[DRAFT] Repeal GA #291 “Sustainable Forest Management”

[Boston Castle]

Am going to be taking this up actively alongside "Dark Sky Preserve Creation Act". Hopefully this passes muster a bit better this time.

As this is the first time I have ever written a repeal, even if it is a second draft, I would ask respectfully that you provide specific criticisms in terms of ways to adjust the clauses (or the overall resolution) if you have the time.

REPEAL “SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT”

The World Assembly,

Alarmed that the standards “specific to each nation” are left intentionally vague in that potential requirements are not specified and thus, they carry a potential for abuse by the World Assembly Forest Commission, hereafter referred to as the WAFC;

Concerned that, while the mandate of the WAFC is inherently good, that the language of the “URGES” clause does not include oversight by the WAFC in the goals of conservation, thus undermining the goal of sustainable forest management;

Confounded by the micro-management inherent in the “REQUIRES” clause, which has the nonsensical requirement that all plans involving logging be submitted to and approved by a commission of the World Assembly, potentially holding up significant investments into vital infrastructure;

Perturbed too that little oversight is undertaken of funds as disbursed in the “AUTHORIZES” clause and that while, well intentioned, nations are not held accountable for the proper disbursement of funds provided by the WAFC for forest revitalization efforts, in that other than a vague statement that any and all funds be used in "revitalization efforts", member nations are not required to report how funds are used once issued;

Astonished by the language employed in the “STRONGLY URGES” clause, which contains no incentives to not engage in the action outlined, and places no further restrictions or oversight on an action arguably more detrimental than deforestation as discussed elsewhere in the resolution;

Saddened that the “ENCOURAGES” clause, which works to alleviate the issue this resolution covers, does not contain any mandate for member nations to engage in revitalization or reforestation efforts;

And believing that these inadequacies as a whole nullify any positive effect that this resolution might have had;

Hereby repeals [resolution=GA#291]GA #291: “Sustainable Forest Management”[/resolution].

The World Assembly,

Believing that every resolution passed by this august assembly is well-intentioned, but that some come with a fatal flaw;

Noting that what “emergencies” in the “ALLOWS” clause that may require the felling of trees are not spelled out potentially proving a grievous detriment to the goal of sustainable forest management;

Realizing that the World Assembly Forest Committee (hereafter noted as the WAFC), as formed in the “CREATES” clause, suffers from issues in regards to ensuring compliance and transparency, in that the WAFC does not provide an oversight mechanism for member state governments or businesses;

Recognizing that plans as required to be submitted in the “REQUIRES” clause to aforementioned committee provide a perverse incentive for businesses to adopt harmful practices in regards to logging, especially given the lack of oversight of businesses after the WAFC approves plans for logging;

Understanding that language in the “AUTHORIZES” clause allows for bad-faith efforts by states in regards to adoption of best practices in logging as determined by the WAFC, in that the lack of oversight in the by the WAFC as noted earlier may also lead to abuse of grants or loans disbursed by the WAFC;

Asserting that the final “CALLS UPON” clause reinforces the issues with this resolution and does nothing to advance the goals of sustainable forest management; and

Judging that, as a whole, these deficiencies nullify any positive impact of this resolution, hereby:

REPEALS GAR #291, Sustainable Forest Management.

[Boston Castle]

Also iirc re: a replacement for this repeal, Cretox informed me that he would be tackling that later on. Though there is not one yet ready or even here in the forums as a draft.

[Honeydewistania]

viewtopic.php?p=20668912#p20668912

Your arguments are very unconvincing, so I will not support at this time

[Imperium Anglorum]

Recognizing that plans as required to be submitted in the “REQUIRES” clause to aforementioned committee provide a perverse incentive for businesses to adopt harmful practices in regards to logging, especially given the lack of oversight of businesses after the WAFC approves plans for logging;

How?

in that the lack of oversight in the by the WAFC as noted earlier may also lead to abuse of grants or loans disbursed by the WAFC;

How?

[Ransium]

I have zero qualms about repealing and replacing flawed environmental resolutions, as I’ve done so myself. That said, I am not convinced by your arguments and do not think the original needs replacement.

[Araraukar]

"No support without a superior replacement."

[Boston Castle]

OOC: Bump. Finally got around to the second draft.

