NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Sustainable Timber Standards

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

[PASSED] Sustainable Timber Standards

Postby Bisofeyr » Fri Aug 02, 2024 6:49 am

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Logging


The World Assembly,

Continuing its efforts to create long-term sustainability programs within the World Assembly's forests, and understanding contentions to protect small businesses and farmers, therefore enacts as follows:

  1. Every member must establish or otherwise maintain an agency responsible for ensuring any source of timber or timber products produced or sold in that member is sustainably-sourced. In the event of a multinational entity that accomplishes this goal exists, a member may defer or collaborate with that entity as opposed to creating their own agency (including, say, a comparable agency from another member). Each agency may determine specifics of what constitutes something being "sustainably sourced", but shall include at minimum the following:
    1. Any logging operation did not cause habitat fragmentation, insofar as it introduces or exacerbates discontinuities in the natural habitat of any flora or fauna.
    2. Timber sourced near water have appropriate measures taken to minimize soil erosion, protect water quality, and not disturb water-based ecosystems.
    3. All areas where timber is sourced from must be subject to post-logging site rehabilitation, which may include activities such as soil restoration, removing any logging residue, and restoring (to the best of the nation's ability) the area to its previous ecological significance, and any other activities deemed necessary.
    4. Reforestation has occurred at an equal or greater rate than the number of trees deforested to source the timber.
  2. No agency, as established in clause one of this resolution, shall approve any timber or timber product for sale which is not sourced sustainably, or in which they cannot track with confidence if it was sourced sustainably. Agencies may create temporary exceptions to this clause for the sale of timber or timber products, if the timber is domestically sourced from land clearing for essential infrastructural or agricultural purposes, provided that clearing such land could not be reasonably avoided and new trees have been afforested at an equal or greater rate than the number of trees deforested.

  3. No member, or entity therein, shall allow the sale of any timber or timber products within its borders which is not ensured for sale pursuant to clause one of this resolution by a relevant certification agency. Additionally, no member, or entity therein, shall allow the export or import of any timber or timber products from its borders of any timber which is not approved for sale pursuant to clause one of this resolution by a relevant certification agency.

  4. Agencies, as established in clause one of this resolution, must submit annual reports to the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC), detailing all timber approved and denied, in order to track general trends surrounding the timber and lumber industries, as well as track rates of deforestation and the impacts thereof. The WAFC may request additional information about the approval processes from agencies carrying out the provisions of this resolution and, if those approval processes constitute something which does not effectively and in good-faith ensure sustainability from timber and timber-based products, mandate that the agency change its criteria to increase efficacy.

  5. Timber or timber products produced before the passage of this resolution by the World Assembly, or prior to a member's initial entry into the World Assembly, shall not be subject to the provisions of this resolution.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Tue Jan 28, 2025 10:26 am, edited 7 times in total.
Reason: Added category and affected industry
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Zetaopalatopia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 364
Founded: Aug 19, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Zetaopalatopia » Fri Aug 02, 2024 2:16 pm

How would timber harvested from an area of old growth that was cleared with the intent for development, and not logging, be classed as it would not fall under sustainable? Would it be disallowed sale or export? If that is the case how would the country or company that cleared the land dispose of it? Simply burn it as unusable waste refuse? Shall all wood proven to be from an unsustainable source be disposed of via landfill or fire as well?
What's this signature thing do?
Unofficial warnings: 1
Personal moto(s):
Always do your best to push the line, but never cross it if you aren't ready for what comes next.
- Myself
The result justifies the deed. (Exitus acta probat)
- Ovid

Mad, adj. Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence.
-Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Fri Aug 02, 2024 4:52 pm

Zetaopalatopia wrote:How would timber harvested from an area of old growth that was cleared with the intent for development, and not logging, be classed as it would not fall under sustainable? Would it be disallowed sale or export? If that is the case how would the country or company that cleared the land dispose of it? Simply burn it as unusable waste refuse? Shall all wood proven to be from an unsustainable source be disposed of via landfill or fire as well?

It would be unsustainable, but the entity performing the infrastructure may request an exemption from the WAFC.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2611
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Sat Aug 03, 2024 5:35 am

(OOC)

It isn't about infrastructure, unless you are using a very broad definition of "infrastructure".

