the intent of this proposal is to cover the basic needs of the individual citizen. I feel including industry at this point will open a whole ‘can of worms’ since that debate will inevitably lead to the consequences of industry on the environment.

“As soon as Lydia mentioned the environment she grabbed her flack jacket and metal hat while she awaits the onslaught on the floor between the industrialists and the green lobby.”

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

The government of Cabinia is forced to wonder what, if anything, this measure is meant to accomplish.

First of all, the government of Cabinia is not now, and has no intentions of being in the future, involved in the business of providing water. It is an industry, subject to industry regulations like any other, but that is all.

But back to the measure... if its purpose is to provide water to people, then we wonder why it is necessary at all. Since water is necessary to support life, it naturally follows that people live where water is available in one form or another. We were not aware that thirst had become a pandemic of such proportions that it requires UN intervention.

If the purpose is to force developing nations to upgrade their infrastructure for delivering water and removing waste, we wonder why developing nations are being punished in this manner. There is no provision for where this money to pay for the upgrades is to come from, and developing nations would be forced to go deeply into debt when they have greater infrastructure needs to address that will bring profit and increase financial stability. It would keep poor countries poorer... but they'd be cleaner poor people.

If the purpose is to provide a price break and/or free, limited water services to the underprivileged, then this is a welfare issue which is dependent on so many different factors within the many member states that its place belongs on the national level, and is not an issue worthy of the UN's time.

The government of Cabinia would like to understand what value the esteemed members feel this measure provides to the member states. Cabinia does not see any value whatsoever.

Since water is necessary to support life, it naturally follows that people live where water is available in one form or another. We were not aware that thirst had become a pandemic of such proportions that it requires UN intervention.

Then perhaps you ought to look around. [OOC figures alert...]

One billion people do not have an access to safe and affordable drinking water, and 2.4 billion people live in conditions lacking adequate sanitation.
Disease caused by contaminated water is also a major problem:

Diarrhoea. About 4 billion cases of diarrhoea per year cause 2.2 million deaths, mostly among children under five

Intestinal worms infect about 10% of the population of the developing world and, depending upon the severity of the infection, lead to malnutrition, anaemia or retarded growth

Trachoma. About 6 million people are blind from trachoma. Studies found that providing adequate water supply could reduce the infection rate by 25%.

Schistosomiasis. About 200 million people are infected with schistosomiasis, of whom 20 million suffer severe consequences. Studies found that adequate water supply and sanitation could reduce infection rate by 77%

Cholera is a world-wide problem, especially in emergency situations, that can be prevented by access to safe drinking water, sanitation and good hygiene behaviours


Desertification, depletion of mineral aquifers and climate change are only going to exacerbate this problem in the future; indeed, many predict that the main source of conflict in the 21st century will prove to be not oil or diamonds, but water sources.

And yet... 1 billion people still live there, so the water is available. The question here involves upgrading water purification measures and sewage removal.

So the issue here is undeveloped nations. Cabinia reiterates... where is the money supposed to come from?

But back to the measure... if its purpose is to provide water to people, then we wonder why it is necessary at all. Since water is necessary to support life, it naturally follows that people live where water is available in one form or another. We were not aware that thirst had become a pandemic of such proportions that it requires UN intervention.


Once upon a time there was a people that lived by the river. They drank from the river, washed from the river, and disposed of waste in the river. They still drank the water. They ended up contracting a variety of interesting diseases.

The issue is not access to water it is access to safe water. Is it so much to ask that something necessary to life doesn’t kill people as well?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

-Any water-usage, over and above the basic water supply, will be paid for by the user.

Could you amend this slightly? All water is free in East Hackney and we wouldn't like a UN resolution to force us to charge for it.

You're request has been noted and the change has been made as follows:
-The consumer may, at the water service providers discretion, pay for any water-usage, over and above the basic water supply.

government of Cabinia is not now, and has no intentions of being in the future, involved in the business of providing water
Strange, but I was always under the impression that the construction of a reliable water-supply system, falls under the jurisdiction of government. Companies cannot build, as far as I know, their own water ways, lay pipes, etc. without their say-so.

