[PASSED] Sustainable Forest Management

[Defwa]

Though we find the goal admirable, the over reliance on committees for enforcement and the potential bureaucratic delays to our people are not acceptable.
Out of respect, Defwa will be abstaining from this vote.

[Talonis]

Isn't this just common sense? Why should I care if someone else is dumb? My industry knows better, and I'll gladly sell trees back to morons that deplete their forests. No harm for me.
Opposed.

[Normlpeople]

"I have voted against, as my standing orders require me to do so against any job-killing environmental legislation. On a personal level, I wont mind seeing this pass, I am sure the WAFC will love our magic forests."

[Bananaistan]

CREATES the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) to
a) Track deforestation;
b) Create guidelines for sustainable forest harvesting;
c) Establish standards specific to each nation to limit the impact of forest harvesting processes;
d) Identify,
i) Areas which are the most environmentally sensitive and provide recommendations for their protection,
ii) Areas best suited for harvesting;
e) Develop recommendations for the reforestation of previously cleared land;

....................

REQUIRES that before the commencement of logging operations, a proposal be submitted, by the state or states affected, to, and approved by, the WAFC detailing plans:
a) Which clearly define the area to be harvested;
b) To minimize soil degradation and damage to the biodiversity of the area;
c) For the revitalization of the forest upon completion, taking into consideration the rejuvenation of the ecosystem and long term health, or, if the area is to be developed for some other purpose include:
i) Such development plans outlining the intent and purpose and area to be used;
ii) A timetable as to the anticipated start and completion of said development;
iii) Intentions for areas cleared but not part of the subsequent development;

As far as we can see once the logging plan is submitted and approved, the operator can then go off and do something else altogether. There appears to be no enforcement mechanism which would prohibit same. It also appears that the committee will set guidelines and standards but, again, has no power to enforce implementation of these guidelines and standards.

We feel that a general principle applied to member states to control and monitor such activities within their territories would have been a more appropriate proposal rather than setting up a toothless committee.

As an aside, we commend the ambassador for their TG campaign. We never have any issue with campaigning where it does not deliberately misrepresent the proposal in an attempt to garner more support.

[Cardoness]

CREATES the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) to
a) Track deforestation;
b) Create guidelines for sustainable forest harvesting;
c) Establish standards specific to each nation to limit the impact of forest harvesting processes;
d) Identify,
i) Areas which are the most environmentally sensitive and provide recommendations for their protection,
ii) Areas best suited for harvesting;
e) Develop recommendations for the reforestation of previously cleared land;

....................

REQUIRES that before the commencement of logging operations, a proposal be submitted, by the state or states affected, to, and approved by, the WAFC detailing plans:
a) Which clearly define the area to be harvested;
b) To minimize soil degradation and damage to the biodiversity of the area;
c) For the revitalization of the forest upon completion, taking into consideration the rejuvenation of the ecosystem and long term health, or, if the area is to be developed for some other purpose include:
i) Such development plans outlining the intent and purpose and area to be used;
ii) A timetable as to the anticipated start and completion of said development;
iii) Intentions for areas cleared but not part of the subsequent development;

As far as we can see once the logging plan is submitted and approved, the operator can then go off and do something else altogether. There appears to be no enforcement mechanism which would prohibit same. It also appears that the committee will set guidelines and standards but, again, has no power to enforce implementation of these guidelines and standards.

We feel that a general principle applied to member states to control and monitor such activities within their territories would have been a more appropriate proposal rather than setting up a toothless committee.

As an aside, we commend the ambassador for their TG campaign. We never have any issue with campaigning where it does not deliberately misrepresent the proposal in an attempt to garner more support.

I left it open because I am aware that plans do change. Things look one way and then you get into if and find it is really another. The point is for states to make a plan other than "There are some trees, have at 'em boys!" In addition, there will be those standards spicificly tailored for that state that they will have to stay within. Which brings up your second point, of enforcement of those standards. Compliance is mandatory. This resolution gives the WAFC the power to set standards, that is required regulations. Such regulations carry with them the weight of this law. I did not see the need to make this longer than it already was by requiring enforcement that was already required.

As for the TG campaign, I would like to apologize to the ambassadors who visit this debate. While I stand by the campaign and the reasons I gave for it, my actions here drew attention away from the resolution, where it should have been, and instead focused them on the merits of the campaign itself. It was unprofessional and I am sorry. I am grateful for the support I have received and look forward to continuing to discuss this resolution and the ones to follow.