As far as I am concerned, the main issue with the resolution passed is fairness: is it fair that countries that retained old growth forests (say southern Papua New Guinea IRL) have to stop chopping down trees, while countries that chopped down their trees before the resolution passed (IRL, any country that chopped down their forests say 200 years ago, or 2,000 years ago, like China, or Great Britain* - which has only 13% forest cover, or Japan since the Edo era) have plenty of farmland to themselves?

The resolution suddenly snaps into place an injustice, in that countries that kept old growth forests can't chop them down, while countries that chopped theirs before the resolution passed get a free ride.

*I don't have the numbers for Northern Ireland.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Sat Aug 03, 2024 5:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
(It).

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sat Aug 03, 2024 7:44 am

Simone Republic wrote:(OOC)

It isn't about infrastructure, unless you are using a very broad definition of "infrastructure".

As far as I am concerned, the main issue with the resolution passed is fairness: is it fair that countries that retained old growth forests (say southern Papua New Guinea IRL) have to stop chopping down trees, while countries that chopped down their trees before the resolution passed (IRL, any country that chopped down their forests say 200 years ago, or 2,000 years ago, like China, or Great Britain* - which has only 13% forest cover, or Japan since the Edo era) have plenty of farmland to themselves?

The resolution suddenly snaps into place an injustice, in that countries that kept old growth forests can't chop them down, while countries that chopped theirs before the resolution passed get a free ride.

*I don't have the numbers for Northern Ireland.

Sure, but the extant resolution doesn't even regulate chopping down old-growth forests, it simply prevents profiteering based off of that. Honestly, I wish it could go further but actual attempts to instill specific regulations was shot down with little to no feedback, so this was the compromise. The contention your repeal brings up is that forbidding profit from inevitably deforestation is not equitable, which this replacement would allow for.

If a nation needs farmland, I would deem that "critical infrastructure" making them eligible to sell their timber rendered from the deforestation under this replacement; if they're doing it for, say, some arbitrary and unnecessary item, it would likely not qualify; maybe it's slightly "unfair" in the sense that already-deforested nations are not prevented from creating such arbitrary buildings on their comparable land, but the degree to which that is true is vastly less than you claim, and any negative derived from that is exceeded from the environmental benefit of retaining old-growth forests.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Zetaopalatopia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 364
Founded: Aug 19, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Zetaopalatopia » Sat Aug 03, 2024 8:56 am

Bisofeyr wrote:
Simone Republic wrote:(OOC)

It isn't about infrastructure, unless you are using a very broad definition of "infrastructure".

As far as I am concerned, the main issue with the resolution passed is fairness: is it fair that countries that retained old growth forests (say southern Papua New Guinea IRL) have to stop chopping down trees, while countries that chopped down their trees before the resolution passed (IRL, any country that chopped down their forests say 200 years ago, or 2,000 years ago, like China, or Great Britain* - which has only 13% forest cover, or Japan since the Edo era) have plenty of farmland to themselves?

The resolution suddenly snaps into place an injustice, in that countries that kept old growth forests can't chop them down, while countries that chopped theirs before the resolution passed get a free ride.

*I don't have the numbers for Northern Ireland.

Sure, but the extant resolution doesn't even regulate chopping down old-growth forests, it simply prevents profiteering based off of that. Honestly, I wish it could go further but actual attempts to instill specific regulations was shot down with little to no feedback, so this was the compromise. The contention your repeal brings up is that forbidding profit from inevitably deforestation is not equitable, which this replacement would allow for.

If a nation needs farmland, I would deem that "critical infrastructure" making them eligible to sell their timber rendered from the deforestation under this replacement; if they're doing it for, say, some arbitrary and unnecessary item, it would likely not qualify; maybe it's slightly "unfair" in the sense that already-deforested nations are not prevented from creating such arbitrary buildings on their comparable land, but the degree to which that is true is vastly less than you claim, and any negative derived from that is exceeded from the environmental benefit of retaining old-growth forests.


I say ANY development that happens to be in an old growth area should be allowed the exemption. After all the mega malls and theme parks need to clear as much land as would a farm. More even to keep up with all the parking a destination attraction would require. To disallow the selling of the cleared wood would harm the many types of development projects by removing a source of potential income during startup. Not to mention the wood needs to be disposed of regardless so better to use it for something and make a profit off the labor it took to clear cut the area.

