[PASSED] Promoting Sustainable Timber

[Holymemes]

Timber needs to be restricted but not to restricted because of how much it can play a key factor in a nations economy

[Araraukar]

Timber needs to be restricted but not to restricted because of how much it can play a key factor in a nations economy

"If your nation already obeys the existing resolutions, the only thing you need to do is be careful about who you buy timber from. Though I wonder how that trade "agreement" resolution affects this?"

[Discoveria]

Prohibits member nations from importing from any source timber, or products made from timber, produced in a way not compliant with World Assembly legislation currently in force;

So, as soon as the WA passes a new piece of legislation that impacts in any way (however small) on the production of timber, all existing timber and timber products are rendered un-importable? What about antique furniture? Works of art?

(a) inspecting timber production in any nation, when invited by the producers and with whatever governmental approval may be necessary, and certifying it as a WAFC approved source if it satisfies all the requirements of World Assembly environmental legislation in force at that time.

Certification is worthless here. The certification only says that the timber was produced according to legislation in force at that time, which is not the same as legislation currently in force, the actual requirement of the resolution. Furthermore, producers may simply revert to non-compliant methods of production once they gain certification; there is no mechanism to strip a manufacturer of their certification or indeed to prevent transfer of certification to non-compliant subsidiaries through acquiring competing logging companies.

(b) inspecting the manufacture of products using timber in any nation, when invited by the manufacturers and with whatever governmental approval may be necessary, and certifying them as WAFC approved products if the timber used is from WAFC approved sources.

Same objection here; ‘WAFC approved product’ status is based on the worthless WAFC timber certification above, and therefore is completely disconnected from the required status in the resolution, namely ‘legislation currently in force’.

This resolution needs to go back to the drawing board.

[Jabberwocky]

Where can I learn about the House of Cards rule? There seems to be a lot of debate based upon that single issue.

[Jar Wattinree]

Where can I learn about the House of Cards rule? There seems to be a lot of debate based upon that single issue.

Look for it in this thread

[Aruia]

against 100% the resulotion fails to clearify the WA tasks in this and isn't expressing any concern to working force in the manner that it deserveses almost making those who work in the timber industry criminals.

[Immurat Adduth]

Prohibits member nations from importing from any source timber, or products made from timber, produced in a way not compliant with World Assembly legislation currently in force;

So, as soon as the WA passes a new piece of legislation that impacts in any way (however small) on the production of timber, all existing timber and timber products are rendered un-importable? What about antique furniture? Works of art?

(a) inspecting timber production in any nation, when invited by the producers and with whatever governmental approval may be necessary, and certifying it as a WAFC approved source if it satisfies all the requirements of World Assembly environmental legislation in force at that time.

Certification is worthless here. The certification only says that the timber was produced according to legislation in force at that time, which is not the same as legislation currently in force, the actual requirement of the resolution. Furthermore, producers may simply revert to non-compliant methods of production once they gain certification; there is no mechanism to strip a manufacturer of their certification or indeed to prevent transfer of certification to non-compliant subsidiaries through acquiring competing logging companies.

(b) inspecting the manufacture of products using timber in any nation, when invited by the manufacturers and with whatever governmental approval may be necessary, and certifying them as WAFC approved products if the timber used is from WAFC approved sources.

Same objection here; ‘WAFC approved product’ status is based on the worthless WAFC timber certification above, and therefore is completely disconnected from the required status in the resolution, namely ‘legislation currently in force’.

This resolution needs to go back to the drawing board.

"We are inclined to vote for this, but we do worry about the maintenance and enforcement of this resolution. There seems to be no oversight of WAFC certified producers or products once certified. Should there not be some regular certification renewal process? What might happen to those found to be non-compliant with WA legislation? We would regretfully have to vote against the resolution should these considerations remain unaddressed."

- Ambassador Belicosa Mu, Seven-Times Elect of the Commonwealth Electoral Lottery

[Uan aa Boa]

Prohibits member nations from importing from any source timber, or products made from timber, produced in a way not compliant with World Assembly legislation currently in force;

So, as soon as the WA passes a new piece of legislation that impacts in any way (however small) on the production of timber, all existing timber and timber products are rendered un-importable? What about antique furniture? Works of art?

(a) inspecting timber production in any nation, when invited by the producers and with whatever governmental approval may be necessary, and certifying it as a WAFC approved source if it satisfies all the requirements of World Assembly environmental legislation in force at that time.

Certification is worthless here. The certification only says that the timber was produced according to legislation in force at that time, which is not the same as legislation currently in force, the actual requirement of the resolution. Furthermore, producers may simply revert to non-compliant methods of production once they gain certification; there is no mechanism to strip a manufacturer of their certification or indeed to prevent transfer of certification to non-compliant subsidiaries through acquiring competing logging companies.

