NationStates Jolt Archive

Thanks to every Delegate who has supported my proposal.

I only need a few more approvels, so if any Delegates have not viewed my proposal please take a look and give it the thumbs up.

Thanks

Hashtonia

What is the text of this proposal?

Illegal Logging

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Hashtonia

Description: Protected woodland is being destroyed by illegal loggers and this wood is being sold around the world for use by companies hoping to cut costs at the expense of the enviroment.

The following rules would help to stop illegal trade.

1. The formation of a World Woodland Protection Team, aka WWP.

2. A world reconised certificate of legal logging, given to companies approved by the WWP.

3. Annual and random checks on companies by the WWP, to check that companies are logging legally.

4. A world recongised stamp of approval on all products made using WWP certified wood.

5. Heavy fines and on any company using none WWP certified wood.

6. Revoking of trade licences for repeat offenders.

Approvals: 114

Isn't part of this concern already reaised by this:



A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Jacobstalia

Description: 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.

...resolution. And, I may be remembering wrong, but it seems to me that resolutions that require the creation of a new UN body were a little shady. I'm not sure, which is why I haven't deleted the proposal, but...

Ugh... I wonder if there is even a woodchipping and -cutting industry left with all these anti-treecutting resolutions here in the UN. :S

I mean... trees are nice but I think this UN is growing a LITTLE bit overprotective.

The problem in my government's opinion is that many NS UN resolutions are low in quality. They aren't carefully written, despite the fact that there are guides (OOC: like real UN resolutions) and poorly researched.

Many nations agree with the ideals. Some of these nations vote purely on ideals, but few share the ideals and vote against what is nothing but a DRAFT idea.

As for the Most Glorious Hack's bringing up the fact that previously we've dealt with the topic ... I'd agree in this case that the UN certainly has dealt with this problem before, but I'd go as far as to say that the previously passed resolution was poorly designed. My government holds the opinion that in practice that *that* particular resolution did not solve the problem.

With that in mind, I'd like to encourage Hashtonia to consider that his / her nation's efforts are not a repeat of a prior action, but should instead strive to improve upon the previous resolution.

10kMichael

Another big thankyou for everyones support.

At this moment i only need 7 more endorsments, so for those delegates who havn't had a chance to view my proposal yet, please take a look as it ends soon.

Thanks

Hashtonia

*fingers crossed*

When you are 20 endorsements away, that *is* an accomplishment. Not being a Delegate I can't endorse it, but with 7 left, I would encourage people to not allow your hard work to go to waste.

10kMichael

The People's Republic of Miko Mono calls on all U.N. members to oppose this ridiculous attempt by larger nations to govern, and ultimately control for their own necolonioalist purposes, the economies of smaller nations. We hereby issue a warning to the U.N. secretariat that any so-called "logging inspectors" found in our territory, should this resolution be passed, will be seen as spies and potential saboteurs and will be treated accordingly.

The Dominion of DataGenesis Commends the writer for a well planned resolution which will be supported by this nation.

The Nation of Diaopolitz would like to register its support for the Resolution submitted by Hashtonia on the Logging of Trees. As a nation, we are concious of the importance of the preservation of the environment for future generations.

Armean Van't Mire
Thay'acha of Diaopolitz

I think you ought to have to be able to spell before you are allowed to put resolutions up for vote. Though this may work to my advantage. I imagine I can, if this passes, circumvent this new hogwash based on the clerical errors.

I liked the spelling of "reconised"

I think you ought to have to be able to spell before you are allowed to put resolutions up for vote. Though this may work to my advantage. I imagine I can, if this passes, circumvent this new hogwash based on the clerical errors.

As for grammar and spelling errors ... I'm going to be a bit forgiving in light of the fact that normally a DRAFT would have been discussed, but with the problems with the servers, Hashatonia didn't have all the resources at their disposal as many other UN resolutions.

That said, when I write proposals, I do so in MS Word, which catches the most basic spelling errors. I'd receommend that everybody try using a word processing program first.

Of course, my own proposal as a small typo I caught and can't change ... I didn't is a [space] in a single location. No doubt there are other errors as well.

So spelling errors withstanding, are there are reasons to not support this resolution? I'm asking ... not trying to say I support or oppose this resolution, because my nation would like to feel out how the world feels on this issue.

Though the Most Glorious Hack has pointed out that we've enacted UN resolutions on woodchipping before. The question I have for nations, is how will these two resolutions interact?

Naturally heavily forested nations have the most at stake right now, but there is an "externality" (i.e. third party): nations which purchase woodchips and lumber.