..if its purpose is to provide water to people, then we wonder why it is necessary at all. Since water is necessary to support life, it naturally follows that people live where water is available in one form or another
The aim of this proposal is to provide CLEAN, RELIABLE, SAFE drinking water, not only to those people in developing countries, but in every nation - Water is a basic necessaty without which life is not possible. Next time you think everyone has water, go to a place where a drought is occuring and the main source of water is the river, THEN tell me my proposal is stupid. Go to any large city where there is a drought and water restrictions are put in place - will you have enough water to provide for all those millions of people in the city, or will you run out? :shock:

If the purpose is to provide a price break and/or free, limited water services to the underprivileged, then this is a welfare issue ... and is not an issue worthy of the UN's time.
So human rights is not worthy of the UN's time?

I believe the intent of this proposal is to cover the basic needs of the individual citizen.
Thanx for that - it is exactly right! :wink:


“Any person, institution, company, authority or any other body responsible for the provision of water to consumers under this resolution.”
The change has been noted, and made.

The above sentence I feel should start with “Including but not limited to the prescribed minimum standard….”
I am not sure how to interpret this, as, in my mind, the prescribed minimum for basic sanitation says that this is the minimum, but you may go over it (as that not what is always meant by minimum?)...

Using the current wording I believe more capitalist nations could use this as a loophole
Not sure which section you are referring to, could you please clarify?

Despite certain, un-agree-ing with Diva-Rule in the recent past, The Rep of Komokom likes this proposal, and with the tweek'n that has been tweek'd, and who knows, there could always be more tweek'n, still :

I like :D I like alot.

...

{ PASS }

:wink:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Diva-Rule wrote:
"I am not sure how to interpret this, as, in my mind, the prescribed minimum for basic sanitation says that this is the minimum, but you may go over it (as that not what is always meant by minimum?)..."

In my opinion a good corporate lawyer could argue the sentence as its written, meaning that the minimum standards are the safe removal, disposal or purification of human excreta, domestic waste-water and sewage only, nothing else. There is no mention of purification from harmful but naturally occurring substances such as bacteria and minerals. Although one would assume that this would form part of the ‘minimum safe standard’ a corporation in a more capitalist state might argue that they do not have to since it is not mentioned directly. By including the words “Including but not limited to” you will provide some latitude for the courts for both this eventually and others we cannot predict in the future.

Diva-Rule wrote:
"Not sure which section you are referring to, could you please clarify?"

In the sentence starting “Procedures for the limitation or discontinuation…” you mention the words “water services authority” and again in the paragraph below “water services institution” is mentioned. The tone and wording suggest that the provision of water services are supplied and managed by the national governments only. This may not be the case in capitalist nations since companies will be selling water services for profit. Again, I believe the interpretation could be that these companies are exempt because they are not mentioned directly. I understand they are implied but I feel its best to include them directly.

I don’t mean to be ‘nit picking’ but I assure you the minute this proposal is put for vote, nations will try and find every loophole possible. I feel it is best we try and cover as many of them as possible beforehand.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

I don’t mean to be ‘nit picking’ but I assure you the minute this proposal is put for vote, nations will try and find every loophole possible. I feel it is best we try and cover as many of them as possible beforehand.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia
Ok - I got where you were going this time round and made some changes - should I post the updated version again?
Thanx for all the help... :wink:

Please note that this Act is now open for voting - please give it your support.

Thanx again for all the help!
:wink:

Yep, please repost the updated version and we'll get our UN Delegate to peruse it in due course.

-DP-

government of Cabinia is not now, and has no intentions of being in the future, involved in the business of providing water
Strange, but I was always under the impression that the construction of a reliable water-supply system, falls under the jurisdiction of government. Companies cannot build, as far as I know, their own water ways, lay pipes, etc. without their say-so.

The government of Cabinia does not construct these waterways. The companies build and maintain their own delivery mechanisms, and they charge the end user for that delivery. The government of Cabinia does regulate this industry (otherwise it would be a monopoly), but delivery implementation plans are simply reviewed for security, safety, quality, and impact. The companies develop their own plans, and we approve/disapprove/amend them as necessary.