[Scalizagasti]

Bothered by the statement “increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” and “soil erosion and sterilization” are the results of the deforestation and not actively the inherent result of natural processes;

"Why exactly do you find these statements bothersome? From my understanding, forests act as a carbon sink, reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Also, trees prevent soil erosion due to their canopies which block rain and root systems which hold soil in place. Therefore, would deforestation not increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and accelerate soil erosion?"

Distressed by the “ALLOWS” clause which functionally provides an opt-out for nations to engage in harmful deforestation practices if they can claim that a disease or an emergency was the primary reason for deforestation such that this undermines the whole of the resolution;

"Firstly, I imagine that falsely claiming that trees are diseased in order to engage in harmful deforestation practices would be quite difficult to accomplish. Your argument about faking an emergency is slightly more convincing, but still, I find it hard to believe that emergencies which require deforestation are similarly easy to fake."

[Boston Castle]

Bothered by the statement “increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” and “soil erosion and sterilization” are the results of the deforestation and not actively the inherent result of natural processes;

"Why exactly do you find these statements bothersome? From my understanding, forests act as a carbon sink, reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Also, trees prevent soil erosion due to their canopies which block rain and root systems which hold soil in place. Therefore, would deforestation not increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and accelerate soil erosion?"

Distressed by the “ALLOWS” clause which functionally provides an opt-out for nations to engage in harmful deforestation practices if they can claim that a disease or an emergency was the primary reason for deforestation such that this undermines the whole of the resolution;

"Firstly, I imagine that falsely claiming that trees are diseased in order to engage in harmful deforestation practices would be quite difficult to accomplish. Your argument about faking an emergency is slightly more convincing, but still, I find it hard to believe that emergencies which require deforestation are similarly easy to fake."

"First, Ambassador, I am not claiming that those aren't a result of deforestation. I am arguing that there are other processes which could cause them and that deforestation is not the primary cause of them.

Second, respectfully, emergency is so poorly defined that I don't find it hard to see how a nation could claim the lack of infrastructure in a remote forested area is an emergency and could forge ahead with deforestation on that basis, even if it is not actually an 'emergency' per se."

[Scalizagasti]

"First, Ambassador, I am not claiming that those aren't a result of deforestation. I am arguing that there are other processes which could cause them and that deforestation is not the primary cause of them.

From my understanding, the original resolution never claimed that deforestation was the primary cause of such events. Deforestation has the effects of increased carbon emissions and soil erosion, but that does not necessarily mean that deforestation is the main contributing factor to carbon emissions."

Second, respectfully, emergency is so poorly defined that I don't find it hard to see how a nation could claim the lack of infrastructure in a remote forested area is an emergency and could forge ahead with deforestation on that basis, even if it is not actually an 'emergency' per se."

"The 'established regulations' mentioned in the clause are, presumably, the 'guidelines for sustainable forest harvesting,' 'standards specific to each nation to limit the impact of forest harvesting processes,' and other recommendations created by the WAFC. Because of the word 'beyond' in the clause, I do not believe the logging proposal submission to be one of the regulations excepted in these emergency scenarios, as 'beyond' implies some sort of limitation. Therefore, the WAFC would probably still review the logging operation and notice that the 'emergency' is indeed fabricated."

[Boston Castle]

"First, Ambassador, I am not claiming that those aren't a result of deforestation. I am arguing that there are other processes which could cause them and that deforestation is not the primary cause of them.

From my understanding, the original resolution never claimed that deforestation was the primary cause of such events. Deforestation has the effects of increased carbon emissions and soil erosion, but that does not necessarily mean that deforestation is the main contributing factor to carbon emissions."

Second, respectfully, emergency is so poorly defined that I don't find it hard to see how a nation could claim the lack of infrastructure in a remote forested area is an emergency and could forge ahead with deforestation on that basis, even if it is not actually an 'emergency' per se."

"The 'established regulations' mentioned in the clause are, presumably, the 'guidelines for sustainable forest harvesting,' 'standards specific to each nation to limit the impact of forest harvesting processes,' and other recommendations created by the WAFC. Because of the word 'beyond' in the clause, I do not believe the logging proposal submission to be one of the regulations excepted in these emergency scenarios, as 'beyond' implies some sort of limitation. Therefore, the WAFC would probably still review the logging operation and notice that the 'emergency' is indeed fabricated."

"I see what you're saying, Ambassador, but I should note that it just depends on how one reads the CONCERNED and BELIEVING clauses, that is my personal interpretation of those clauses.