Much to think about ... but I'm actually glad that we have the chance as a community to discuss these issues as equals (and without the evil censorship normally imposed by nations like Francos Spain and Great Bight -- boo hiss). ;)

10kMichael

Myself and my 6 votes went against this proposal. In theory it's a great idea, but realistically it's just another watch dog group to harass the free market.

So spelling errors withstanding, are there are reasons to not support this resolution? I'm asking ... not trying to say I support or oppose this resolution, because my nation would like to feel out how the world feels on this issue.

Why I'm not supporting it...

1. High costs of enforcement

2. What amounts to a UN-enforced monopoly on logging, eg they can't do business without the UN's say-so.

3. The fact that the UN shouldn't be trying to enforce an economic system among its members.

4. Near-impossibility of getting people to agree on a single standard of legal logging.

The Empire of Strandorp would like to express support for the intent of this resolution. However, the implementation is not one that we can support. We would rather see a program which allowed manufacturers to certify their products as being environmentally friendly. In this way, consumers could decide for themselves which brands to support without requiring nations to allow foreign inspectors to regulate their industry.

One point that was brought up in regional forum was:

I like the principle but there is nothing on the criteria for legal/illegal logging. This resolution could protect the environment--or it could set up a world monopoly which would license clear-cutting the tropics.

Yet another attempt to "prove" that all businesses are evil, and the only way to control their evilness is for the all-wise and altruistic UN to control all aspects of the business in question.

Vote no to the leftists

I am voting AGAINST this resolution. How I choose to allocate my nation's natural resources is nobody's business but my own, and there are laws in place in Greenspoint to enforce reasonable conservation of these resources. We do not desire nor need the United Nations telling us how to manage our forests.

It's interesting that there have been so many tree/environmental/forestry proposals in the last week or two. Ideally it would seem the UN should just pick the most comprehensive and flexible (the one the most people agree with), pass it, and be rid of the rest. But, of course, we don't operate an ideal UN. I'm not certain that this is the best of the "tree" proposals that have been or that are up for vote now. However, if there is any support for new UN resolution involving trees it might as well be invested here because it is wholly unlikely that A) this resolution will fail in the general assembly, B) that, when this resolution passes, delegates will even continue looking for a "tree" proposal to endorse and C) that the said proposal would than win enough votes in the general assembly to pass, having been voted on directly following this resolution. In a way a tragedy. But part of life--er--life in the UN.

If you support any "tree" issue, it's propably the most efficient use of your vote to vote FOR this resolution, even though it will probably eliminate the chances of survival of the "tree" resolution you favor.

I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be in my last post, so let me be more explicit:

This resolution seems appropriate and legitimate ideologically

This resolution, however, falls short on execution and in HOW it affects member nations

There is nothing that can realistically be done as this resolution WILL pass and seemingly all other "green" proposals in the future will not even come to vote. nobody wants to add laws to an area we already have laws in, no matter how defective the original laws are.

There is nothing that can realistically be done as this resolution WILL pass and seemingly all other "green" proposals in the future will not even come to vote. nobody wants to add laws to an area we already have laws in, no matter how defective the original laws are.


You've raised good points, but my government objects to the notion environmental resolutions are always "green".

Green implies sustainable development. While we agree that this resolution is a most sincere attempt at sustainable development, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity would like to go on record stating that many environmental bills that are rushed are more harmful to the environment, as they promise far more than they deliver.

The term "Sustainable Development" is common enough in some political circles, but NationStates is often a bit ... er ... diverse, and my government has been thinking that a simple statement about the principles of sustainable development might be a worthwhile resolution.

But let me reaffirm that deforestation is a topic that as you pointed out, is an international concern.

But before my nation can spend time really addressing Sustainable Development proposals (or at least the debates on the exact issues) we really need 7 more endorsements for our "Needle Sharing Prevention" resolution ... which deals with an entirely different topic: HIV/AIDS prevention for high risk populations. My small country can only effectively research and advocate for a few positions at one time. ;)

10kMichael

You've raised good points, but my government objects to the notion environmental resolutions are always "green".

Green implies sustainable development. While we agree that this resolution is a most sincere attempt at sustainable development, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity would like to go on record stating that many environmental bills that are rushed are more harmful to the environment, as they promise far more than they deliver.


I really shouldn't have used "green". I was looking for an easily recognizable word for any environment oriented resolutions and stumbled upon the word. I didn't fully examine the connotation of it and was not entirely aware of the specific implications of the word. It's laziness on my part, sorry.

I mean more that any proposal involving the environment will be harder to pass after this, simply because of the nature of voters. I stand by this. I've seen many very good resolutions bite the dust because a less qualified, but better timed resolution came to vote first.