..if its purpose is to provide water to people, then we wonder why it is necessary at all. Since water is necessary to support life, it naturally follows that people live where water is available in one form or another
The aim of this proposal is to provide CLEAN, RELIABLE, SAFE drinking water, not only to those people in developing countries, but in every nation - Water is a basic necessaty without which life is not possible. Next time you think everyone has water, go to a place where a drought is occuring and the main source of water is the river, THEN tell me my proposal is stupid. Go to any large city where there is a drought and water restrictions are put in place - will you have enough water to provide for all those millions of people in the city, or will you run out? :shock:

The government of Cabinia has not seen a definition of "clean, reliable, or safe" in this proposal. The government of Cabinia is also smart enough to recognize that, if there was no water at that dried riverbed, people would move or die. The fact that people still live there illustrates that there is a means for obtaining water.


If the purpose is to provide a price break and/or free, limited water services to the underprivileged, then this is a welfare issue ... and is not an issue worthy of the UN's time.
So human rights is not worthy of the UN's time?

The government of Cabinia does not respect representatives who deliberately edit its official messages in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent or deceive.

The government of Cabinia STILL has not received word of where the money for these upgrades is supposed to come from, and must again reiterate its concern for developing nations, and wonder why they are being punished so.

Tobias stands up, a slight look of distaste on his face.

"Oh, so the Government of Cabinia does actually do something? I thought it just stood there and let private companies run the country, although its "regulation" seems to just stick to providing a "competitive market". I wonder where the companies can glean the most profit from: cutting wages, cutting maintenence or raising water bills?"

I agree with you Sir, but I believe the intent of this proposal is to cover the basic needs of the individual citizen. I feel including industry at this point will open a whole ‘can of worms’ since that debate will inevitably lead to the consequences of industry on the environment.

We, too, agree with this sentiment, and we're refreshed to see that the proposed resolution has avoided that particular pitfall.

On the whole, the nation of Sophista approves and will support this proposal. It doesn't really affect us because we, like other nations who have come to this forum, provide excellent quality water for our citizens free of charge. However, we're more than happy to see the standard raised in other nations, even if it costs a few bucks here and there.

Our President should be contacting our regional delegate as we speak to urge his support of this proposal. Meanwhile, anyone up for a hearty round of dihydrogen monoxide?

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

We're confused about how being provided with potable water counts as 'punishment', unless you're talking about the governments of such third-world nations as have more important priorities than the basic subsistence of their own people. In which case we'll quite happily agree that this is punishing them, because they damn well deserve it.

The government of Cabinia does regulate this industry (otherwise it would be a monopoly), but delivery implementation plans are simply reviewed for security, safety, quality, and impact. The companies develop their own plans, and we approve/disapprove/amend them as necessary.
Then all you have to do is regulate the industry such that it complies with the services stipulated in the document. Happy now?

The government of Cabinia is also smart enough to recognize that, if there was no water at that dried riverbed, people would move or die.
So, um, you're saying you don't care if your population is racked by drought, famine and mass destitution?

Tobias stands up, a slight look of distaste on his face.

"Oh, so the Government of Cabinia does actually do something? I thought it just stood there and let private companies run the country, although its "regulation" seems to just stick to providing a "competitive market". I wonder where the companies can glean the most profit from: cutting wages, cutting maintenence or raising water bills?"

The government of Cabinia finds itself offering this advice far too often... but will ask representative Tobias to do a little research in the future to avoid looking foolish in public. He would have easily noted what all can see, which is that Cabinia and Weegies currently employ a similar style of government.


We're confused about how being provided with potable water counts as 'punishment', unless you're talking about the governments of such third-world nations as have more important priorities than the basic subsistence of their own people. In which case we'll quite happily agree that this is punishing them, because they damn well deserve it.


The government of Cabinia does regulate this industry (otherwise it would be a monopoly), but delivery implementation plans are simply reviewed for security, safety, quality, and impact. The companies develop their own plans, and we approve/disapprove/amend them as necessary.

Cabinia is quite shocked at Rehochipe's lack of regard for its fellow world citizens and their governments... especially considering most of Rehochipe's allies are backwards economies.

