DRAFT Forest Protection Act

[The Isle of Biscay]

Here is a Proposal for the WA I am considering putting forward:

Forest Protection Act

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that:
1. Timber is (currently) a necessary component in many industries
2. Some nations depend on the export of timber for part of their income.

RECOGNIZES that:
1. Forests (particularly 'old growth' forests) are integral in many aspects of the health of the Earth's Biosphere
2. All life on Earth (including humans) is dependent on 'live' forests for oxygen, weather (i.e. affects on rainfall patterns), limiting of soil erosion, reduction of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect, food, habitat, natural asset value, and more.
3. Many regions on Earth are under much strain from deforestation, which affects the Biosphere and thus affects all life of Earth
4. That the current rate of Deforestation is UNSUSTAINABLE
5. That Future Generations will not have access to the same resources (or quality of life) of today if current rates of Deforestation continue
6. That the MAIN cause for loss of Biodiversity is due to loss of habitat
7. That Forests must be preserved for future generations

PROPOSES that:
1. Logging and clearing of 'rich', 'biodiverse' and/or important forests MUST be BANNED.
2. That Nations dependent on Timber production be provided with the tools and incentives to undertake 'greener' alternatives
3. That Member nations of the WA be BANNED from importing Timber sourced from Countries that utilize unsustainable methods of Timber Production
4. Alternatives to Timber are further Developed, Commercialized and Distributed as Feasible Alternatives to Timber.
5. The use of sustainable Timber Production and Timber alternatives be Promoted
6. The Recycling of Timber be Promoted
7. Educating of Governments, Industry and the general population about Sustainability, recognizing our natural assets and protecting the Future Economy, be funded and promoted.

EXPECTS that:
1. There will be a significant reduction in the loss of biodiversity
2. That Global GHG Emissions will reduce significantly
3. That poorer nations that are currently dependent on logging will be delivered from their dependence on such unsustainable industries and provided with affordable opportunities for the development of more sustainable and enriching industries and new sources of income.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Hello honoured ambassador to The Isle of Biscay!

I have been studying this draft and I am pleased to say that the ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg, Sarah Harper loves forest parks. The problem however, is the draft isn't ready yet. The main problem is that Earth could be a real-life reference, which is against WA proposal rules, so references to the real life planet earth would need to be removed. It is true however, that clearing out forests could have a negative effect on biodiversity. But some member states may have problems about mentioning "greenhouses gases" or "carbon dioxide"

Be sure to ensure that the draft does not either contradict or duplicate clauses of two resolutions that are likely to pass: They are the WA Environmental Council and Endangered Species Protection, which will come into vote in about 4 hours today and will depend on the opinion of the entire WA on whether it becomes a resolution or not.

Yours etc,

[The Isle of Biscay]

Thankyou Charlotte Ryberg,

I appreciate your feedback. I am new to this simulation game and I will need to look into the 'rules' more. Thankyou for kindly high-lighting those points.

Regards,

Claude Martin (Alias)
Ambassador
Isle of Biscay

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Thankyou Charlotte Ryberg,

I appreciate your feedback. I am new to this simulation game and I will need to look into the 'rules' more. Thankyou for kindly high-lighting those points.

Regards,

Claude Martin (Alias)
Ambassador
Isle of Biscay

For your information, the full list of regulations and guides are found here, honoured ambassador.

Yours etc,

[WallachIX]

excellent ideas here. i fully support

[Danielturner]

Madam President of the World Assembly, The nation of Danielturner regrettable opposes this resolution. The reason being is that our parliament feels that this resolution would restrict our industry. If the honored ambassador authoring this bill would bring in a clause stating that industry won't be affected we would support it. But until such time we cannot support it.

Yours,

[The Isle of Biscay]

Madam President of the World Assembly, The nation of Danielturner regrettable opposes this resolution. The reason being is that our parliament feels that this resolution would restrict our industry. If the honored ambassador authoring this bill would bring in a clause stating that industry won't be affected we would support it. But until such time we cannot support it.

Yours,

To the Nation of Danielturner,

This policy is designed to protect the future of the planet and is beneficial to many industries in the present and in the future. Management of natural ecosystems can create thousands of jobs and also increase tourism. In the long-term, the promotion of sustainability will see all industries directed toward sustainable profiting and growth that will last. The nations of the world MUST recognize that many current 'business as usual' operations are unsustainable and will eventually result in diminished profits and a lower standard of living for all. Nations must invest in the future and protect the economy from eco-disasters.

The cost to the economy due to the damage to the environment continues to grow. If this path continues, then soon the environment will be destroyed and all world economies will collapse.

This policy is designed to prevent this catastrophe and promote sustainable growth that will allow industry to continue to prosper.

Sincerely
The Ambassador
The Isle of Biscay

[Arkinesia]

The Arkinesian Environmental Minister feels compelled to point out that recent research in Arkinesia has concluded that old growth forests are in fact bad for the environment, as old growth forests do not produce oxygen or remove carbon dioxide from the air. We are not the first nation to discover this, so we are quite confused as to why your resolution is flying in the face of accepted scientific research.

Also, Title IV (EXPECTS THAT [...]) is rather unnecessary. You need not list the effects of the resolution in the text body.
grammatical fixes in bold, comments in italics:

Forest Protection Act

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that:
1. Timber is (currently) a necessary component in many industries--Correct.
2. Some nations depend on the export of timber for part of their income.--Good.

