NationStates Jolt Archive

My proposal is on page 6 and is named "The Loss of Forest Habitat".

Well, I think it's good...

QUESTION OF: The Loss of Habitat for Endangered Species
SUBMITTED BY: Belmorian Scandinavia
CO-SUBMITTED BY:

THE GENERAL ASSEBLY

Defines endangered species as “a species, which number of individuals in its normal environment declines steadily and nears zero” ,
Defines blanket foresting as “The total deforestation of a large square area”,
Defines sustainable forestry as the practice of cutting trees in strips as to let the trees on each side of the strip reseed the strip which is cut down”,
Bearing in mind that both Fauna and Flora can be endangered species, and neither should be overlooked,
Deeply distressed by large amounts of forest being cut down by forest using blanket foresting techniques,
Worried about the large amount of plant life destroyed as a direct result of deforestation,
Noting with approval the technique of “sustainable forestry” which has been successfully installed among many companies,
Notes that Sustainable Forestry easily restores habitat for endangered species giving them a better chance of survival,
Defines an area of environmental significance as “an area or place, which is the home or habitat to one or more endangered species,
Encouraged by the large amount of nations building breeding programmes to ensure the survival of endangered species,
Cognizant that forestry is at the heart of many nations’ economies,
Deeply distressed that each day, 40 to 250 species become extinct as a direct result of deforestation,
1. Suggests that companies practising “sustainable forestry” techniques are given tax incentives to entice more to do the same;
2. Calls for member states to help endangered species breeding programmes to be run by their citizens;
3. Asks nations to promote awareness campaigns among their citizens and businesses as to try and curb mal-practises that leads to the death of a species;
4. Further Suggests in connection with clause 3, that awareness is raised using television and radio advertisements along with billboard promotions;
5. Urges nations to charge companies who deforest areas of environmental significance higher fees in order to lower the amount of damage done to endangered species;
6. Further Suggests that companies using blanket foresting techniques replant two trees in a fertile area for every tree they cut down;
7. Further Urges nations to illegalise the destruction of endangered flora such as Acacia Peuce and Euclea Pseudebenus.

But I'll leave you to make up your own minds. Comments are welcomed.

We like your sugestions, but the definitions are still too vague. We do not know how the delegates will react to it. Either way, Hazatak supports it, and would vote Yes if it comes to voting.

We like environmental proposals. Environmental proposals are good. But the Replanting Trees and Save the Forests of the World resolutions already cover some of this ground:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/98880/page=UN_past_resolutions

We're all for the spirit of the proposal, but your definitions are waaay too loose.

Defines sustainable forestry as the practice of cutting trees in strips as to let the trees on each side of the strip reseed the strip which is cut down”,

There are other methods of sustainable forestry than strip logging, and even as a definition of strip logging this is vague. Most importantly, there's no definition of the width of the strip; while the 'in order to' bit assumes that it'll be an appropriate width, we feel this should have been mandated a bit more strictly. Wide strips isolate populations and hence threaten species almost as much as clearfelling; in order to prevent this strips should be no wider than the gap in the canopy caused by the natural falling of a supercanopy tree.

My proposal is on page 6 and is named "The Loss of Forest Habitat".

6. Further Suggests that companies using blanket foresting techniques replant two trees in a fertile area for every tree they cut down;

I think this is an interesting proposal, even if one (which the respected ambassador from East Hackney has pointed out) already was passed.

I believe this is the text of resolution cited above:


If any individual, private or public enterprise cuts down over 5 acres of trees, they will be required to have the same number of trees replanted. The responsibility of replanting trees will be held directly by those who cut them down.


With this in mind, your proposal seeks to mitigate the damage due to logging by not just replacing 1 tree for every 1 tree cut down (as currently is in practice by all UN Members), but replacing 1 tree for every 2 trees cut down.

This will come as no shock to this body, but my nation feels that straight ratios are not always appropriate. Your 2:1 ratio is in my experienced opinion better for the environment than the previous 1:1 ratio. With that in mind, my nation feels that with a rewrite that this could be a very important resolution (and should it get enough votes to become a resolution as is, I'm leaning towards voting yes).

I don't know how this all works with respect to logging, but I'm sure somebody here can talk about that.


That said, I'm gonna do another quick FAQ, to illustrate my country's general position on mitigation policies like the above:


Q: What does mitigation mean?

Mitigation is the word used by many government agencies across the world (OOC: well at least in the US) to describe the practice of taking measures to reduce the harmful impacts of any project on the environment.


Q: Does mitigation reduce all of the impacts?

More often yes than no, but both answers are correct. Usually when mitigation is called for, it has to be realistic. In other words there is some flexibility on both ends. (OOC: In California, our California Environmental Quality Act: CEQA, which was adopted one year after the US's NEPA law, calls for appropriate mitigation measures, which in practice usually means government projects have try to reduce all impacts.)

Q: How decides what is a realistic mitigation measure?

Typically a public trust agency. (OOC: In California, this is again one of many different government departments that is by law given authority over that particular issue. The projects I work on come under the jurisdiction of California's Department of Fish and Game and State Water Resources Control Board ... one group worries about flora and fauna and the other about human health.) Usually experts in those agencies evalulate state level Environmental Impact Reports (this is the California version of the US Environmental Impact Statements ... two completely different documents) and then these experts recommend what mitigation measures they feel are realistic and which ones should be modified.


Q: What do mitigation measures look like?

Well, these change all the time! If you want to build reservoirs in a sensitivity area, a public trust agency may tell you not only to build as much wetland habitat as reservoir area, but the public trust agencies have gone as far as to put operational criteria on new reservoirs in order to protect the species that stay behind.

In the case of restoring levees, I've heard numbers of 1 tree removed means you must place IIRC 20 trees! Sounds like a lot, huh?


Q: Why a 20:1 ratio?

Simple. In the example I mentioned above, the trees were placed on a new levee that is exposed to extreme weather conditions. The biologists who issued a 20:1 ration felt that only 1 out of 20 trees would survive until adult hood.

Furthermore, in this example, should a mitigation tree die in a certain amount of time (i.e. the first several years), new trees then had to replace it. In other words, the mitigation called for at least one tree surviving.


All that said, when I read the old resolution calling for 1:1 replacement of trees before my nation joined the UN was not happy. That is basically bad science put into practice. When I read Belmore's proposal caling for 2:1 replacement I thought, "About time! This is somebody who understands that for every tree planted, you rarely get a full adult."

In other words, before people start telling Belmore that his / her proposal is unrealistic, this is another sound example (already in practice in many places) of sustainable development.

Good Job!
-10kMichael

Hazatak: I feel vaugueness is need because if you are too strict you will just muck things up. Though I am against freedom of companies I realise it is vital to accept all nations perspectives and we belive in pushing out the woodchipping industry via strict regulations is not what is best for every country.

Rehochipe: As I implied above, we must not become totalitarian. The Belmorian Empire respects soveriegn rights and we do not want to infringe on them. Therefor we think your comment on strip logging, though is great for your own country, is not a good idea for all countries.

Mikitivity: Thanks. I chose for a 2 to 1 as I did not want to destroy the woodchipping industry that, as I recognised in the preambulatory clauses, is in the centre of many nations economy.

So, I urge you to approve my resoltuion! It's right at the top of the current proposal list so you cant miss it! Help the environment today.

We understood the importance of this project to the world, and we aproved it in the final moments. But time was too short, and the aproval demand was still too high, we don´t have information about if it passed.