If water and sanitation standards in the Third World are the concern, then the decent way to handle it is to negotiate for donations among member states, and appoint a panel to administer the fund for the purpose of approving and overseeing contracts for infrastructure projects. But it appears some members of the UN would rather wag their fingers at their underprivileged neighbors and say, "You've been a bad nation. Fix it or you'll be sorry."

This law will force countries that don't have any money to spend tons, which will only contribute to keeping them backwards nations. In this manner, it is a punitive, and not a constructive, bill.

Of course, this measure simply orders member states to upgrade their infrastructure, but it does not give any details of what will happen if they do not comply... rendering this a paper tiger. Member states who cannot afford to upgrade, will not.

Then all you have to do is regulate the industry such that it complies with the services stipulated in the document. Happy now?

Cabinia does not have this problem. Even if we were foolish enough to join this UN, this measure would not affect us in any way. We simply feel it the UN's responsibility to consider the impact its proposals will have before going forward... not that that ever stopped it before.


The government of Cabinia is also smart enough to recognize that, if there was no water at that dried riverbed, people would move or die.

So, um, you're saying you don't care if your population is racked by drought, famine and mass destitution?

Once again, this is simply not a problem in Cabinia. If we had an emergency water shortage, the government would take steps, though we expect the water delivery industry would see such shortfalls coming and plan ahead. There are desertified nations who get plenty of potable water through desalination. We expect that if the oceans dry up, there isn't anything left that the government can do.

There certainly won't be anything a UN measure can do. But since we've already exposed this measure as a paper tiger, I suppose I can find better things to worry about.

Cabinia and Weegies currently employ a similar style of government.

That's a curious assertion, since The Weegies are noteworthy socialists whose government has banned all private enterprise. Cabinia seems to be undergoing something of a policy crisis, since it has simultaneously declared itself to be in favour of regulation, in favour of unregulated free markets and now a government-run socialist economy.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling, Minister for Being Nice, stands up with an incredibly sweet grin on her face.


The government of Cabinia finds itself offering this advice far too often... but will ask representative Tobias to do a little research in the future to avoid looking foolish in public. He would have easily noted what all can see, which is that Cabinia and Weegies currently employ a similar style of government.

The government of Cabinia will could have easily noted what all can see, namely that NSUN categories are not exactly precise. They could further have noted that it makes one look rather silly to criticise one's opponents of failing to do research when one has clearly done none whatsoever into the issue at hand oneself. Should they have really gone all-out, they could even have noticed that they are not UN members and that our impressively proportioned security guard Ben has a hankering to try out his new big stick.



We're confused about how being provided with potable water counts as 'punishment', unless you're talking about the governments of such third-world nations as have more important priorities than the basic subsistence of their own people. In which case we'll quite happily agree that this is punishing them, because they damn well deserve it.

The government of Cabinia does regulate this industry (otherwise it would be a monopoly), but delivery implementation plans are simply reviewed for security, safety, quality, and impact. The companies develop their own plans, and we approve/disapprove/amend them as necessary.

Cabinia is quite shocked at Rehochipe's lack of regard for its fellow world citizens and their governments... especially considering most of Rehochipe's allies are backwards economies.
Backwards economies? No idea where you got that idea from. Clearly your research has been a little perfunctory. If I may list a handful of our more significant allies:
Celdonia: Economy: Frightening
Xikuang: Economy: Frightening
SeOCC:Economy: Powerhouse
Galdago:Economy: Frightening
East Hackney: Economy: Strong
Peripheral Boundary: Economy: Very Strong
Tavast-Carelia: Economy: Strong
Free Soviets: Economy: Thriving
you will note that, as our allies go, we are somewhere near the bottom of the tree. Quite frankly, we have a great many allies within whose economies the economy of Cabinia, or indeed our own, could sink without a trace, so we'd trouble you to be a little less presumptuous.

If water and sanitation standards in the Third World are the concern, then the decent way to handle it is to negotiate for donations among member states, and appoint a panel to administer the fund for the purpose of approving and overseeing contracts for infrastructure projects. But it appears some members of the UN would rather wag their fingers at their underprivileged neighbors and say, "You've been a bad nation. Fix it or you'll be sorry."