And the problem with that being that an emergency, presumably, would leave no time for review of the situation. So a fabricated emergency could very well lead to logging prior to approval and could indeed require it-even if it is fabricated, which we may not know in the moment."

[Honeydewistania]

From my understanding, the original resolution never claimed that deforestation was the primary cause of such events. Deforestation has the effects of increased carbon emissions and soil erosion, but that does not necessarily mean that deforestation is the main contributing factor to carbon emissions."


"The 'established regulations' mentioned in the clause are, presumably, the 'guidelines for sustainable forest harvesting,' 'standards specific to each nation to limit the impact of forest harvesting processes,' and other recommendations created by the WAFC. Because of the word 'beyond' in the clause, I do not believe the logging proposal submission to be one of the regulations excepted in these emergency scenarios, as 'beyond' implies some sort of limitation. Therefore, the WAFC would probably still review the logging operation and notice that the 'emergency' is indeed fabricated."

"I see what you're saying, Ambassador, but I should note that it just depends on how one reads the CONCERNED and BELIEVING clauses, that is my personal interpretation of those clauses.

And the problem with that being that an emergency, presumably, would leave no time for review of the situation. So a fabricated emergency could very well lead to logging prior to approval and could indeed require it-even if it is fabricated, which we may not know in the moment."

"I believe fabricating an emergency would be in direct violation of a law, which would be noncompliance, which is already handled. I don't see how a new resolution would tackle this issue better than the original."

Late edit:

Appalled at the final “CALLS UPON” clause, which does not at all deal with the main issue addressed by the resolution in deforestation and which serves as a pithy statement with no value to the wider resolution;

Time to repeal every one of Cretox's resolutions

[Boston Castle]

"I see what you're saying, Ambassador, but I should note that it just depends on how one reads the CONCERNED and BELIEVING clauses, that is my personal interpretation of those clauses.

And the problem with that being that an emergency, presumably, would leave no time for review of the situation. So a fabricated emergency could very well lead to logging prior to approval and could indeed require it-even if it is fabricated, which we may not know in the moment."

"I believe fabricating an emergency would be in direct violation of a law, which would be noncompliance, which is already handled. I don't see how a new resolution would tackle this issue better than the original."

Late edit:

Appalled at the final “CALLS UPON” clause, which does not at all deal with the main issue addressed by the resolution in deforestation and which serves as a pithy statement with no value to the wider resolution;

Time to repeal every one of Cretox's resolutions

"I'll find a way to edit it then. No worries all around."

All Resolutions Fair Game for Repeal, Forever.

Edit: Decided to one up myself and just get rid of that clause.

[Honeydewistania]

Bothered by the statement “increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” and “soil erosion and sterilization” are the results of the deforestation and not actively the inherent result of natural processes;

This is the mega nonnest of the non issues. Firstly, it's the preamble, so the negative effects are minimal at best. Secondly, it's not incorrect nor misleading. Thirdly, it reads more like an argument against logging resolutions in general by stating it's not a big deal, but you support a replacement. Lastly, if you choose to include the clause, it needs to be reworded. It is a grammatical mess as of now.

Alarmed that the standards “specific to each nation” are left intentionally vague and carry a potential for abuse by the World Assembly Forest Commission, hereafter referred to as the WAFC, and potential miscommunication to member states;

How do you know it's intentionally vague? If it's intentional it was on purpose, and I don't think authors would deliberately include something negatively nebulous.

Concerned that, while the mandate of the WAFC is inherently good that the language of the “URGES” clause does not provide a strong mandate for action in reaching the goal of the resolution;

This is okay, but slightly weak.

Confounded by the micro-management inherent in the “REQUIRES” clause, which has the nonsensical requirement that all plans involving logging be submitted to and approved by a commission of the World Assembly, potentially holding up significant investments into vital infrastructure;

Pick one position to argue in this repeal - you want more regulations, or less regulations. In addition, I don't see how this is a problem. Land Reclamation Regulation utilises something similar, and 'significant investments' should be ones especially investigated.

Perturbed too that little oversight is undertaken of funds as disbursed in the “AUTHORIZES” clause and that while, well intentioned, nations are not held accountable for the proper disbursement of funds provided by the WAFC for forest revitalization efforts;

No need to keep saying things are well intentioned. Also, this needs elaboration. What negative effects will arise?

