NationStates Jolt Archive

A proposal to improve the environment at the expense of biz-ness. This is just a rough draft, and could do with some polishing, but the idea is workable. Please give generously...

‘Polluter Pays’ Principle


Concerned at the potential damage wrought by environmental disasters,

Acknowledging that these incidents often have consequences beyond the location of their origins, and therefore their international character,

Noting that concentrated effort is required to limit the damage to the eco-system in such circumstances, that these efforts require immediate response, and that this may be hampered by lack of funds,

The UN hereby establishes the following procedure;

1. The cost of clean-up operations subsequent to incidents of environmental pollution (whether of air, water, or earth), where these incidents have an international character, shall be paid for by the negligent party after a successful application by the affected state for ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle (PPP).

2. Negligence shall be determined by a committee set up in the usual way for this purpose.

3. Incidents of environmental pollution shall be deemed by the committee to have an international character where the incident occurs within one country, but the pollution spreads to another.

4. UN members shall ensure that funds are maintained for such occurrences, whether by way of trusts, insurance, or other financial arrangements consistent with their legal systems. It shall be at each member’s discretion whether such funds are maintained by the state, private companies set up for such purposes, companies engaged in activities which carry a risk of pollution, or a combination of these.

5. The negligent party shall be liable for costs during the first 18 months of the clean-up operation, after which time the financing shall revert to the state who claimed for PPP.

‘Polluter Pays’ Principle

Incredibly minor, but 'PPP' would be understood by most to mean 'purchasing-power parity'. Still, I suppose the economists can't have dibs on all the acronyms.

Concerned at the potential damage wrought by environmental disasters,

Acknowledging that these incidents often have consequences beyond the location of their origins, and therefore their international character,

Agreed.

Noting that concentrated effort is required to limit the damage to the eco-system in such circumstances, that these efforts require immediate response, and that this may be hampered by lack of funds,

Did you mean 'concerted'?

1. The cost of clean-up operations subsequent to incidents of environmental pollution (whether of air, water, or earth), where these incidents have an international character, shall be paid for by the negligent party after a successful application by the affected state for ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle (PPP).

You've just said they have an international character. So what is the affected state? Does every state affected have to apply? What is the negligent party: the company that made the pipe that burst, the company that used the pipe that burst, the company whose chemicals were being piped, the government that allowed this to happen...? Seems a bit vague, and very open to abuse.

2. Negligence shall be determined by a committee set up in the usual way for this purpose.

What's the usual way?

3. Incidents of environmental pollution shall be deemed by the committee to have an international character where the incident occurs within one country, but the pollution spreads to another.

Ok. However, what about pollution of international territory?

4. UN members shall ensure that funds are maintained for such occurrences, whether by way of trusts, insurance, or other financial arrangements consistent with their legal systems. It shall be at each member’s discretion whether such funds are maintained by the state, private companies set up for such purposes, companies engaged in activities which carry a risk of pollution, or a combination of these.

What do you mean by this? Litigation for environmental disasters can run to billions of dollars IRL...do you mean we're expected to cover this? I don't really see the need for this clause, given that the polluter should be obligated to pay, regardless of what they can or not.

5. The negligent party shall be liable for costs during the first 18 months of the clean-up operation, after which time the financing shall revert to the state who claimed for PPP.

So what if they just work reeeally slowly? You know, clean one gull one day, another on the second day...this appears like a major get out clause.

Finally, it seems like you're creating a hyper-powerful, unaccountable committee who can declare near anything a disaster. You're also adding to the burden of acts like SPCC, which already put the onus on business.

I am in support of this proposal. I think it is clearly within UN jursidicion. I was going to post more, but Gruenburg covered most of my concerns.

I agree with the need for an international committee determine negligence, otherwise culpability would be squabbled over between nations and nothing would be accomplished.

I would suggest that you define the committee's duties and powers a little more, to hold them accountable too. Maybe define or at least give guidelines for what an environmental disaster is.