This law will force countries that don't have any money to spend tons, which will only contribute to keeping them backwards nations. In this manner, it is a punitive, and not a constructive, bill.



Of course, this measure simply orders member states to upgrade their infrastructure, but it does not give any details of what will happen if they do not comply... rendering this a paper tiger. Member states who cannot afford to upgrade, will not.
So first of all you say that this can't possibly be a problem anywhere, now you say it's incredibly expensive to fix? Once again, you're demonstrably wrong. With appropriate technologies that UN cooperation can make widely available, water treatment and preservation of cleanliness is really not a very expensive undertaking - especially if organised through community projects. The proposal gives nations a great deal of freedom as to how they can pay for the projects - hell, if you're that incapable, there's a great deal of international aid floating around that this would be a prime candidate for.

You've failed to understand a central feature of NationStates mechanics: compliance is non-optional. Read some old resolutions. You'll note that none of 'em have any reference to punishment for non-compliance. Why? Game mechanics. The resolution gets implemented, 'cause Max says so. A UN document can only be a paper tiger if it doesn't actually make any specific recommendations - which this clearly does.

Then all you have to do is regulate the industry such that it complies with the services stipulated in the document. Happy now?

Cabinia does not have this problem. Even if we were foolish enough to join this UN, this measure would not affect us in any way. We simply feel it the UN's responsibility to consider the impact its proposals will have before going forward... not that that ever stopped it before.
This document is carefully considered, and should Cabinia think things through with as much care before wandering into the UN for no apparent reason, we would be eternally grateful.

Elsepeth sits down again, muttering to herself, "I don't know why I bother..."

Cabinia does not have this problem. Even if we were foolish enough to join this UN, this measure would not affect us in any way. We simply feel it the UN's responsibility to consider the impact its proposals will have before going forward... not that that ever stopped it before.
I'm all for giving non UN members a say but insulting the body of the UN isn't going to get you anywhere. Yes there are people who don't think, they exist in almost every organisation, but they aren’t necessarily the people who don't agree with you.

I make decisions by weighing up the good and the bad. I think that the damage to the economy is worth it for letting people have safe drinking water. I would guess that Rehochipe thinks the same. You don't, I guess that's why you're not in the UN.

We think about things, so do you. We just come to different conclusions.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

We believe that, overall, membership in the UN has increased our statistics; we are stronger rather than weaker because of these resolutions.
For the most part.
This proposal would likely have a similar impact.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling, Minister for Being Nice, stands up with an incredibly sweet grin on her face.


The government of Cabinia finds itself offering this advice far too often... but will ask representative Tobias to do a little research in the future to avoid looking foolish in public. He would have easily noted what all can see, which is that Cabinia and Weegies currently employ a similar style of government.

The government of Cabinia will could have easily noted what all can see, namely that NSUN categories are not exactly precise. They could further have noted that it makes one look rather silly to criticise one's opponents of failing to do research when one has clearly done none whatsoever into the issue at hand oneself. Should they have really gone all-out, they could even have noticed that they are not UN members and that our impressively proportioned security guard Ben has a hankering to try out his new big stick.

I welcome your guard and his stick to step forward if he's feeling lucky. I'll show him the true meaning of liberal gun control laws.

If I catch members in the hallways and try to teach them the errors of their ways, then I am practicing my freedom of speech as set forth in the Declaration of Human Rights. And if I am always present for UN sessions, it is because I am here as a journalist, and exercising my rights to a free press as set down in that same document. And if my government has given me permission to speak for them to member states on its behalf as a former UN ambassador myself, then that is between me and my government, and none of Ben's business.


Backwards economies? No idea where you got that idea from. Clearly your research has been a little perfunctory. If I may list a handful of our more significant allies:
Celdonia: Economy: Frightening
Xikuang: Economy: Frightening
SeOCC:Economy: Powerhouse
Galdago:Economy: Frightening
East Hackney: Economy: Strong
Peripheral Boundary: Economy: Very Strong
Tavast-Carelia: Economy: Strong
Free Soviets: Economy: Thriving
you will note that, as our allies go, we are somewhere near the bottom of the tree. Quite frankly, we have a great many allies within whose economies the economy of Cabinia, or indeed our own, could sink without a trace, so we'd trouble you to be a little less presumptuous.