Astonished by the language employed in the “STRONGLY URGES” clause, which contains no incentives to not engage in the action outlined, and places no further restrictions or oversight on an action arguably more detrimental than deforestation as discussed elsewhere in the resolution;

This is okay.

Amazed that the “ENCOURAGES” clause, which works to alleviate the issue this resolution covers, does not contain any sort of positive mandate for action;

So? What's the problem? Also amazed implies something positive.

Appalled at the final “CALLS UPON” clause, which does not at all deal with the main issue addressed by the resolution in deforestation and which serves as a pithy statement with no value to the wider resolution;

Blah blah blah grasping at straws filler argument.

Hereby repeals [resolution=GA#291]GA #291: “Sustainable Forest Management”[/resolution].

Against for now

[Boston Castle]

Bothered by the statement “increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” and “soil erosion and sterilization” are the results of the deforestation and not actively the inherent result of natural processes;

This is the mega nonnest of the non issues. Firstly, it's the preamble, so the negative effects are minimal at best. Secondly, it's not incorrect nor misleading. Thirdly, it reads more like an argument against logging resolutions in general by stating it's not a big deal, but you support a replacement. Lastly, if you choose to include the clause, it needs to be reworded. It is a grammatical mess as of now.

Alarmed that the standards “specific to each nation” are left intentionally vague and carry a potential for abuse by the World Assembly Forest Commission, hereafter referred to as the WAFC, and potential miscommunication to member states;

How do you know it's intentionally vague? If it's intentional it was on purpose, and I don't think authors would deliberately include something negatively nebulous.

Concerned that, while the mandate of the WAFC is inherently good that the language of the “URGES” clause does not provide a strong mandate for action in reaching the goal of the resolution;

This is okay, but slightly weak.

Confounded by the micro-management inherent in the “REQUIRES” clause, which has the nonsensical requirement that all plans involving logging be submitted to and approved by a commission of the World Assembly, potentially holding up significant investments into vital infrastructure;

Pick one position to argue in this repeal - you want more regulations, or less regulations. In addition, I don't see how this is a problem. Land Reclamation Regulation utilises something similar, and 'significant investments' should be ones especially investigated.

Perturbed too that little oversight is undertaken of funds as disbursed in the “AUTHORIZES” clause and that while, well intentioned, nations are not held accountable for the proper disbursement of funds provided by the WAFC for forest revitalization efforts;

No need to keep saying things are well intentioned. Also, this needs elaboration. What negative effects will arise?

Astonished by the language employed in the “STRONGLY URGES” clause, which contains no incentives to not engage in the action outlined, and places no further restrictions or oversight on an action arguably more detrimental than deforestation as discussed elsewhere in the resolution;

This is okay.

Amazed that the “ENCOURAGES” clause, which works to alleviate the issue this resolution covers, does not contain any sort of positive mandate for action;

So? What's the problem? Also amazed implies something positive.

Appalled at the final “CALLS UPON” clause, which does not at all deal with the main issue addressed by the resolution in deforestation and which serves as a pithy statement with no value to the wider resolution;

Blah blah blah grasping at straws filler argument.

Hereby repeals [resolution=GA#291]GA #291: “Sustainable Forest Management”[/resolution].

Against for now

Acknowledging I've got your feedback (thank you!). I'll address all of this later when I have more time...and a full stomach.

[Boston Castle]

Honeydew, I'd make a full account of what exactly has changed, but not too worried about spelling out what all changed. Did fix the glaring issues that I agreed with (there was one that I didn't agree with and didn't address) and tried to change some things up.

[Boston Castle]

Not bumping this so much as noting two things. If there is no further feedback, I intend to submit this at the end of next week (the 29th) and that this will be submitted on Hulldom.

[Maowi]

"Given the nature of the arguments used - which mostly ask for more stringent regulation or for better regulation - we cannot support this repeal without an improved replacement ready.

Alarmed that the standards “specific to each nation” are left intentionally vague in that potential requirements are not specified and thus, they carry a potential for abuse by the World Assembly Forest Commission, hereafter referred to as the WAFC, and potential miscommunication to member states;

"This is for the most part a fair point, but I would advise removing the section about miscommunication - it seems like a weak argument and does not do the rest of the clause any favours.

Concerned that, while the mandate of the WAFC is inherently good, that the language of the “URGES” unintentionally confounds the goal of the resolution as "conservation" does not further the goal of sustainable practices in logging;

"I believe maximising the area of forest in which logging cannot take place, and ensuring that the most environmentally sensitive areas are protected from the practice, is consistent with the overall goals of the target resolution. On a grammatical note, you should eliminate one of the two "that"s from the clause."