What industries are you planning to have be affected?

Finally, thanks for submitting the draft before the proposal.

What happens in the case of Cobdenia, when pollution that leaves the country ends up in a different time period and turns into Russian rockstars trying to be cool (http://media.vad1.com/temporary_url_20050704hnbdv/video-anthem-sovietunion-parody-ugolnikov_1991.mpg), and pollution that drifts into Cobdenia that turns into anchovies?

Then again, that would be too complicated to worry about...

Did you mean 'concerted'?
The meaning is virtually the same.

You've just said they have an international character. So what is the affected state? Does every state affected have to apply? What is the negligent party: the company that made the pipe that burst, the company that used the pipe that burst, the company whose chemicals were being piped, the government that allowed this to happen...? Seems a bit vague, and very open to abuse.
International character as in - not confined within the borders of one state. The affected state is, obviously, the one into which the pollution has migrated, and any state thus affected can apply, or none. The negligent party would be the one in charge of the operation at the time of the incident. Other parties may be secondarily negligent (the 'company that made the pipe that burst'), but the company who utilise that pipe should ensure all their equipment is fit for the purpose for which it is used. They may want to sue the pipe company separately (a domestic contractual matter), but this doesn't absolve their own liability for being in charge of the operation when the incident occured.

What's the usual way?
This simply refers to the game mechanics, and the reference to committees staffed by magical (mythical??) beings.

However, what about pollution of international territory?

Maybe this should be included. Good idea.

What do you mean by this? Litigation for environmental disasters can run to billions of dollars IRL...do you mean we're expected to cover this? I don't really see the need for this clause, given that the polluter should be obligated to pay, regardless of what they can or not.

This only covers the clean-up operation. The maintained fund ensures that even if the company goes bust, money is available for the clean-up.

So what if they just work reeeally slowly? You know, clean one gull one day, another on the second day...this appears like a major get out clause.

Who works really slowly? The polluter? As per the draft, they only finance the operation, so this is hardly an issue.

Finally, it seems like you're creating a hyper-powerful, unaccountable committee who can declare near anything a disaster. You're also adding to the burden of acts like SPCC, which already put the onus on business.

This is obviously a danger when creating any kind of tribunal. Perhaps you (or someone else) could come up with some suggestions. Maybe someone who worked on the Pretenama Panel could offer advice re. how to set up an accountable judicial body. Re. the committee, maybe its writ can be limited to oil spills from tankers and refineries, nuclear-reactor leaks, and the cross-border release of toxins in quantities sufficient to kill humans.

International character as in - not confined within the borders of one state. The affected state is, obviously, the one into which the pollution has migrated, and any state thus affected can apply, or none. The negligent party would be the one in charge of the operation at the time of the incident. Other parties may be secondarily negligent (the 'company that made the pipe that burst')

Great, why not write these in as definitions? That way, everone is on the same page and those looking wo wriggle out of obligation will have a tougher time of it.

This only covers the clean-up operation. The maintained fund ensures that even if the company goes bust, money is available for the clean-up.

So, to clarify, are you saying that if the company goes broke in the process of funding the cleanup, their nation picks up the tab?

Who works really slowly? The polluter? As per the draft, they only finance the operation, so this is hardly an issue.

I think what Gruenberg is getting at is since the company is only liable for 18 months worth of cleanup, they can just have the site cleaned very slowly for 18 months and not make any real progress but still get out of further obligation.

This brings up another question. The company is liable to fund the cleanup, but who is reponsible for the actual process of cleanup? The UN? The company? The company's nation?

What happens in the case of Cobdenia, when pollution that leaves the country ends up in a different time period and turns into Russian rockstars trying to be cool (http://media.vad1.com/temporary_url_20050704hnbdv/video-anthem-sovietunion-parody-ugolnikov_1991.mpg)?