I wish you the best of luck with your proposal, I'll try to get my delegate to support it, if he hasn't already.

I really shouldn't have used "green". I was looking for an easily recognizable word for any environment oriented resolutions and stumbled upon the word.

I wish you the best of luck with your proposal, I'll try to get my delegate to support it, if he hasn't already.

Thanks it is now 5 away. :)

And I agree with you about resolutions ... there is a sort of weariness that sets in when a string of similar resolutions hit the floor together.

But what I'm predicting is we'll pass this Environmental resolution, that the next will either be my Needle Sharing Prevention Social Justice or the Women's Rights Human Rights resolution, with the other following it. The computer safety proposal will probably reappear and I think eventually we'll see it reach the UN. Thankfully it won't have the same left / right divide that Hashtonia, myself, and Jayala are asking of you all. (Not that we are purposefully doing this ... each of our nations is 100% convinced that our proposals are important for the world and understands that the other proposals / resolutions are important as well.) But I've been known to be wrong when predicting the UN future ... from time to time. ;)

[OOC: Actually "green" is the correct word, but like so many things, it is watered down when people aren't slow and careful. But as somebody who leans with the Green Party, I tend to want to broaden and reclaim that word in the sense that they use it.

At my office (I'm an environmental engineer) we call the people who advocate for wildlife and general environmental issues "enviros" -- I'm not sure if I like that term either, but I can say that I do respect these people.

Anyway, I was just roleplaying there.]

Greetings to All and Sundry,

My major problems with this current UN Resolution is in the creation of an International UN policing body against Illegal Logging: the World Woodland Protection Team. Essentially, by signing onto this Resolution, all logging by UN Nations would be managed by a UN Organization, who would have the right to decide whose operation is illegal and who isn’t. They would have the authority to endorse or deny market access to one company over another, as well as levy fines (and likely collect them to fund their administration). Since all UN Nations currently enforce existing Laws (resolutions) with regards to Logging, this is not so much enforcement of the Law, but about who controls the Law within any given UN member state. Further, any fines against illegal logging practices in a Nation State should be collected by the Nation State against whom the offense was done, not by the UN to fund new bureaucracies.

Perhaps the worst point of this Resolution is in its Parameters. The fact that this Resolution calls for All Businesses to be affected is ridiculous. This should affect the woodchipping industry (and construction industry if there was a rating for it), but given its focus it definitely should not be made to affect All Businesses. What the parameters of this Resolution amount to is nothing short of a mad power grab by the hopeful proponents of this new UN bureaucracy. I’m not against strong and sensible Resolutions to protect the environment, but this one is neither.

Grande Elector Bruce

The Green and Pleasant Dominion of The Bruce

Ugh... I wonder if there is even a woodchipping and -cutting industry left with all these anti-treecutting resolutions here in the UN. :S

I mean... trees are nice but I think this UN is growing a LITTLE bit overprotective.

Past UN Resolutions:

Ban Single-Hulled Tankers
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

MANDATORY RECYCLING
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

Protect Historical Sites
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing

Replanting Trees
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

Oceanic Waste Dumping
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

Stop dumping - Start Cleaning
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

World Heritage List
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: Woodchipping

Alternative Fuels
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing

Save the forests of the World
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: Woodchipping

Ballast Water
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

SPCC Regulation Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

Um, yeah. We really, really need another environmental resolution to save all those trees, right?

Esteemed Colleagues

The honourable members from Power Hungry Chipmunks, The Bruce and as always Mikitivity make excellent points indeed. However it has never been the Telidian government’s policy to vote for a resolution simply in the interest or consideration of administrative expediency. Certainly this resolution as pointed out will most probably pass, however I really do not feel that voting against this proposal is anyway a lost vote. Considering my governments strong stance on political freedoms we have always strongly advocated that no vote is ever a lost vote. We feel a vote is an extension of our beliefs and our voice and when we vote, whether for or against, we do so having considered all the available facts and our conscience.

With that in mind the Telidian government has opted to vote against this proposal on the grounds that this proposal, while excellent in intent, is fatally flawed because of this sentence: “The following rules would help stop illegal logging”.

In this context all the measures following this sentence is one nation’s opinion, which of course is valid, but useless from a legislative standpoint. Whilst I am convinced that these opinions might indeed aid the reduction of illegal logging no UN member is forced to follow the opinion of another.