[Bananaistan]

In addition, there will be those standards spicificly tailored for that state that they will have to stay within. Which brings up your second point, of enforcement of those standards. Compliance is mandatory. This resolution gives the WAFC the power to set standards, that is required regulations. Such regulations carry with them the weight of this law. I did not see the need to make this longer than it already was by requiring enforcement that was already required.

I can see what you're saying but I disagree. The standards are merely established. They have not been given any force just by being in existence. There is no requirement that member states or operators must follow these standards.

Perhaps this has been discussed in relation to other resolutions which establish standards and I have taken a minority view here. If there has been a ruling in the past that once established, standards have the force of law even if this is not explicitly stated, I will of course accept this but in the absence of same, I cannot.

[Defwa]

Hm, it does appear that the abilities of the WAFC are mostly limited to suggestions. It can make guidelines which aren't rules, it can identify areas which really just means to point them out, it can recommend.
But item C clearly states it can "Establish standards specific to each nation to limit the impact of forest harvesting processes"
While nations don't have to account for anything the WAFC does except this, the WAFC is probably going to listen to itself. So I'm pretty sure it stands.

[Jarish Inyo]

Voted against this. Jarish Inyo will not have outsiders telling us what we can do with our natural resources. Nor will we ask permission from anyone to harvest or mine our national resources. Outsiders do not know the needs of the people of Jerish Inyo and do not take their best interest into account.

[Shaktirajya]

We are surprised at the success of this bill considering the high amount of eco-scepticism that can be manifested at times on this site.

As a champion of the Earth and environment as a manifestation of the Goddess Herself, we, the Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, on behalf of Her Divine Majesty Hypatia Sophia I must vote FOR this resolution.

Vaktrihi Rajarajeshwaaryaaha Hypatyaaha Sophyaaha I Matrurajasya Shaktirajasya.

[MRWOFFLE]

Although deforestation is a problem, some countries rely heavily off selling their wood. This proposal will affect their economy negatively and is not necessary. Perhaps a way around that would be to make this proposal not apply to those whom rely of the wood industry to boost their economy, and perhaps help those people into another sort of industry to help their economy that does not rely off wood chopping.

Not only may I stand off that, but what right does the General Assembly have to tell me how to manage my natural resources. Why do we need to have reasoning to cut down our forests, and keep time tables of sorts. We're individual countries, and we have to the right to what's on our land.

I'm definitely voting against this proposal, to help those who rely off the wood industry and for the fact that I should have the right to do what I want with my land without being annoyed and monitored by a foreign personnel. I hope others will realize this and vote against also.

[Aleksotopia]

;

ALLOWS for the felling of trees beyond the established regulations if the trees are diseased or in the event of some other emergency which requires it;

This clause must be removed for the WAFTC to have any legitimacy. Who is to monitor under what pretenses a series of trees is to be classified as "diseased" other than the nations themselves who are removing their forests? Also, the bit about 2% seems rather abracive. I agree with this legislation as a whole, and Aleksotopia (a nation bountiful in forests mind you) will support this piece, but respecftfully asks that the clause in question be reexamined

[United industrial]

This is insane just another tree huger trying to destroy are industry because of the pitiful sense of morallity but then again I forgot the big amount.of tree hugers in this assembly that are willing to sacrifice other peoples industry because they have little to no big industry themselves

[District XIV]

This is insane just another tree huger trying to destroy are industry because of the pitiful sense of morallity but then again I forgot the big amount.of tree hugers in this assembly that are willing to sacrifice other peoples industry because they have little to no big industry themselves

Elaborate on what you want to change, not what you dislike about this resolution or the author. I don't exactly think this is trying to destroy the industry, it's just making sure the industry doesn't go too far as to completely destroy all the trees.

Plus, if you want to be taken more seriously, try spelling correctly. "Huger" is spelled "hugger".

[Elke and Elba]

This is insane just another tree huger trying to destroy are industry because of the pitiful sense of morallity but then again I forgot the big amount.of tree hugers in this assembly that are willing to sacrifice other peoples industry because they have little to no big industry themselves

Elaborate on what you want to change, not what you dislike about this resolution or the author. I don't exactly think this is trying to destroy the industry, it's just making sure the industry doesn't go to far as to completely destroy all the trees.

Plus, if you want to be taken more seriously, try spelling correctly. "Huger" is spelled "hugger".

There is nothing available for correction at this point of time as this is already at vote.

As for spelling, it's "too far", not "to far".