[Boston Castle]

"Given the nature of the arguments used - which mostly ask for more stringent regulation or for better regulation - we cannot support this repeal without an improved replacement ready.

Alarmed that the standards “specific to each nation” are left intentionally vague in that potential requirements are not specified and thus, they carry a potential for abuse by the World Assembly Forest Commission, hereafter referred to as the WAFC, and potential miscommunication to member states;

"This is for the most part a fair point, but I would advise removing the section about miscommunication - it seems like a weak argument and does not do the rest of the clause any favours.

Concerned that, while the mandate of the WAFC is inherently good, that the language of the “URGES” unintentionally confounds the goal of the resolution as "conservation" does not further the goal of sustainable practices in logging;

"I believe maximising the area of forest in which logging cannot take place, and ensuring that the most environmentally sensitive areas are protected from the practice, is consistent with the overall goals of the target resolution. On a grammatical note, you should eliminate one of the two "that"s from the clause."

"Noted on both points, Ambassador. I have edited the Concerned clause accordingly and deleted the bit about miscommunication in the Alarmed clause."

On an OOC Note: I don't intend to write the replacement, it's not my area of expertise.

[Honeydewistania]

I don't understand the insistence on the inclusion of using the preamble as a repeal hook.

[Boston Castle]

I don't understand the insistence on the inclusion of using the preamble as a repeal hook.

I can remove it, but I think it's a nice segue. Will do though in removing it.

[Ransium]

I still do not feel the original proposal merits repeal, and will certainly not support this repeal without a replacement in the wings.

[Boston Castle]

I still do not feel the original proposal merits repeal, and will certainly not support this repeal without a replacement in the wings.

Absolutely fine. As I said, not my area of expertise, so anyone who wants to write a replacement is certainly able to. I, however, will not.

[Refuge Isle]

I have zero qualms about repealing and replacing flawed environmental resolutions, as I’ve done so myself. That said, I am not convinced by your arguments and do not think the original needs replacement.

Echoing Ransium here. The target does not need to be repealed.

If you see legislation that you wished were stronger in certain areas or more preferential to your ideals, you should be able to demonstrate what an improvement would look like. Bad ideas pass in this chamber by waves of populism often enough, but when it comes to relatively uncontroversial and long-standing legislation, anyone can point a finger and say "bad". It's grossly optimistic to expect people to come in afterwards and sweep things up that are broken needlessly.

If you genuinely cared about the topic, then you would be able to research an appropriate replacement. If you're unable to do that, then there's nothing lost by leaving it here until such time. As of now, you are forcing the political question "Shall we have #291 or nothing?". There's no guarantee that a replacement would be produced, or that it would be any better than the original. This is not a gamble everyone is willing to take.

No support from me.

[Boston Castle]

I have zero qualms about repealing and replacing flawed environmental resolutions, as I’ve done so myself. That said, I am not convinced by your arguments and do not think the original needs replacement.

Echoing Ransium here. The target does not need to be repealed.

If you see legislation that you wished were stronger in certain areas or more preferential to your ideals, you should be able to demonstrate what an improvement would look like. Bad ideas pass in this chamber by waves of populism often enough, but when it comes to relatively uncontroversial and long-standing legislation, anyone can point a finger and say "bad". It's grossly optimistic to expect people to come in afterwards and sweep things up that are broken needlessly.

If you genuinely cared about the topic, then you would be able to research an appropriate replacement. If you're unable to do that, then there's nothing lost by leaving it here until such time. As of now, you are forcing the political question "Shall we have #291 or nothing?". There's no guarantee that a replacement would be produced, or that it would be any better than the original. This is not a gamble everyone is willing to take.

No support from me.

I agree with Ransium that a replacement should be at least in the drafting process before this repeal is submitted. Perfectly fine with that.
And while I agree with the idea here, I have a real life too and I have other proposals I'm working on/will work on. I don't particularly care who decides to write the thing so long as it's written, but quite honestly, the burden is not on me to satisfy everyone here and nor is it on me to write the replacement for a proposal I'm going to repeal.

If this is your place of expertise, or would like it to be, have at it(!), but it's not mine and I have no intention of writing a sorry piece of legislation on an issue I know next to nothing about and which, in rl policy, bores me to tears.