[PASSED] Promoting Sustainable Timber

[Uan aa Boa]

Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs

The General Assembly

Celebrating past achievements in promoting sustainable and responsible timber production;

Aware that the majority of nations, being outside the World Assembly, are not bound by its rules;

Concerned that purchasers in member nations are therefore buying cheaper timber and timber products from countries outside the World Assembly, to the detriment of their local forestry industry;

Aware that the environmental consequences of poor forestry management are not contained by national borders;

Resolute in its desire to protect jobs and increase prosperity within member nations;

Wishing, by means of trade, to encourage all nations to adopt higher environmental standards in timber production;

Hereby

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

Tasks the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) with assisting member nations to comply with this prohibition by
(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.
(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.

[Uan aa Boa]

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All businesses Logging

The General Assembly

Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production namely GA#66 Endangered Species Protection, GA#291 Sustainable Forest Management and GA#403 Trade of Endangered Organisms;

Aware that the majority of nations, being outside the World Assembly, are not bound by its rules and that the environmental consequences of deforestation are not contained by national borders;

Concerned that World Assembly legislation may be circumvented by outsourcing timber production to non-member nations;

Wishing to encourage all nations to adopt higher environmental standards in timber production;

Hereby

Tasks the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC), in conjunction with the World Assembly Endangered Species Committee, with
(a) inspecting, when invited by timber producers and with whatever governmental approval may be necessary, timber production in any nation and certifying it as a WAFC approved source if it satisfies all the requirements and recommendations of World Assembly environmental legislation currently in force.
(b) inspecting, when invited by manufacturers and with whatever governmental approval may be necessary, the manufacture of products using timber in any nation and certifying them as WAFC approved products if 100% of the timber used is from WAFC approved sources.

Requires all World Assembly member nations to prohibit the sale of products and timber described as WAFC approved unless they are genuinely so approved.

Urges all World Assembly member nations
(a) to use and require the use of WAFC approved timber and products in all works carried out by the government, its agents and contractors.
(b) to set tariffs and taxes so as to make WAFC approved timber and products no more expensive than comparable non-approved equivalents.
(c) to raise awareness of the WAFC approval scheme and encourage their citizens and companies to purchase WAFC approved timber and products.

[Wrapper]

OOC:

Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production, namely GA#66 Endangered Species Protection, GA#291 Sustainable Forest Management and GA#403 Trade of Endangered Organisms;

The underlined part violates the House of Cards rule.

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC:

Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production, namely GA#66 Endangered Species Protection, GA#291 Sustainable Forest Management and GA#403 Trade of Endangered Organisms;

The underlined part violates the House of Cards rule.

Thanks. Is it otherwise OK if I simply delete the list?

[Wrapper]

I think the clause reads fine without it:

Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production;

[Imperium Anglorum]

How could that list possibly 'rely on the existing resolutions to support it'? What, would repeal of those resolutions wipe their existence from history so thoroughly that nobody can remember that they never existed? The fact that legislation was passed in the past on some topic is not a mutable fact.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Wouldn't Environmental - Logging be a more appropriate AoE?

*snip*

Give it a rest. There's a whole discussion for that somewhere, you don't need to use someone's drafting thread to restart the argument.

[Imperium Anglorum]

argument.

What argument? All I see are facts.

[Araraukar]

All I see are facts.

OOC: So do I, but they disagree with your facts. Hence, argument.

EDIT: Uan, have you checked the last 2-3 times this has been tried? The same arguments are likely to come up. Arguments about the draft contents, I mean, not rules technicalities.

[Wrapper]

How could that list possibly 'rely on the existing resolutions to support it'? What, would repeal of those resolutions wipe their existence from history so thoroughly that nobody can remember that they never existed? The fact that legislation was passed in the past on some topic is not a mutable fact.

What are you going on about? The HoC rule has been interpreted the same way since its inception. Unless GenSec suddenly wants to change its interpretation, the unrevised clause is illegal.

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC: Wouldn't Environmental - Logging be a more appropriate AoE?

OOC - I wondered about that, but the proposal doesn't greatly strengthen the regulations on logging within WA member states. It primarily discourages the use of cheap imports from outside the WA that don't meet the standards, so I feel that since wooden products are fairly ubiquitous the impact would be on the economy as a whole.

Uan, have you checked the last 2-3 times this has been tried? The same arguments are likely to come up. Arguments about the draft contents, I mean, not rules technicalities.

To an extent, but I don't know how exhaustively. Are there particularly relevant threads you could point me to?

[New Fakeland]

You are probably aware of my opinion of this draft, but for the resolution of others here:

I feel that this resolution doesn't really achieve much; all it seems to require, is that wood cannot be mislabelled as WAFC wood, when it is not. The rest of the resolution (the "urge" statement) are simply recommendations, and have no power.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with the WAFC. Is this an organisation you intend to create, or one that has been created by a previous resolution, and if so, what failsafe do you have in place, if that previous resolution is repealed?

[Uan aa Boa]

I feel that this resolution doesn't really achieve much; all it seems to require, is that wood cannot be mislabelled as WAFC wood, when it is not. The rest of the resolution (the "urge" statement) are simply recommendations, and have no power.

I'm certainly open to making the urge clause mandatory depending on what feedback I get.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with the WAFC. Is this an organisation you intend to create, or one that has been created by a previous resolution, and if so, what failsafe do you have in place, if that previous resolution is repealed?