[District XIV]

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Sobarte]

This law does not respect national sovereignty.
Deforestation is an issue, but a body should not establish worldwide standards for tackling this issue. If you want to make a difference, encourage collaboration among bordering nations and diversification of economic drivers that do not rely on heavy consumption of the world's forests.

Establishing worldwide standards is contradictory to control of the issue. Every nation has it's own set of issues related to their economy and natural resources.

Creating plans on a local level within regions for sustainable use would be vastly more effective than creating a resolution in a committee that is non-binding.

Please choose policies that diversify your economic markets and strengthen your forestry in the long run.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: While I don't believe your telegram campaign was unprofessional (you're far from the first to use one), I believe it was premature. I honestly believe that this would have passed without one.

Edit: Phone typing is hard.

[New Narwhal]

It's wrong to force a nation to do what's right. A nation should be encouraged to do what's right, but not penalized if it chooses not to. Doesn't the land in the country belong to that country, and what's on that land belong to the country? Passing this is just another small step towards communism. If a nation want's to ruin its forests by cutting to many of the trees down, let them. They will learn from their mistakes, and if they don't than they will be destroyed by their own stupidity. Natural selection but with nations.

[Defwa]

It's wrong to force a nation to do what's right. A nation should be encouraged to do what's right, but not penalized if it chooses not to. Doesn't the land in the country belong to that country, and what's on that land belong to the country? Passing this is just another small step towards communism. If a nation want's to ruin its forests by cutting to many of the trees down, let them. They will learn from their mistakes, and if they don't than they will be destroyed by their own stupidity. Natural selection but with nations.

That's not communism.
Its not communism at all.
Do you even know what communism is?
Everything you say turns to meaningless drivel to me because you're one of those people that calls things communist as a generic insult.

[Chester Pearson]

It's wrong to force a nation to do what's right. A nation should be encouraged to do what's right, but not penalized if it chooses not to. Doesn't the land in the country belong to that country, and what's on that land belong to the country? Passing this is just another small step towards communism. If a nation want's to ruin its forests by cutting to many of the trees down, let them. They will learn from their mistakes, and if they don't than they will be destroyed by their own stupidity. Natural selection but with nations.

This was the biggest load of dumbassery I have ever had the misfortune of reading.... I think I lost several I.Q. points trying to comprehend what you were attempting to rail on about in that in that load of crap.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Overall, we think this is a laudable but slightly flawed resolution. However, we didn't participate very actively in the drafting process - too few nations did - and so we're inclined to grant the author some leeway. Had we retained WA membership we would have abstained, which perfectly reflects our position as observers anyway.

"I am surprised - pleasantly - by the margin of the vote, after what had seemed like a sharply regressive trend in recent WA voting."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Server, GnomeBurger - now proudly announcing 100% recycled paper napkins!

[Cardoness]

It's wrong to force a nation to do what's right. A nation should be encouraged to do what's right, but not penalized if it chooses not to. Doesn't the land in the country belong to that country, and what's on that land belong to the country? Passing this is just another small step towards communism. If a nation want's to ruin its forests by cutting to many of the trees down, let them. They will learn from their mistakes, and if they don't than they will be destroyed by their own stupidity. Natural selection but with nations.

Except that were a planet is shared among multiple states, damage to the environment caused by one is likely to had adverse affects on the others. This makes it an international issue and demonstrates a need to provide basic protections to the environment as a whole.

[Wellsian empire]

All this bill does is destroy the economies of countries built on selling and trading trees. We cut down the healthies trees so that are customers know they are getting a good tree. This prevents that. This also has a statement that is completely out of place. It talks about how private individuals can cut down as many trees as they want. Can they cut down all the trees as long as they burn it rather than sell it or use it.?

[Aligned Planets]

"I am surprised - pleasantly - by the margin of the vote, after what had seemed like a sharply regressive trend in recent WA voting."

We have to agree with the honourable former delegate, Inky Fungschlammer, on the interpretation of the vote thus far. It is a warmful reassurement that the proposal is flying with such a high percentage of the vote, and we commend the member for Cardoness for authoring such a seemingly successful piece of legislation.

- Jaresh-Inyo, Ambassador to the World Assembly.

[MRWOFFLE]

The concept of helping the enviornment and stopping defroestation is a great idea. Although you need a clause that states it should not be applied to nations who rely heavily off the wood industry. It's not fair even with the "financial help" offered, this overcomplicates things for them and we make the industry less efficient, will vote againsf until changed