5. Heavy fines and on any company using none WWP certified wood.

Finally even if my government would consider the above mentioned article a measure we feel that it is also flawed because the word “heavy” again, is open to interpretation. No guidelines are set which leaves the path completely open to more capitalist states abusing this article. For example a fine of say 10,000 (whatever your local currency) might be considered ‘high’ however to a multinational corporation it means nothing. In this example the government can claim they are fining heavily and the profiteers can continue selling none WWP certified wood because even if they are caught, what does it really matter?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

It's a nice idea, but very poorly thought through.

I can't see a single thing that this resolution does to improve our environment that hasn't already been done in one of many similar resolutions. Other than, of course, setting up a UN committee which is of debatable use.

In future, this nation will support resolutions on the basis of their creativity and intelligence and not only because we support the intentions behind them. I urge other nations to do the same and end this woolly thinking.

Dolphinarium
Regional Delegate
Unity In Peace

With the NS-LeftistLemmings voting their automatic "yes" to anything proposal that comes up 'at the expence of industry', it is a wonder that any nation has any industry left.

"Get rid of the corporations" seems to be the watchword. Well, where do you think the jobs come from? The products everybody uses everyday? I know, lets just put everybody to work on vegan organic farms!

Why don't just quit all the silly dithering and make a proposal to ban all industry and adopt any and all platforms of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?

With the NS-LeftistLemmings voting their automatic "yes" to anything proposal that comes up 'at the expence of industry', it is a wonder that any nation has any industry left.

"Get rid of the corporations" seems to be the watchword. Well, where do you think the jobs come from? The products everybody uses everyday? I know, lets just put everybody to work on vegan organic farms!

Why don't just quit all the silly dithering and make a proposal to ban all industry and adopt any and all platforms of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?

May I suggest that, instead of political grand-standing, you make the effort to put forward a proposal that addresses those issues that concern you? Fatuous statements effectively declaring that jobs are directly a product of the existence of corporations do not help to further your agenda.

We are what you might describe as a 'leftist' nation, yet we vote 'no' to this resolution on simliar grounds to those put forward by the esteemed delegate from Telidia.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the United Nations

Mattikistan at first glance would have supported this resolution; part of the Articles of the Confederacy indicates that we should make a conscious effort to protect the environment. However, we have voted no on this resolution for the following reasons:

1. Our nation has reached an all-time high. We are currently undergoing a massively difficult process of strengthening the economy without damaging political or civil rights. As such, we need industry. And unfortunately, the industry which has jumped up to take the leading role in the private sector lately has been the woodchip exports industry;

2. As mentioned, there is already at least one resolution directly dealing with this issue; if not many more indirectly addressing it;

3. We feel this resolution is poorly executed; it would either be totally ineffective, or generate large administration costs, possibly both;

4. Certain parts are extremely open to interpretation;

5. Giving the UN such control over businesses is probably not a good idea.

The Technical and Scientific Workers' Republic of Turkese Chinastan rises to support our brothers and sisters, friends and comrades of the People's Republic of Miko Mono in resolutely opposing this interference with the sovereignty of the workers' states.

Make no mistake, we are in favour of conservation of trees, wood products, and old-growth forests, but this resolution merely enables the international forces of imperial finance capital to interfere in the local determination of logging policy by the people specifically affected.

Any "inspectors" attempting to enforce capitalist policies against the loggers of Turkese Chinastan, who have demonstrated in practise for generations their ability to regulate their industry with no outside interference, resulting in the current healthy state of our vast forests, the home of our national animal the Maine Coon Cat, will be apprehended and turned over to the workers' councils of the Republic's lumbering and reforestation unions, to inspect at first hand the actual practice of the industry, as *enforced participants* for a period of not less than nine months.

Any attempt to impose this reactionary and imperialist policy by force will be met by the resolute courage of the workers and small farmers of our glorious country, supplemented by the deadly aim of our anti-airgraft cream pie cannon.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono calls on all U.N. members to oppose this ridiculous attempt by larger nations to govern, and ultimately control for their own necolonioalist purposes, the economies of smaller nations. We hereby issue a warning to the U.N. secretariat that any so-called "logging inspectors" found in our territory, should this resolution be passed, will be seen as spies and potential saboteurs and will be treated accordingly.

My 4 votes are in favor of this resolution. Environmental concerns are more important then economic concerns. A bad econemy won't eventually destroy the planet.

We find this resolution a violation of our soverneity. These international trade licenses would supercede our licenses, possibly preventing corporations operating in our nation that would be beneficial to our economy. Furthermore, we do not believe that the UN should have the power to prevent legitimate trade among nations and companies as it pleases.

The Republic of Glam Land wishes to express it's support for the proposal and has indeed voted for at the United Nations as indeed has the Representative of Paradise Beach.