Sure, ban logging an old growth forest for the timber alone, I can approve of that.

This proposal does not state what is to happen to lumber marked as non sustainable, simply stating it can not be sold. there is no actual prevention of it's harvest, just a reduction of a potential profit avenue. Would electricity created from unsustainable timber count as a timber product?
What's this signature thing do?
Unofficial warnings: 1
Personal moto(s):
Always do your best to push the line, but never cross it if you aren't ready for what comes next.
- Myself
The result justifies the deed. (Exitus acta probat)
- Ovid

Mad, adj. Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence.
-Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:57 am

Hmmm, I may have a reasonable solution which would give a presumptive exemption to infrastructural development, but in the case of reckless or excessive deforestation, gives standing to individuals affected to remedy the situation. I'll work on drafting something to this effect up.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2611
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Mon Aug 05, 2024 1:06 am

Bisofeyr wrote:but the degree to which that is true is vastly less than you claim


(OOC)

Not true. It took me awhile to get IA's point but this riles me to no end. Folks in parts of South America, Papua New Guinea and I think quite a few other places are going to be riled by that point.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Mon Aug 05, 2024 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
(It).

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sun Aug 11, 2024 12:33 pm

Simone Republic wrote:
Bisofeyr wrote:but the degree to which that is true is vastly less than you claim


(OOC)

Not true. It took me awhile to get IA's point but this riles me to no end. Folks in parts of South America, Papua New Guinea and I think quite a few other places are going to be riled by that point.

Sure, but this replacement resolution addresses that.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:00 pm

Bumping this
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23004
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:37 pm

"The repeal to which this responds reasonably demonstrated concern for a lack of allowance for necessary land clearing. Most civilizations cannot maintain settlement infrastructure in heavily forested areas, nor can they cultivate essential agricultural staples in forests. It is essential in a heavily forested territory to be able to clear some amount of land for these developments. This would require all timber taken from such clearing to be turned to waste, not only incurring significant financial burdens to all involved but also exacerbating global reliance on unsustainable timber trade."
She walked into my office on legs as long as one of those long-legged birds that you see in Florida – the pink ones, not the white ones – except that she was standing on both of them, not just one of them, like those birds, the pink ones, and she wasn’t wearing pink, but I knew right away that she was trouble, which those birds usually aren’t.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Despotic Hegemon, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2611
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Sun Oct 06, 2024 11:05 pm

"Ditto Wally," says a bear who is tearing another wolf from limb to limb. "Actually, ditto IA... Oh wait, what's their ambassadors ' names again?"

"
Wallenburg wrote:"The repeal to which this responds reasonably demonstrated concern for a lack of allowance for necessary land clearing. Most civilizations cannot maintain settlement infrastructure in heavily forested areas, nor can they cultivate essential agricultural staples in forests. It is essential in a heavily forested territory to be able to clear some amount of land for these developments. This would require all timber taken from such clearing to be turned to waste, not only incurring significant financial burdens to all involved but also exacerbating global reliance on unsustainable timber trade."
(It).

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:09 am

I have reverted the exceptions change (so that it is the same as the previously submitted version), and removed the regulation of old growth forests. This change pains me but I figure it's a bit of a poisoned well at this point. In the future, I may look into writing another proposal surrounding strong sustainability of forests, but this can be separate from that for now, so as to allow some sort of positive regulation to be on the books again in the near future.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Fishelle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 194
Founded: Apr 18, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby Fishelle » Sat Oct 12, 2024 10:55 am

Fully against.
Whatever News!: Simonia Man splatters pink paint over a pile of beans in Politics Land!

Some NS Stats and Policies have had their existential fabrics warped to the point where they crumpled up and turned into a large population of cod.
Capitalism has been restored. Of course, none of the socialism was canon, but we finally did over with that blight.
I reserve the right to /stillme low effort posts and summies.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sat Dec 07, 2024 1:36 pm

A few minor changes have been made to make this more comprehensive, in late of the (seemingly likely-to-pass) repeal effort.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2611
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Sun Dec 08, 2024 8:04 pm

Bisofeyr wrote:A few minor changes have been made to make this more comprehensive, in late of the (seemingly likely-to-pass) repeal effort.


I think Wally's point above is still pertinent.
(It).