RECOGNIZES that:
1. Forests (particularly 'old growth' forests) are integral in many aspects of the health of the Earth's biosphere--Just explained my beef with that above
2. All life on Earth (including humans) is dependent on 'live' forests for oxygen, weather (i.e. affects on rainfall patterns), limiting of soil erosion, reduction of carbon dioxide and the "greenhouse effect, food, habitat, natural asset value, and more.--Contrary to what you have heard, there is a debate on the existence and the workings of the greenhouse effect.
3. Many regions on Earth are under much strain from deforestation, which affects the biosphere, and thus affects all life of Earth--You missed a comma, FYI.
4. That the current rate of deforestation is UNSUSTAINABLE--How do you know this?
5. That future generations will not have access to the same resources (or quality of life) of today if current rates of deforestation continue--Again, how do you know this?
6. That the MAIN cause for loss of biodiversity is due to loss of habitat--I can't believe I'm asking this again...how do you know this?
7. That forests must be preserved for future generations--Good, good.

PROPOSES that:
1. Logging and clearing of 'rich', 'biodiverse' and/or important forests MUST be BANNED.--Amen.
2. That nations dependent on timber production be provided with the tools and incentives to undertake 'greener' alternatives--Namely? I don't want to just vote for this and later go "dammit now they want me to eliminate all my industries because they aren't sufficiently "green"!
3. That member nations of the WA be BANNED from importing timber sourced from "rogue nations".--I totally changed the text in this section, I realize, but it's more succinct and equally correct.
4. Alternatives to timber are further developed, commercialized and distributed as feasible alternatives to timber.--No. No, no, and no. Read up on what paper companies do to get their lumber and you'll see why I say no to this whole section.
5. The use of sustainable timber production and timber alternatives be promoted--Why do I strike this out? It's completely useless. It's just being repetitive with your point.
6. The recycling of timber be promoted--Again, repeating points, etc.
7. Educating of governments, industry and the general population about sustainability, recognizing our natural assets and protecting the future economy, be funded and promoted.--Following proper grammatical rules is crucial in being understood and not considered foolish. Proper placements of a compound fractured adverbial noun, or what have you, is not important. A very, very, very, very, very basic rule (that I learned in the first grade for crying out loud) was capitalization. That has been all but one error I've corrected so far. The capitalization in this was appalling.

EXPECTS that:
1. There will be a significant reduction in the loss of biodiversity
2. That Global GHG Emissions will reduce significantly
3. That poorer nations that are currently dependent on logging will be delivered from their dependence on such unsustainable industries and provided with affordable opportunities for the development of more sustainable and enriching industries and new sources of income.--Just get rid of this whole thing.

Yes, I recognize I was quite harsh, but this is a binding, international resolution. It's a good start but it definitely needs work.

[Flibbleites]

The Arkinesian Environmental Minister feels compelled to point out that recent research in Arkinesia has concluded that old growth forests are in fact bad for the environment, as old growth forests do not produce oxygen or remove carbon dioxide from the air. We are not the first nation to discover this, so we are quite confused as to why your resolution is flying in the face of accepted scientific research.

Accepted scientific research? I ought to accuse you of attempted genocide against cat-girls. Everyone knows that bad science kills cat-girls, and saying that because a tree is old it doesn't breathe is bad science at its worst.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Arkinesia]

Most importantly, old forests are far more susceptible to disease, which can spread to other life in these forests. Old forests are also more susceptible to fires if they are so old that they no longer use up rainwater, which can be a massive hazard to species contained within.

However, I do not consider it the main problem with the resolution. In fact, it's more a tertiary problem.

[Bears Armed]

Most importantly, old forests are far more susceptible to disease, which can spread to other life in these forests. Old forests are also more susceptible to fires if they are so old that they no longer use up rainwater, which can be a massive hazard to species contained within.

However some forest ecosystems have evolved so that fairly regular fires are actually beneficial to them, and 'old growth' forests tend to support significantly higher levels of biodiversity than do newer ones...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Most importantly, old forests are far more susceptible to disease, which can spread to other life in these forests. Old forests are also more susceptible to fires if they are so old that they no longer use up rainwater, which can be a massive hazard to species contained within.

However some forest ecosystems have evolved so that fairly regular fires are actually beneficial to them, and 'old growth' forests tend to support significantly higher levels of biodiversity than do newer ones...

In this case that would not be man-made destruction, more of nature's course, and it would be impossible to ban it. While I'm along the lines of this, I may wish to suggest whether starting forest fires with intent to harm the environment(i.e. vandalism) may be feasible.

Yours,

[Tjennewell]

Tjennewell already has established several nature reserves and wildlife sanctuaries and looks forward to seeing this environmental issue being addressed on an international scale as well. However, we find the ban on logging in any forest deemed 'rich' and 'biodiverse' to be too much. Especially since wood is one of the natural resources that we actually can recreate within a sustainable timeframe.

We would urge to set a specific amount of a nation's woodland under protection - based on the size of the territory and geographical and environmental characteristics that play into the equation. And make sure that those nature reserves cannot be revoked or interchanged with other places on short notice.