Wow, anyone who dumps that on another country should definitely be held liable.

So, to clarify, are you saying that if the company goes broke in the process of funding the cleanup, their nation picks up the tab?

If the company goes broke, the fund will remain safe from the company's creditors, and able to be used for the clean-up. If there wasn't enough money in the fund at the time of the incident, the fund would pay out in installments, while accumulating interest, and eventually the debt would be paid off.

I think what Gruenberg is getting at is since the company is only liable for 18 months worth of cleanup, they can just have the site cleaned very slowly for 18 months and not make any real progress but still get out of further obligation.

This would be a problem in any clean-up operation done by a private company, whoever funds it. Pay people by the hour and they drag out those hours. However, the company funding the clean-up only provide the cash, they don't organise it. It might be better if the government of the nation who suffered the pollution did the job themselves, but some nationstates are completely privatised, leading to this dilemma.

This brings up another question. The company is liable to fund the cleanup, but who is reponsible for the actual process of cleanup? The UN? The company? The company's nation?

See above. One way to resolve this might be to have a UN agency tasked with the clean-up operations where a nation has applied for this procedure.

Incredibly minor, but 'PPP' would be understood by most to mean 'purchasing-power parity'. Still, I suppose the economists can't have dibs on all the acronyms.
OOC: Never heard of it, actually. PPP for me means either 'public-private partnership' (spit) or the private heathcare provider whose full name I don't recall.

OoC: I'd use it to mean Purchasing Power Parity or Pound (lb) per Pound (GBP)

Point To Point Protocol?

Point To Point Protocol?
Yep, that's the first thing I thought of too.

A proposal to improve the environment at the expense of biz-ness. This is just a rough draft, and could do with some polishing, but the idea is workable. Please give generously...

‘Polluter Pays’ Principle


Concerned at the potential damage wrought by environmental disasters,

Acknowledging that these incidents often have consequences beyond the location of their origins, and therefore their international character,

Noting that concentrated effort is required to limit the damage to the eco-system in such circumstances, that these efforts require immediate response, and that this may be hampered by lack of funds,

The UN hereby establishes the following procedure;

1. The cost of clean-up operations subsequent to incidents of environmental pollution (whether of air, water, or earth), where these incidents have an international character, shall be paid for by the negligent party after a successful application by the affected state for ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle (PPP).

2. Negligence shall be determined by a committee set up in the usual way for this purpose.

3. Incidents of environmental pollution shall be deemed by the committee to have an international character where the incident occurs within one country, but the pollution spreads to another.

4. UN members shall ensure that funds are maintained for such occurrences, whether by way of trusts, insurance, or other financial arrangements consistent with their legal systems. It shall be at each member’s discretion whether such funds are maintained by the state, private companies set up for such purposes, companies engaged in activities which carry a risk of pollution, or a combination of these.

5. The negligent party shall be liable for costs during the first 18 months of the clean-up operation, after which time the financing shall revert to the state who claimed for PPP.

We agree that the counter-action of environmental abuses and the ideal of holding those responsible to account, are desirable ones. Accordingly, making the guilty clean up their crime strikes me as fitting and fair.

Yet, as is normally the case, Compadria has a series of questions concerning the measures envisaged within this resolution.

1). Regarding point number 2, how shall the impartiality of this committee be maintained? Furthermore, who shall be considered for panel membership? Finally, could a definition of "the usual way" be given please.

2). Regarding point number 3, if the country does so un-intentionally, i.e. agricultural run-off, what would be the penalty and how would this be decided, given the complexities of determining guilt?

3). Regarding point 5, if the pollution requires extensive work for a longer period of time, would the company be required to at least make some form of contribution to finishing the clean-up operation?