User avatar
Midlona
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 140
Founded: Jan 20, 2023
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Midlona » Sun Dec 08, 2024 11:42 pm

Midlona supports, in principle, this resolution as a replacement for GAR #291, and suggests the following changes.

Clause 7 is meant to provide for the productive use of timber resulting from land-clearing, and hopefully addresses Wallenburg and Simone Republic's concerns.

The World Assembly,

Continuing its efforts to create advance the long-term sustainability programs within the World Assembly's of forests,; and

Recognizing understanding contentions the need to protect small businesses and farmers,;

therefore Hereby enacts as follows:

1. Every Each member-state must establish, or otherwise maintain, an agency responsible for to ensuring certify that any source of all timber or and timber products produced or sold in that member its jurisdiction is are sustainably sourced.

    a. In the event of a multinational entity that accomplishes this goal exists, a mMember-states may defer to or collaborate with that entity multinational entities or a comparable agency from another member-state to provide such certification as opposed to creating their own agency (including, say, a comparable agency from another member).

    b. Each certification agency may determine specifics of what constitutes something being establish its own definition of "sustainably sourced", but shall include at minimum the following provided such definition ensures:

      1. Any lLogging operations did do not cause or contribute to habitat fragmentation, insofar as it such operations introduces or exacerbates discontinuities in the natural habitat of any flora or fauna.

      2. [Strike]Timber sourced Logging operations near waterways have take appropriate measures taken to minimize soil erosion, protect water quality, and not disturb preserve water-based ecosystems.

      3. All areas where utilized for timber logging operations is sourced from must be subject to undergo post-logging site rehabilitation, which may include but is not limited to, activities such as soil restoration, removing any removal of logging residue, and restoring (to the best of the nation's ability) the area to its previous ecological significance ecological restoration to prior conditions where feasible, and any other activities measures deemed necessary appropriate.

2. Member-states shall ensure that the rate of reforestation within their jurisdiction exceeds the rate of deforestation resulting from logging operations.

3. Each member-state must ensure timber and timber products for sale, imported to, or exported from in its jurisdiction are certified as sustainably sourced by its certification agency.

4. Certification agencies must submit annual reports to the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC), detailing all timber and timber products approved certified, and those denied certification.

5. The WAFC shall:

    a. in order totrack general trends surrounding the timber and lumber industries,;

    b.as well as trackmonitor rates of deforestation and the impacts thereof.;

    c. ensure the certification process and definition of "sustainably sourced" implemented by certification agencies are reasonable and tailored in good faith to ensure the sustainability of forest environments and timber industries;

    d. request additional information from a certification agency to ascertain the efficacy of its definition;[/color]

    e. mandate that a certification agency alter its certification process or definition of "sustainably sourced" to increase efficacy.

6. Timber or and timber products produced before the passage of this resolution this resolution's enactment by the World Assembly, or prior to a member-state's initial entry into the World Assembly, shall not be subject to the provisions of this resolution.

7. Member-states may permit timber obtained from necessary land clearing for settlement, infrastructure, or agricultural purposes to be certified, provided that:
    a. such clearing is essential and cannot reasonably be avoided;
    b. the resulting timber is utilized to reduce waste; and
    c. the clearing entity utilizes reasonable ecological offset measures, such as reforestation or habitat restoration.

The World Assembly,

Continuing its efforts to advance the long-term sustainability of forests;

Recognizing the need to protect small businesses and farmers;

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. Each member-state must establish, or otherwise maintain, an agency to certify all timber and timber products produced or sold in its jurisdiction are sustainably sourced.
    a Member-states may defer to or collaborate with multinational entities or a comparable agency from another member-state to provide such certification.
    b. Each certification agency may establish its own definition of "sustainably sourced", provided such definition ensures:
      1.logging operations do not cause habitat fragmentation, insofar as such operations introduce or exacerbate discontinuities in the natural habitat of any flora or fauna;
      2. logging operations near waterways take appropriate measures to minimize soil erosion, protect water quality, and preserve water-based ecosystems; and
      3.all areas utilized for logging operations undergo post-logging site rehabilitation, which may include, but is not limited to, soil restoration, removal of logging residue, ecological restoration to prior conditions where feasible, and any other measures deemed appropriate.

2. Member-states shall ensure that the rate of reforestation within their jurisdiction exceeds the rate of deforestation resulting from logging operations.