In a region of 200+ nations anyone could cherry-pick and come up with a handful of respectable representatives. This is why I do not cherry pick, but take a random sampling... and what could be more random than the daily top ten lists?

Today's rankings give you some better representatives... this time 5 of out 10 are Developing or worse. My capitalist union once again shows nobody worse than "Good."


So first of all you say that this can't possibly be a problem anywhere, now you say it's incredibly expensive to fix? Once again, you're demonstrably wrong. With appropriate technologies that UN cooperation can make widely available, water treatment and preservation of cleanliness is really not a very expensive undertaking - especially if organised through community projects. The proposal gives nations a great deal of freedom as to how they can pay for the projects - hell, if you're that incapable, there's a great deal of international aid floating around that this would be a prime candidate for.

The representative of Rehochipe should pay more attention to the ebb and flow of conversation, and context. If you look back you'll find that I basically said people aren't dying of thirst... and no information provided has contradicted that assertion. Then there was evidence provided which supported the position that some people are not getting clean water, and they are dying of resultant infections and diseases. Cabinia accepts that position.

However... "gives them a great deal of freedom as to how they can pay for it"? That is very heartless. Let's look at this at the microcosmic level. A man and his family work in the rice paddy for 16 hours a day in order to afford a bare subsistence living standard. You tell him he has to build a sewage pipe because his septic tank may, some time in the future, leak into his paddy and contaminate his crops.

But he can pay for it any way he wants. He can go begging to the government, along with all the other poor bastards stuck in the same situation as him. Or maybe he could sell one of his children to sexual slavery? Maybe he could set his farm on fire and collect the insurance? Maybe he could just give up and eat a bullet, which would definitely keep his rice paddy from further contamination by *him*.


You've failed to understand a central feature of NationStates mechanics: compliance is non-optional. Read some old resolutions. You'll note that none of 'em have any reference to punishment for non-compliance. Why? Game mechanics. The resolution gets implemented, 'cause Max says so. A UN document can only be a paper tiger if it doesn't actually make any specific recommendations - which this clearly does.

Cabinia will refrain from pretending that this is the real world in the future.

Cabinia does not have this problem. Even if we were foolish enough to join this UN, this measure would not affect us in any way. We simply feel it the UN's responsibility to consider the impact its proposals will have before going forward... not that that ever stopped it before.
I'm all for giving non UN members a say but insulting the body of the UN isn't going to get you anywhere. Yes there are people who don't think, they exist in almost every organisation, but they aren’t necessarily the people who don't agree with you.

I make decisions by weighing up the good and the bad. I think that the damage to the economy is worth it for letting people have safe drinking water. I would guess that Rehochipe thinks the same. You don't, I guess that's why you're not in the UN.

We think about things, so do you. We just come to different conclusions.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

My apologies, but my government is one of the thousands of libertarian or conservative governments who have been forced to withdraw from the UN as a result of its general tendencies. A UN that excludes a huge percentage of nations, some quite powerful, is very disappointing.

The question here isn't about damage to the economy. It's about how collapsed economies are supposed to pay for this at all.

Please remember to give this proposal your full support - Access to adequate, safe drinking water is a right, not a privilege!

To the ruler of Cabinia - since you are not a UN member, I do not see why you should object to loudly to this proposal, therefore I will not even bother to reply to your objections.

HRH The Queen Diva
Diva Rule

My apologies, but my government is one of the thousands of libertarian or conservative governments who have been forced to withdraw from the UN as a result of its general tendencies. A UN that excludes a huge percentage of nations, some quite powerful, is very disappointing.

No. You have withdrawn from the UN, reducing the power of the conservative/libertarian lobby. You have only yourselves to blame if the UN leans to the left. I believe that "forced to withdraw" is a somewhat weaselly remark covering a lack of will to work for your values. You were not forced, the UN did not exclude you.