(b) inspecting the manufacture of products using timber in any nation, when invited by the manufacturers and with whatever governmental approval may be necessary, and certifying them as WAFC approved products if the timber used is from WAFC approved sources.

Same objection here; ‘WAFC approved product’ status is based on the worthless WAFC timber certification above, and therefore is completely disconnected from the required status in the resolution, namely ‘legislation currently in force’.

This resolution needs to go back to the drawing board.

"We are inclined to vote for this, but we do worry about the maintenance and enforcement of this resolution. There seems to be no oversight of WAFC certified producers or products once certified. Should there not be some regular certification renewal process? What might happen to those found to be non-compliant with WA legislation? We would regretfully have to vote against the resolution should these considerations remain unaddressed."

- Ambassador Belicosa Mu, Seven-Times Elect of the Commonwealth Electoral Lottery

Ambassadors, if you reread the proposal you will find that WAFC inspection is not declared to be a one-off event without review. The committee is tasked with inspecting and certifying. It is customary for WA resolutions to set out the remit of a committee and leave the specifics of how best to carry out that remit to the gnomes who staff such committees. The WAFC will be free to determine the most effective system of inspections. To micromanage it by means of resolutions would not be helpful.

It is quite normal in many areas of life for the rules governing a system of inspection to change. For example, environmental health and food hygiene law may evolve over time. This doesn't mean having hygiene inspections of restaurants is pointless. Similarly, the possibility of WA law changing in the future doesn't make WAFC certification pointless.

Regarding penalties for non-compliance, resolutions generally don't specify this. It is understood that as signatories to GA #2 the governments of member nations will make an attempt in good faith to implement WA law. How they do this within their own jurisdiction (eg what would be the penalty for smuggling banned timber into the nation) is for nations themselves, with their diverse legal systems, to determine.

[Shaktirajya]

Our stance on the environment is clear. We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, see the Earth as a manifestation of the Goddess Herself, and so We hereby support any effort to promote sustainable forestry and similar initiatives. We hereby vote FOR this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matrurajasya Shaktirajasya

[Araraukar]

Ambassadors, if you reread the proposal you will find that WAFC inspection is not declared to be a one-off event without review. The committee is tasked with inspecting and certifying.

"If the certification is a constantly on-going process required for every single piece of tree felled, then this is certainly in the wrong category, because adding such an unnecessarily unwieldy bureaucratic layer on top of the already existing requirements of previously passed - and, depending how one reads the clause, future - resolutions, is going to have a negative effect on international trade between member nations. A better choice would have been certification and occasional unannounced inspections to make sure the guidelines are still followed, with the threat of loss of certificate as being the punishment. That, together with the requirement to not import timber¹ produced without a certificate, would at the very least meant that member nations couldn't sell noncertified products within the WA, thus working in a self-regulating manner. Since exporting isn't mentioned by the proposal, exporting such timber products to non-member nations wouldn't have been a problem to begin with. At least as far as this proposal is concerned."

It is quite normal in many areas of life for the rules governing a system of inspection to change. For example, environmental health and food hygiene law may evolve over time.

"Indeed, and in such cases new requirements and checklists are drafted up, laws are changed and then re-certification is required. Your proposal does none of that. If it passes, the only way to update certifications, is to repeal it first."

Regarding penalties for non-compliance, resolutions generally don't specify this.

"However, one can be non-compliant with this one without intending to be, or without being noncompliant with any of the resolutions it relies on to function, as explained by the Discoverian ambassador."

OOC note:

¹As I was further reminded today, in the forest management, protection and timber production panel event that I went to, timber is just one product you get out of a forest, even a forest that's been cut down for purposes of obtaining "timber" (which usually means long bits of sturdy and healthy trees that are used to build things like houses or furniture). Here the certification is for "timber, or products made from timber", which does not include the parts of the tree that are not classified "timber" to begin with. Since the move away from Environmental as category was made, this should have been rectified to plug an oil tanker -sized loophole in the text. Since "timber" is not defined, all a noncompliant nation needs to do to be compliant with this, is to not mark its timber products as "timber". Heck, they could probably even get away with "timber-like". The fact that non-lactose milk has to be marked as "milk-like drink" because of a stupid EU thingy that says milk must have lactose to be milk, might have something to do with my annoyance with that term...

[Radicaster]

While this resolution has noble goals, there are two main flaws. First, this resolution bans import of non-WAFC approved timber and timber products, which could be detrimental to nations which heavily rely on cheap timber. Furthermore, this could possibly hurt trading relations between WA and non-WA nations who not only produce or consume timber, but also any product which uses timber. We will be voting AGAINST until convinced otherwise.

[Jabberwocky]

Where can I learn about the House of Cards rule? There seems to be a lot of debate based upon that single issue.