3. Each member-state must ensure timber and timber products for sale in, imported to, or exported from its jurisdiction are certified as sustainably sourced by a certification agency.

4. Certification agencies shall submit annual reports to the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) detailing all timber and timber products certified, and those denied certification.

5. The WAFC shall:
    a. track general trends surrounding timber and lumber industries;
    b. monitor rates of deforestation and the impacts thereof;
    c. ensure the certification process and definition of "sustainably sourced" implemented by certification agencies are reasonable and tailored in good faith to ensure the sustainability of forest environments and timber industries;
    d. request additional information from a certification agency to ascertain the efficacy of its definition, when necessary; and
    e. advise deficient certification agencies to alter their certification process or definition of "sustainably sourced" to increase efficacy, when necessary.

6. Timber and timber products produced before this resolution's enactment, or prior to a member-state's entry into the World Assembly, shall not be subject to the provisions of this resolution.

7. Certification agencies may certify timber obtained from necessary land clearing for settlement, infrastructure, or agricultural purposes, provided that:
    a. such clearing is essential and cannot reasonably be avoided;
    b. the resulting timber is utilized to reduce waste; and
    c. the clearing entity utilizes reasonable ecological offset measures, such as reforestation or habitat restoration.
Last edited by Midlona on Mon Dec 09, 2024 2:44 am, edited 5 times in total.
Office of the Ambassador to the World Assembly
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
, The Federal Republic of Midlona




"Those that deny fundamental truth do so to peddle falsehoods, often dangerous ones."

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Mon Dec 16, 2024 1:27 pm

Midlona wrote:Midlona supports, in principle, this resolution as a replacement for GAR #291, and suggests the following changes.

Clause 7 is meant to provide for the productive use of timber resulting from land-clearing, and hopefully addresses Wallenburg and Simone Republic's concerns.

The World Assembly,

Continuing its efforts to create advance the long-term sustainability programs within the World Assembly's of forests,; and

Recognizing understanding contentions the need to protect small businesses and farmers,;

therefore Hereby enacts as follows:

1. Every Each member-state must establish, or otherwise maintain, an agency responsible for to ensuring certify that any source of all timber or and timber products produced or sold in that member its jurisdiction is are sustainably sourced.

    a. In the event of a multinational entity that accomplishes this goal exists, a mMember-states may defer to or collaborate with that entity multinational entities or a comparable agency from another member-state to provide such certification as opposed to creating their own agency (including, say, a comparable agency from another member).

    b. Each certification agency may determine specifics of what constitutes something being establish its own definition of "sustainably sourced", but shall include at minimum the following provided such definition ensures:

      1. Any lLogging operations did do not cause or contribute to habitat fragmentation, insofar as it such operations introduces or exacerbates discontinuities in the natural habitat of any flora or fauna.

      2. [Strike]Timber sourced Logging operations near waterways have take appropriate measures taken to minimize soil erosion, protect water quality, and not disturb preserve water-based ecosystems.

      3. All areas where utilized for timber logging operations is sourced from must be subject to undergo post-logging site rehabilitation, which may include but is not limited to, activities such as soil restoration, removing any removal of logging residue, and restoring (to the best of the nation's ability) the area to its previous ecological significance ecological restoration to prior conditions where feasible, and any other activities measures deemed necessary appropriate.

2. Member-states shall ensure that the rate of reforestation within their jurisdiction exceeds the rate of deforestation resulting from logging operations.

3. Each member-state must ensure timber and timber products for sale, imported to, or exported from in its jurisdiction are certified as sustainably sourced by its certification agency.

4. Certification agencies must submit annual reports to the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC), detailing all timber and timber products approved certified, and those denied certification.

5. The WAFC shall:

    a. in order totrack general trends surrounding the timber and lumber industries,;

    b.as well as trackmonitor rates of deforestation and the impacts thereof.;

    c. ensure the certification process and definition of "sustainably sourced" implemented by certification agencies are reasonable and tailored in good faith to ensure the sustainability of forest environments and timber industries;

    d. request additional information from a certification agency to ascertain the efficacy of its definition;[/color]

    e. mandate that a certification agency alter its certification process or definition of "sustainably sourced" to increase efficacy.

6. Timber or and timber products produced before the passage of this resolution this resolution's enactment by the World Assembly, or prior to a member-state's initial entry into the World Assembly, shall not be subject to the provisions of this resolution.