The latest resolution passed by approximately 100 votes. Imagine the difference you and the "thousands" like you could have made if you had only stayed to fight your corner.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

To all UN Delegates

Please note that this proposal has once again been posted for your approval. Please give it your due consideration and support!

To those of you who have supported it in the past, I ask that you vote on it again. And to those who have voted already: Your support is appreciated.

HRH The Queen Diva
Diva-Rule

No. You have withdrawn from the UN, reducing the power of the conservative/libertarian lobby. You have only yourselves to blame if the UN leans to the left. I believe that "forced to withdraw" is a somewhat weaselly remark covering a lack of will to work for your values. You were not forced, the UN did not exclude you.

The latest resolution passed by approximately 100 votes. Imagine the difference you and the "thousands" like you could have made if you had only stayed to fight your corner.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

There is a world of difference. For a liberal/socialist/dictatorial state, UN resolutions that you disagree with aren't a problem. These governments are heavily legislated, so one more piece of legislation makes a small splash in a large pool. By contrast, libertarian/conservative/anarchic governments are small and produce very little legislation by comparison ("The government which governs least governs best"), so UN resolutions make a very large splash in a rather small puddle.

These governments betray their principles and (if elected) betray the will of the people they represent by continuing to accept UN interference. It is therefore a natural consequence of the UN as it is run today that such governments MUST withdraw their membership and support.

If, on the other hand, the UN got back to its founding principles and stopped interfering in domestic affairs, we might see a different, more effective UN.

If, on the other hand, the UN got back to its founding principles and stopped interfering in domestic affairs, we might see a different, more effective UN.

Second time today we've heard that line, and it's still wrong.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

That is the founding principle.

To all UN Delegates,
Please note that the previous proposal for the Basic Water Supply as proposed by Queen Diva of Diva-Rule was inadvertently placed in the incorrect section and as such, was deleted. Should you have previously supported this proposal we Thank and urge you to spare the time to revisit it and again lend your support for this very worthy cause. For those of you who may perhaps read it for the first time may we urge you to offer your support for this very basic right.

Lupus

To all UN Delegates,

Please note that today will be the last day that this proposal will be open for voting. We urge you to consider it and give it your support, for this very basic right.
Access to clean, reliable, water is a right, not a privilege

BASIC WATER SUPPLY ACT
To provide for the rights of free access to basic water supply and basic sanitation;

ACKNOWLEDGING
-that all spheres of Government must strive to provide water supply services and sanitation services sufficient for subsistence and sustainable economic activity;

RECOGNIZING
-that water is a scarce and unevenly distributed resource which occurs in many different
forms which are all part of a unitary, interdependent cycle;

UNDERSTANDING
-that not all peoples are able to afford the basics needed for day-to-day living.
____________________________________

The main object of this Act is to provide for:
The right of access to free basic water supply and the right to basic sanitation;

-Subject to the national water resource strategy, the Minister may determine this basic water supply quantity.

-A person may use water in or from a water resource for purposes such as reasonable domestic use, domestic gardening, animal watering, fire fighting and recreational use.

-The consumer may, at the water service providers discretion, pay for any water-usage, over and above the free basic water supply.

-Procedures for the limitation or discontinuation of water services must not result in a person being denied access to basic water services for non-payment, where that person proves, to the satisfaction of the relevant water services provider, that he or she is unable to pay for basic services.

-If the water services provided by a water services institution are unable to meet the requirements of all its existing consumers, it must give preference to the provision of basic water supply and basic sanitation to them.
__________________________

“basic sanitation”
-including but not limited to the prescribed minimum standard of services necessary for the safe, hygienic and adequate collection, removal, disposal or purification of human excreta, domestic waste-water and sewage from households, including informal households;

“basic water supply”
-the prescribed minimum standard of water supply necessary for the reliable supply of a sufficient quantity and quality of treated, clean water to households, including informal households, to support life and personal hygiene;

“consumer”
-any end user who receives water services from a water services provider, including an end user in an informal settlement;

“water services provider''
-any person, institution, company, authority or any other body responsible for the provision of water to consumers under this resolution;