We look forwards to the answers.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

1). Regarding point number 2, how shall the impartiality of this committee be maintained? Furthermore, who shall be considered for panel membership? Finally, could a definition of "the usual way" be given please.
OoC:
According to the rules, all committees are staffed by mysterious beings. Some people seem to take the view that this means they will be completely unbiased. I suppose it's the easiest way for purposes of RP - you get a fully functioning institute or agency without the worry of the day-to-day running.

On the other hand, I think these things are important even if they aren't going to be a feature of the NS game. Trouble is, it creates a grey area; is there any need to define committes if they spring into existence by magic, and exist only to do the work of the committee? In that case do they have preferences, bias, or even nationality?

IC:
When a case comes before the committee, they will receive details of the incident, but not the identity of the nations involved. Any nations involved will be able to submit written argument of their case, but again these documents will be purged of any reference to the nation's identity.

2). Regarding point number 3, if the country does so un-intentionally, i.e. agricultural run-off, what would be the penalty and how would this be decided, given the complexities of determining guilt?

An unintentional incident can still be negligent. The question is whether the negligent party should have known that an accident was likely to happen, for instance if the incident has occured before, if another country has complained of that kind of incident before, or if there is evidence that the polluter was warned or advised of the likelyhood of an incident if certain measures were not taken.

3). Regarding point 5, if the pollution requires extensive work for a longer period of time, would the company be required to at least make some form of contribution to finishing the clean-up operation?

The short answer is no. At present there is no provision for this, so nations end up cleaning up someone else's mess. The 18 month rule will at least go some way to providing fair distribution of the costs.

Re. the committee, maybe its writ can be limited to oil spills from tankers and refineries, nuclear-reactor leaks, and the cross-border release of toxins in quantities sufficient to kill humans.

I'd want it to cover incidents that caused significant damage to riverine & marine ecosystems too: In the RW these are sometimes caused by waste from mining & metal-refining processes, or by water that has seeped through waste materials of those types & not been adequately contained...

Thank you for your answers. I still have some doubts as to how it will be possible to accurately determine the degree of guilt for cases relating to point 3, though the answer has cleared much up. We're still somewhat disappointed at the idea that no differentiation appears to be being made between a long term clean-up operation and a short-term one. Wouldn't it be better if one was made?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We are reluctant to make companies or states liable for an indefinite period as we believe this would lessen support for the proposal. In the case of a nuclear accident, decades may pass before the pollution and its effects are at an even tolerable level. Nations may not want to expose themselves or their coompanies to this level of financial liability.

The present proposal, while far from perfect, would at least provide some assistance to the nation affected by negligently released pollution.

We agree that it is a good set of basic measures. We were merely expressing some concerns about what we felt might be problematic aspects or gaps in the proposal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Thank you for your support - scrutiny of UN legislation through debate is vital to iron out any creases which the drafting nation may have overlooked.

I should also stress that this proposal requires a nation with the requisite 2 endorsements to take it forward to proposal stage once a consensus is reached.

One way to resolve this might be to have a UN agency tasked with the clean-up operations where a nation has applied for this procedure.

I would say that this is a good option. This way quality clean up is more assured, but the offending company still has to pay the bill. I think it would need to be emphasized that the UN agency would be a nonprofit agency and only receive funds from the nation charged with the cleanup.

By Unstable Former Nuns: We are reluctant to make companies or states liable for an indefinite period as we believe this would lessen support for the proposal. In the case of a nuclear accident, decades may pass before the pollution and its effects are at an even tolerable level.

It is precicely for this reason that nations should be held liable until all the damage is repaired. If a nation does long-term dadmage to the environment, they should not be liable for its clean-up only in the short term.

By Unstable Former Nuns: Nations may not want to expose themselves or their coompanies to this level of financial liability.

These nations should then ensure that they lessen the possibility of causing an environmental disaster.