7. Member-states may permit timber obtained from necessary land clearing for settlement, infrastructure, or agricultural purposes to be certified, provided that:
    a. such clearing is essential and cannot reasonably be avoided;
    b. the resulting timber is utilized to reduce waste; and
    c. the clearing entity utilizes reasonable ecological offset measures, such as reforestation or habitat restoration.

The World Assembly,

Continuing its efforts to advance the long-term sustainability of forests;

Recognizing the need to protect small businesses and farmers;

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. Each member-state must establish, or otherwise maintain, an agency to certify all timber and timber products produced or sold in its jurisdiction are sustainably sourced.
    a Member-states may defer to or collaborate with multinational entities or a comparable agency from another member-state to provide such certification.
    b. Each certification agency may establish its own definition of "sustainably sourced", provided such definition ensures:
      1.logging operations do not cause habitat fragmentation, insofar as such operations introduce or exacerbate discontinuities in the natural habitat of any flora or fauna;
      2. logging operations near waterways take appropriate measures to minimize soil erosion, protect water quality, and preserve water-based ecosystems; and
      3.all areas utilized for logging operations undergo post-logging site rehabilitation, which may include, but is not limited to, soil restoration, removal of logging residue, ecological restoration to prior conditions where feasible, and any other measures deemed appropriate.

2. Member-states shall ensure that the rate of reforestation within their jurisdiction exceeds the rate of deforestation resulting from logging operations.

3. Each member-state must ensure timber and timber products for sale in, imported to, or exported from its jurisdiction are certified as sustainably sourced by a certification agency.

4. Certification agencies shall submit annual reports to the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) detailing all timber and timber products certified, and those denied certification.

5. The WAFC shall:
    a. track general trends surrounding timber and lumber industries;
    b. monitor rates of deforestation and the impacts thereof;
    c. ensure the certification process and definition of "sustainably sourced" implemented by certification agencies are reasonable and tailored in good faith to ensure the sustainability of forest environments and timber industries;
    d. request additional information from a certification agency to ascertain the efficacy of its definition, when necessary; and
    e. advise deficient certification agencies to alter their certification process or definition of "sustainably sourced" to increase efficacy, when necessary.

6. Timber and timber products produced before this resolution's enactment, or prior to a member-state's entry into the World Assembly, shall not be subject to the provisions of this resolution.

7. Certification agencies may certify timber obtained from necessary land clearing for settlement, infrastructure, or agricultural purposes, provided that:
    a. such clearing is essential and cannot reasonably be avoided;
    b. the resulting timber is utilized to reduce waste; and
    c. the clearing entity utilizes reasonable ecological offset measures, such as reforestation or habitat restoration.

I appreciate the suggestions. A lot of them I did not use, but I implemented a vaguely similar function to your suggested clause seven in order to appease the powers that be. It can now be seen in an expanded version of clause two.

I will look towards submission soonish.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2611
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Mon Dec 16, 2024 7:35 pm

Bisofeyr wrote:
Midlona wrote:*snip*

I appreciate the suggestions. A lot of them I did not use, but I implemented a vaguely similar function to your suggested clause seven in order to appease the powers that be. It can now be seen in an expanded version of clause two.

I will look towards submission soonish.


If a nation clears land for a mine (and blow up native artifacts at the same time, like Rio Tinto did in Western Australia, or kill the indigenous people and cause a civil war at the same time, like Rio Tinto did in Papua New Guinea) the timber is still wasted.

Clause 5 means members can exit for a day from the WA, authorise to chop all their trees down, and then rejoin.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Mon Dec 16, 2024 7:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.
(It).

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sun Dec 22, 2024 7:56 pm

Simone Republic wrote:
Bisofeyr wrote:I appreciate the suggestions. A lot of them I did not use, but I implemented a vaguely similar function to your suggested clause seven in order to appease the powers that be. It can now be seen in an expanded version of clause two.

I will look towards submission soonish.


If a nation clears land for a mine (and blow up native artifacts at the same time, like Rio Tinto did in Western Australia, or kill the indigenous people and cause a civil war at the same time, like Rio Tinto did in Papua New Guinea) the timber is still wasted.

Clause 5 means members can exit for a day from the WA, authorise to chop all their trees down, and then rejoin.