This resolution MUST be supported in order to maintain the world as we know it. Fellow UN members what joy is their in living in a desolate wasteland? Save our planet and make an effort now before it is too late.

I note the comments from the honourable members of Xerxes55 and Glam Land with interest and would like to make a few comments.

Certainly I can understand what the honourable members are trying to convey in their arguments, but I’d like to point that a bad economy can have a detrimental impact on the planets environment. If a nation’s main natural resource is a rainforest and the economy depends on it, it will be exploited by the local population.

In nation’s such as this where the economy is poor, subsistence farming is a common practice and the cheap ‘slash and burn’ policy is often used in order to clear parts of the forest for farming. Unfortunately this practice while economically efficient is extremely wasteful because a larger part of the forest is cleared than needed. In fact this problem is worsened during the dry El Nino seasons where the fires spread much further than normal. The real challenge that faces the international community here is how we ensure that nations such as these continue their way of life and build their nation to prosperity, but without destroying their most valued resource in the process and to the detriment of the world at large.

It is certainly true that illegal logging in these states occur much more frequently because millions of square kilometres of forests are monitored only by a handful of enforcement officials, which brings me to the resolution at hand. As I previously pointed out this resolution is too easily abused, it will in fact do nothing to stop this practice. The author has inadvertently turned the resolution into an opinion so it has no legislative teeth and can therefore be ignored all together. Subsistence economies such as the ones above will set fines ‘high’ but since there is no definition of ‘high’ it is an interpretive statement. Governments of these nations can therefore be seen to be keeping within the articles, but in reality nothing has changed. When illegal loggers are caught they can easily afford to pay the fines especially if they are larger companies, assuming they are caught in the first place. Unfortunately governments such as these do not have the funds to carry out the search necessary to find these criminals in the first place.

In fact this resolution in terms of legislation brings nothing new at all to the debate since most of these measures with regard to permit retractions and fines are already enforced by nations as mentioned above. However often in face of choosing between survival and economic growth they are ignored on the grounds of necessity.

Whilst I commend the honourable from Hashtonia to table this resolution on the grounds they clearly care about this issue I must confess that it does nothing at all to help the cause and while certain it will pass will just end up being a reference document will little or no legislative value.

What is needed in this arena esteemed members is a well thought out and researched environmental policy with bilateral agreement. These ‘feel good’ resolutions does nothing to help our planets environment and I urge all members thinking of tabling further environmental proposals to research the issue carefully and understand it. It is far more complex than simply passing ‘quick fix’ and unilateral resolutions such as these.

Apologies for the long post ladies and gentlemen, but as you can probably realise this is a subject close to my heart.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

The People's Republic of Miko Mono first wishes to thank Turkese Chinastan for its show of support.

Secondly, we must again call on U.N. members to oppose this blatent and obvious attempt by imperialist countries to attempt to exert control over their small neghibours by pushing such feel-good ideas as "environmentalism." We all know that is the larger countries to blame for any ecological disasters that have befallen this planet, and the People's Republic demand that they first answer for THEIR crimes before attempting to dominate the rest of us!!!

As for us, we value the concept of national soverignty above all others and we wish to make it know QUITE CLEARLY that we will do all within our power, and call on our allies to do the same, to withstand by any means neccessary any attempts to infringe on our soverignty, such as by attempting to control the People's resources.

My 4 votes are in favor of this resolution. Environmental concerns are more important then economic concerns. A bad econemy won't eventually destroy the planet.

Considering the fact that massive clear-cutting of forests is already addressed by a previous resolution, this one becomes far less useful, and indeed, quite harmful, as has been mentioned several times before.

There is little sense in following sentiment off a cliff. Or, if your prefer, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I applaud Ms Cornwall's incisive and sensitive appraisal of this proposal and the wider issue at hand. I also take issue with the Miko Mon delegates's assertion that environmentalism is a "feel-good idea". We are unquestionably faced with environmental problems of paramount importance. The flaws in this and previous resolutions that have attempted to address these issues do not dteract from the fact that action does need to be taken. I look forward to the day when a viable proposal hits my desk.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

We all know that is the larger countries to blame for any ecological disasters that have befallen this planet

I blame the capitailists.

Environmental concerns are more important then economic concerns. A bad econemy won't eventually destroy the planet.

:D

Official Statement from the Island of Rose:
This is stupid. TIOR strides for enviromental safeness. But this destroys our logging industry! We need those logs! The U.N. is overdoing it now... please vote against this. When you have a communist going against this, you have a problem. Again, vote against this... it's just stupid...
-Minister to the United Nations: Yultana Ita

OOC: Seriously, this proposal is overdoing it.