I'd rather have UN oversight of clean up operation, as opposed to a UN agency doing it themselves, basically for Free Market reasons (specialist cleaning up-ering companies competing to do a better job of dealing with the mess and as cheaply as possible, etc). However, there should exist the option to allow the government to do it (for Communist nations)
I admit that oversight (or licensing?) of such companies/nationalised cleaner uperers would be required to ensure that they do indeed do the required job

Ateelatay

I would say that this is a good option. This way quality clean up is more assured, but the offending company still has to pay the bill. I think it would need to be emphasized that the UN agency would be a nonprofit agency and only receive funds from the nation charged with the cleanup.

Cobdenia

I'd rather have UN oversight of clean up operation, as opposed to a UN agency doing it themselves, basically for Free Market reasons (specialist cleaning up-ering companies competing to do a better job of dealing with the mess and as cheaply as possible, etc). However, there should exist the option to allow the government to do it (for Communist nations)...

How about combining these suggestions? There will be a UN not-for-profit agency, but a nation can also choose to contract the job out privately, or do the work themselves, as per cases where the nation is entirely nationalised.

It is precicely for this reason that nations should be held liable until all the damage is repaired. If a nation does long-term damage to the environment, they should not be liable for its clean-up only in the short term.

Agreed entirely. The only question is if UN members will allow themselves to be bound indefinitely. Then the choice would be for partial cover or none at all. I suppose there's no way to tell until it goes to the vote. Maybe the way round this is to enter the proposal first time with full or near-full liability for clean-up. If that doesn't pass, repropose it with less liability for the pollutor.

I'd have no problem with that suggestion

‘Polluter Pays’ Rule


Concerned at the potential damage wrought by environmental disasters,

Acknowledging that these incidents often have consequences beyond the location of their origins, and therefore their international character,

Noting that concentrated effort is required to limit the damage to the eco-system in such circumstances, that these efforts require immediate response, and that this may be hampered by lack of funds,

The UN hereby establishes the following procedure;

1. The cost of clean-up operations subsequent to negligent incidents of environmental pollution (whether of air, water, or earth), where these incidents have an international character, shall be paid for by the negligent party after a successful application by the affected state invoking the ‘Polluter Pays’ Rule (PPR) according to the rules set out below.

2. Negligence shall be determined by a committee set up for this purpose.

3. Incidents of environmental pollution shall be deemed to have an international character where the incident occurs within one country, but the pollution spreads to another.

4. In cases where the incident occurs in international waters, or on territory claimed by no nation, the claim may be brought by any UN member.

5. ‘Pollution’ shall be defined as the release of substances into the environment in sufficient quantities to kill human, animal, or plant-life.

6. UN members shall ensure that funds are maintained for such occurrences, whether by way of trusts, insurance, or other financial arrangements consistent with their legal systems. It shall be at each member’s discretion whether such funds are maintained by the state, private companies set up for such purposes, companies engaged in activities which carry a risk of pollution, or a combination of these.

7. The negligent party shall be liable for full costs of clean-up operations lasting 18 months or less, or 80% of the cost of operations lasting longer.

8. The UN hereby establishes an agency which will operate on a strictly not-for-profit basis, tasked with clearing sites affected by pollution. This agency will carry out all clean-up operations unless the nation affected by the pollution chooses to contract the work out privately or undertake the work itself. The agency will be required to submit its annual accounts to the General Assembly, who shall make copies available to the public on request. In cases falling under Section 4, the agency will automatically undertake the operation.

Slight change of title, from 'PPP' to 'PPR'. Additions;

[4. - incorporating suggestion by Gruenberg]
[5. - definition of pollution for purpose of the proposal]
[7. - incorporating preference of Ateelatay for increased liability]
[8. - incorporating suggestions of Ateelatay and Cobdenia]

interesting concept.... only one problem. if a company is raking bucketloads of cash, they will just factor this into their budget and keep on polluting. whilst it may discourage small-to-maybe-medium firms, the big firms are going to probably ignore it. maybe there should be provisions for lager penalties for repeat offenders.

We need a sponsor for this proposal. Any volunteers?