I mean it may not be the traditional use of the word, but mine-clearing would be considered essential infrastructural work imo.

You misread clause 5. It says "initial entry", meaning that a secondary entry does not qualify for the provision.

Submitting soon probably.
Last edited by Bisofeyr on Sun Dec 22, 2024 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Tue Dec 31, 2024 11:07 am

¡El golpe finale!
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13066
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:21 pm

Opposed.

There are two issues. The first is essentially that raised by Simone, which is that it entrenches historical inequities which permanently make some nations just have less farmland than other nations. If Biso wants to defend on the basis that they can chop them down... they just can't sell the timber for anything... then the forests are valued as literally zero and it's especially pointless. It just makes "it difficult for member nations to pay for the equipment and start-up costs associated with setting up those farms (that again are needed so to have land on which to grow food to feed people)". GA 749 Repeal "Timber Production and Sale Oversight". There is simply no reason to believe that "however much forest you have now" is the optimal amount of forest.

The second is that the proposal here creates an exception for "essential infrastructural or agricultural purposes" purposes, which is better than the last version even though there is no definition for "essential", but requires "that clearing such land could not be reasonably avoided and new trees have been afforested at an equal or greater rate than the number of trees deforested". This doesn't let member nations remove any forests for farmland or shelter purposes. It lets them move them around (or less charitably, destroy old growth forests and replace them with shittier new growth ones). In 8000 BC the European continent was essentially all forest; there's simply nowhere to put any of the things that people need – especially in terms of infrastructure and – in you cannot remove at least some of them.

The approach I would have gone with is that we set up an evaluation of a grid area of forest for sustainability of the biodiversity that lives there. Areas of forest can then be assessed on their value for sustaining that biodiversity and assigned a cost. As the amount of forest decreases, the marginal cost to the environment rises with spatial variation taken into account. Proceeds from the scheme can also be at the same time used to reforest lands with minimal non-forest value. An equilibrium should arise, which I'm not going to bother to solve analytically.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 59+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2611
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:05 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Opposed.

There are two issues. The first is essentially that raised by Simone, which is that it entrenches historical inequities which permanently make some nations just have less farmland than other nations. If Biso wants to defend on the basis that they can chop them down... they just can't sell the timber for anything... then the forests are valued as literally zero and it's especially pointless. It just makes "it difficult for member nations to pay for the equipment and start-up costs associated with setting up those farms (that again are needed so to have land on which to grow food to feed people)". GA 749 Repeal "Timber Production and Sale Oversight". There is simply no reason to believe that "however much forest you have now" is the optimal amount of forest.

The second is that the proposal here creates an exception for "essential infrastructural or agricultural purposes" purposes, which is better than the last version even though there is no definition for "essential", but requires "that clearing such land could not be reasonably avoided and new trees have been afforested at an equal or greater rate than the number of trees deforested". This doesn't let member nations remove any forests for farmland or shelter purposes. It lets them move them around (or less charitably, destroy old growth forests and replace them with shittier new growth ones). In 8000 BC the European continent was essentially all forest; there's simply nowhere to put any of the things that people need – especially in terms of infrastructure and – in you cannot remove at least some of them.

The approach I would have gone with is that we set up an evaluation of a grid area of forest for sustainability of the biodiversity that lives there. Areas of forest can then be assessed on their value for sustaining that biodiversity and assigned a cost. As the amount of forest decreases, the marginal cost to the environment rises with spatial variation taken into account. Proceeds from the scheme can also be at the same time used to reforest lands with minimal non-forest value. An equilibrium should arise, which I'm not going to bother to solve analytically.



Echo IA's comments above. IA, as usual, puts it better than I can.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Sat Jan 18, 2025 2:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
(It).

User avatar
Elyreia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 574
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Elyreia » Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:42 am

If Elyreia wanted to expand our agriculture, we'd be forced to try and grow replacement trees on rocky shoals or above the timber line in the mountains.

Good luck with that. Opposition at this time.
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki
Proud member of the Gay Furry Pacific Clique

World Assembly Ambassador: Dārilaros Korus Vaelans

GA Authorship: GA 763

User avatar
Cumulus
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Dec 17, 2024
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cumulus » Fri Jan 24, 2025 10:06 am

The nation of Cumulus supports this measure.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads