[Groot Gouda]

Establish UNWCC

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Sunteria

Description: The United Nations,

OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water;

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries;

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility;

IN THE INTEREST OF providing third world regions with sanitary water;

1. ESTABLISHES a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers, the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee (UNWCC), to use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life;

2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;

3. BELIEVES WITH SCIENTIFIC MERIT that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water; and

4. SUGGESTS that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

[Groot Gouda]

I thought establishing committees was Disapproved of in the new UN resolution rules?

[Federation of Disjunction]

That may be but as we've seen I think most of these pass on merit alone. I don't think too many writers refine and/or strengthen their resolutions according to the rules. In the end though, I'm for the principle so I'm a yes.

[Mikitivity]

Groot GoudaJul 25 2005, 02:54 AM I thought establishing committees was Disapproved of in the new UN resolution rules? [/quote]
We managed to talk the Most Glorious Hack into allowing them when they seem to further the purpose of the resolution and when done in moderation.

This particular resolution originally was submitted as a Human Rights resolution, and though the text was legal, the category was judged as being a Social Justice resolution. I asked Sunteria to add numbers to the activating clauses, but essentially this one has been moderator approved.

I won't be voting against the resolution, but I'm still fence sitting right not. I have exchanged telegrams with Sunteria, and can state that they certainly only want this resolution to improve water quality (i.e. the have the best of intentions).

[quentoni]

I'm skeptical about this one. I would like to see clean drinking water, but would like more information on how they plan to achieve it. Sounds like we are funding a committee rather than any given plant or technology. I would like to see some research that quantifies the problem water (that which needs to be cleaned), and the method to clean it.

Much of the third world uses water from streams etc., for food prep and drinking, but also for bathing and disposal of human waste. I would suspect that industrial pollution is greater in these areas due to poor environmental practices.

It would appear we would need to have a technology more than just plants, especially if poisonous chemicals exist, heavy metals, parasites, bacterium and viruses etc. Sounds like we may need to do more than just do an intermediary clarification. We may need sanitizers, perhaps ozone, flocculants, membranes, filters etc., to get water to a truly safe level of consumption.

Also, how is the water to be distributed? Once cleaned, how does it get to the people its supposed to get to? Is there post-treatment contamination? Are we talking piplelines, or open trenchs?

Just because this is a human rights issue, and everyone wants clean water, that doesn't merit a yes vote. Especially if the goal by this particular committee is unachievable. I respect the good intentions, but this resolution is suspect.

I'm on the fence on this one, as well, to see how the discussion pans out.

[Mikitivity]

In the IDU forum calendar items, I've started including "UNA" (United Nations Association) notes that give a bit of background based on what I observed in the UN forum.

They are also what will be printed in the UNA summary and NSWiki after the debate as well (along with debate highlights).

[Keeslandia]

We're not really opposed, but find this to be very narrow in focus. I would think a more comprehensive policy would be more appropriate and then permit nations to implement the policy with the methods most appropriate for their culture, economy and environment. Other technologies may be best suited for some places while other place may need little interventions. As long as each jurisdiction reaches the goal, it should be up to them on how to get there.

Therefore, after that long-winded explaination, the Empire of Keeslandia has voted to abstain.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Oddly enough, I haven't voted for or against this resolution either. I agree that the focus of the resolution is too narrow and that if this were cast more as an environmental resolution it would be more attractive.

I'm not sure it makes a good case is needed to have another committee to assure a right to potable water as a social justice/human rights initiative.

[Duechlander]

Duechlander is also on the edge, as we think there should be more research involved...

[Sober Thought]

FOR / AYE / OUI.

Yes, as Quentenoi and others have pointed out, it is a narrow resolution. However, sometimes it is easier to get things rolling with a narrower resolution with broad support which can later be built upon. The IDU itself has had this experience with the tsunami and later natural disaster resolutions.

And think of Mikitivity's water quality resolution aimed at protecting marine life. Surely this is an easier sell if we already have a track record of environmental protection and water quality resolutions?

[Groot Gouda]

I'm still not convinced this is a good resolution. It's expensive for a start, and is more symptom-directed than cause-directed. There is no mention at all of preventing water to become polluted for a start, or what to do about that.

I think this one should be voted down to allow a better resolution to be written.

[Groot Gouda]

I've been in doubt on how to vote on this resolution. In the end, I voted FOR according to the majority vote expressed here. Personally, I was against. But abstaining feels a bit too much like wasting a vote, so I voted for.

[Mikitivity]

My government has been fence sitting, but eventually we felt that a UN resolution is merely designed to highlight an issue, and in this case it is waste water treatment ... if another resolution were to be proposed that we felt were superior to this idea, we'd support a repeal, but at this time the subject of water quality is important enough that a statement of support be made.

On another note, it is interesting that the IDU members are fairly split on our opinions on this resolution ... which is naturally fine.