Look for it in this thread

Thanks. So, one cannot rely upon existing legislation to support a proposal, but can to repeal it. That makes sense. But it seems that those Nations dependent upon nonWA Nations for timber should be allowed to ease out of that dependence gradually in order to avoid having a devastating impact on those families dependent upon the timber industry for their livelihood.

[He Qixin 2]

Thanks. So, one cannot rely upon existing legislation to support a proposal, but can to repeal it. That makes sense. But it seems that those Nations dependent upon nonWA Nations for timber should be allowed to ease out of that dependence gradually in order to avoid having a devastating impact on those families dependent upon the timber industry for their livelihood.

OOC: (a) Yes and (b) agreed.

[He Qixin 2]

OOC: But why is the "House of Cards" rule called the "House of Cards"?

[He Qixin 2]

OOC: Uan aa Boa, you better be wary that a lot of people are turning 'against' their votes.

Just one thing though, the above statement WAS pun-intended.

[He Qixin 2]

Despite its laudable efforts and purpose to uphold the quality of timber production in order to provide a sustainable future for timber production, this proposal possesses two main flaws. The first being that the resolution bans import of 'timber products' which can greatly harm locations where timber product producing nations are using non-sustainable methods. This lack of ability to export timber would prove detrimental to the timber industries of non-WA member nation which would force them to potentially use cheaper and less sustainable methods than already used. Furthermore this proposal would greatly hurt trade relations between WA and non WA nations who consume or produce not only timber but any product that uses timber. The ministry believes that despite the potential positives provided by this proposal, it will ultimately harm the sustainability of timber rather than protect it.

[Christian Democrats]

We don't need an international timber police. Member states are quite capable of enforcing environmental standards.

[He Qixin 2]

We don't need an international timber police. Member states are quite capable of enforcing environmental standards.

OOC: agreed.

[Kyrloth]

"Hey let's force everyone to stop trade with people who don't live up to our strict sustainability guidelines, even if doing so will hurt their economy and make it even less able to live up to said guidelines, perpetrating a cycle of inequality."

[Notaxias]

More industry means more pollution.
Notaxias is against

[Immurat Adduth]

"We would like it to be formally noted that we are not withdrawing our support out of some anthrocentric notion of economic good, but rather because we would like to see a tougher and more influential resolution drafted. Individuals cannot always be trusted to do what is the best for everyone."

[Araraukar]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

OOC: For the love of little green dragons, learn to edit! Posting multiple times in a row like you regularly do, counts as spamming and is against the forum rules.

The House of Cards (HoC) rule is called that because if you were trying to build a house out of playing cards, and then took away the bottom-most ones, the whole thing would collapse. The bottom-most cards in the literal house of cards represent the previously passed resolutions that a proposal that's illegal for HoC violation is relying on to be valid.

Also, there's nothing Uan can do anymore to "be careful". A proposal cannot be withdrawn by author once it enters the voting stage. They also can't be edited after submitting, which is why your habit of spamming the submissions list with your own is so annoying. Also, I hope you've paid attention and realized that this drafting thread has existed for four months and is still in trouble, content-wise (regardless of what happens in the vote, because "sustainable" is a good feel-good word for people who vote based on proposal names).

---

"In my opinion this was submitted too soon after the change of direction; a couple of days are not long enough to gather replies from those who weren't paying it attention before, because they thought it fell outside of their area of expertize. Since the Grand Nation of Araraukar is against the ham-fisted attempts at industrial encouragement by the WA, our vote will be against"

[Kenmoria]

"This proposal is certainly not the most well-drafted in these hallowed halls, nor does it completely comply with long standing tradition about formatting. However, the few active clauses it contains would have overall good effects, so the Kenmorian delegation is reluctantly supporting this proposal."

[He Qixin 2]

The House of Cards (HoC) rule is called that because if you were trying to build a house out of playing cards, and then took away the bottom-most ones, the whole thing would collapse. The bottom-most cards in the literal house of cards represent the previously passed resolutions that a proposal that's illegal for HoC violation is relying on to be valid.

OOC: Okay thanks.

Also, there's nothing Uan can do anymore to "be careful". A proposal cannot be withdrawn by author once it enters the voting stage. They also can't be edited after submitting, which is why your habit of spamming the submissions list with your own is so annoying. Also, I hope you've paid attention and realized that this drafting thread has existed for four months and is still in trouble, content-wise (regardless of what happens in the vote, because "sustainable" is a good feel-good word for people who vote based on proposal names).

"Oops, I meant 'to be wary of', thanks for the correcting," says jacknjellify.

---

"In my opinion this was submitted too soon after the change of direction; a couple of days are not long enough to gather replies from those who weren't paying it attention before, because they thought it fell outside of their area of expertize. Since the Grand Nation of Araraukar is against the ham-fisted attempts at industrial encouragement by the WA, our vote will be against"

OOC: agreed

[Scherzinger]

We here in Scherzinger fail to understand what this is about. Might somebody enlighten us to the issue at hand?