The WAFC was establsihed by GA#291 Sustainable Forest Management. I haven't planned for the repeal of that resolution and I note as precedent that the recent GA#403 Trade of Endangered Organisms adds responsibilities to an existing committee without apparent difficulty and I believe there are a number of other examples. I suppose that if this passed and GA#291 was later repealed then the WAFC would continue to exist with the duties this resolution gives it.

[Ransium]

I agree with changing the AOI to logging. In the end categories are tied to the stats the resolution should impact. There's no way this resolution has a broad impact on all industries that the present category implies, I think a impacting logging alone is much more appropriate.

[Tzorsland]

OOC:

OOC:

Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production, namely GA#66 Endangered Species Protection, GA#291 Sustainable Forest Management and GA#403 Trade of Endangered Organisms;

The underlined part violates the House of Cards rule.

This really needs to go to Gen Sec, enough is too much.

House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent.

HoC is not the same as "branding." Celebrating has no impact on supporting. You can celebrate the great resolutions in basket weaving in a resolution on the soda industry. So there is nothing in that statement that has the resolution require the past resolution to "support" the present resolution. Therefore it should be legal with or without the specific resolution references. Resolutions cannot be amended, so the resolution once passed can only be struck out; it can't be changed from one type of resolution to another. It is a historical fact and worthy to be celebrated.

This is one of the reasons why reasonable people don't write resolutions anymore.

What are you going on about? The HoC rule has been interpreted the same way since its inception. Unless GenSec suddenly wants to change its interpretation, the unrevised clause is illegal.

Please give solid examples where "Celebrating" clauses in proposals were struck down because of the HoC rule. The resolution is not supported by any other resolution. If the resolutions are repealed the resolution continues to stand on its own. As long as I have been here on NationStates, this has always been the proper interpretation of the House of Cards rule; whether a resolution can stand on its own when another resolution has been repealed.

Give it a rest. There's a whole discussion for that somewhere, you don't need to use someone's drafting thread to restart the argument.

I tell you, if he doesn't mention it, the very stones would shout it out loud.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This really needs to go to Gen Sec, enough is too much.

OOC: There's a thread for that discussion somewhere around here, I'm fairly sure, so please leave it out of this thread. Especially since, as you say, it's GenSec/rules stuff, not relevant to the effects of the proposal.

To author: The AoE change to logging is appropriate if you consider what kind of industry your active clauses restrict. It's logging because it's about timber. If it were solely about manufacturing, then that'd be more appropriate, but your main focus is the timber and its origin.

As for wood from endangered trees, doesn't clause 2 of GA #403, Trade Of Endangered Organisms already cover it? It specifically mentions export and import.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I would definitely encourage a challenge on the HoC rule. The wording of the rule doesn't seem to match how we have historically interpreted it. This is ripe for clarification.

[Tzorsland]

OOC: I would definitely encourage a challenge on the HoC rule. The wording of the rule doesn't seem to match how we have historically interpreted it. This is ripe for clarification.

OOC: Unfortunately, the author was eager to strike it out, and I don't have "standing" to force him to include it, so the challenge is moot unless the author wants to make such a challenge.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I would definitely encourage a challenge on the HoC rule. The wording of the rule doesn't seem to match how we have historically interpreted it. This is ripe for clarification.

OOC: USE THE DEDICATED DISCUSSION THREAD. Please.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Unfortunately, the author was eager to strike it out, and I don't have "standing" to force him to include it, so the challenge is moot unless the author wants to make such a challenge.

Then, I'll go for this, until such time that a challenge on this proposal is ruled upon: I will vote against this proposal if the author does not include that line. I will vote for this proposal if the author does include that line.

[Araraukar]

Then, I'll go for this, until such time that a challenge on this proposal is ruled upon: I will vote against this proposal if the author does not include that line. I will vote for this proposal if the author does include that line.

OOC: Stooping to vote blackmailing as a bully tactic is a new low even for you.

[Wrapper]

I've asked the author how to proceed. I'd like to split out the debate on the HoC rule, but now, with IA's ultimatum, I'm not sure I can. If the author chooses to retain the stricken clause, then the entire debate is relevant; if the author chooses not to, the debate is moot, and Ill split out the posts.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I would definitely encourage a challenge on the HoC rule. The wording of the rule doesn't seem to match how we have historically interpreted it. This is ripe for clarification.

OOC: USE THE DEDICATED DISCUSSION THREAD. Please.

OOC: Um, no. Discussing proposal challenges belong either in a separate challenge thread or the proposal's thread, not in a rule discussion thread.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: While this discussion on the HOC rule was interesting and is now irrelevant, I would point out that the committee only rule has not yet been changed. At the moment, I can't see anything here that mandates or urges any action by member states completely independent of the committee.

Then, I'll go for this, until such time that a challenge on this proposal is ruled upon: I will vote against this proposal if the author does not include that line. I will vote for this proposal if the author does include that line.

OOC: Stooping to vote blackmailing as a bully tactic is a new low even for you.

I agree.

[Araraukar]

OOC: At the moment, I can't see anything here that mandates or urges any action by member states completely independent of the committee.

OOC: The nations publishing a list of the manufacturers who only use WA-approved wood should be sufficient, then?