NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Promoting Sustainable Timber

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

[DRAFT] Promoting Sustainable Timber

Postby Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:29 am

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Logging

The General Assembly

Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production;

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

Hereby

Prohibits the import into member nations from any source timber, or products made from timber, produced in a way that is not compliant with the World Assembly legislation in force at that time.

Tasks the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC), in conjunction with the World Assembly Endangered Species Committee, with assisting member nations to comply with this prohibition by
(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 of World Assembly environmental legislation in force at that time.
(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.
Last edited by Uan aa Boa on Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:18 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:29 am

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.
Last edited by Uan aa Boa on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4924
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:37 am

OOC:
Uan aa Boa wrote: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.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:38 am

Wrapper wrote:OOC:
Uan aa Boa wrote: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?

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4924
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:48 am

I think the clause reads fine without it:

Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production;
Last edited by Wrapper on Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7087
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:45 am

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.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Delegate for Europe
Her Excellency Elsie Mortimer Wellesley PC MP
Ideological Bulwark 285

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10920
Founded: May 14, 2007
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:57 am

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

Imperium Anglorum wrote:*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.
Last edited by Araraukar on Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"My nation may not always be in the WA, but that hasn't stopped me from meddling in its affairs." - Miss Janis Leveret, Araraukarian ambassador, wielder of the Proposal ScalpelTM and a flamethrower
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, aide to miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7087
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:00 am

Araraukar wrote:argument.

What argument? All I see are facts.

Delegate for Europe
Her Excellency Elsie Mortimer Wellesley PC MP
Ideological Bulwark 285

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10920
Founded: May 14, 2007
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:04 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
Last edited by Araraukar on Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"My nation may not always be in the WA, but that hasn't stopped me from meddling in its affairs." - Miss Janis Leveret, Araraukarian ambassador, wielder of the Proposal ScalpelTM and a flamethrower
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, aide to miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4924
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:12 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:48 am

Araraukar wrote: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.

Araraukar wrote: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?

User avatar
New Fakeland
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Sep 29, 2013
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby New Fakeland » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:05 am

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?

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:56 pm

New Fakeland wrote: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.

User avatar
Ransium
Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 3633
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Ransium » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:11 pm

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.
Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, and GA 403.
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 13 issues. Editor of 42, including co-editor of "The Enemy Within" Chain.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017.

User avatar
Tzorsland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 826
Founded: May 08, 2004
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tzorsland » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:23 pm

OOC:
Wrapper wrote:OOC:
Uan aa Boa wrote: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.

Wrapper wrote: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.

Araraukar wrote: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.
Last edited by Tzorsland on Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"A spindizzy going sour makes the galaxy's most unnerving noise!"
"Cruise lightspeed smooth and slient with this years sleek NEW Dillon-Wagoner gravitron polarity generator."
AKA Retired WerePenguins Frustrated Franciscans Blue Booted Bobbies A Running Man Dirty Americans

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10920
Founded: May 14, 2007
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:00 am

Tzorsland wrote: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.
"My nation may not always be in the WA, but that hasn't stopped me from meddling in its affairs." - Miss Janis Leveret, Araraukarian ambassador, wielder of the Proposal ScalpelTM and a flamethrower
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, aide to miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2825
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:41 am

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.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Tzorsland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 826
Founded: May 08, 2004
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tzorsland » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:37 am

Sciongrad wrote: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.
"A spindizzy going sour makes the galaxy's most unnerving noise!"
"Cruise lightspeed smooth and slient with this years sleek NEW Dillon-Wagoner gravitron polarity generator."
AKA Retired WerePenguins Frustrated Franciscans Blue Booted Bobbies A Running Man Dirty Americans

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10920
Founded: May 14, 2007
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:59 am

Sciongrad wrote: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.
"My nation may not always be in the WA, but that hasn't stopped me from meddling in its affairs." - Miss Janis Leveret, Araraukarian ambassador, wielder of the Proposal ScalpelTM and a flamethrower
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, aide to miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7087
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:27 am

Tzorsland wrote: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.

Delegate for Europe
Her Excellency Elsie Mortimer Wellesley PC MP
Ideological Bulwark 285

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10920
Founded: May 14, 2007
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:33 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
"My nation may not always be in the WA, but that hasn't stopped me from meddling in its affairs." - Miss Janis Leveret, Araraukarian ambassador, wielder of the Proposal ScalpelTM and a flamethrower
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, aide to miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4924
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:47 am

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.

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2825
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:53 am

Araraukar wrote:
Sciongrad wrote: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.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 1778
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:26 pm

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.

Araraukar wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10920
Founded: May 14, 2007
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:35 pm

Bananaistan wrote: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? :P
"My nation may not always be in the WA, but that hasn't stopped me from meddling in its affairs." - Miss Janis Leveret, Araraukarian ambassador, wielder of the Proposal ScalpelTM and a flamethrower
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, aide to miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

Next

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Araraukar, Nalkristan

Remove ads