NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is another IDU proposal. My ally, the Xtraordinary Gentlemen, are busy with domestic issues, and thus have asked my government to bring attention to their proposal. This proposal have been submitted to several other regional groups as a draft and has incorporated their ideas.


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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Xtraordinary Gentlemen

Description:
The United Nations,

OBSERVING the continued rapid decline in worldwide biodiversity,

NOTING that "nearly 80% of terrestrial species of plants and animals are to be found in rainforsts" which are rapidly disappearing, [1] and that the number of species of all types of organisms (insect, plant, vertebrate, microorganism) are expected to be reduced by at least half by deforestation, [2]

CALLING ATTENTION to the fact that "about 40% of modern pharmaceuticals originated in nature including treatments for: cancer, glaucoma, malaria, Parkinson's disease, inflammatory disorders, high blood pressure, psychiatric disorders, and infections. Yet less than 5 percent of the world's plant and marine species have been screened for potential therapeutic benefits." [3]

NOTING ALSO the enormous effect on human knowledge an ecosystem as small as the Galapagos Islands can have,

REALIZING that some species are so endangered that they will become extinct even with human intervention,

ACTING in accordance with the United Nations Charter,

1. AFFIRMS that all types of ecosystems are worthy of preservation when possible,

2. CALLS FOR creditor nations to give debtor nations credits in exchange for undertaking conservation efforts, half of the credits to be used for conservation or regrowth efforts and the other half as the recipient nation sees fit,

3. REQUESTS a refocus of international assistance programs to developing nations that pertain to the building of infrastructure, with the goal of offsetting poor construction planning and minimizing environmental damage,

4. REALIZES that entertaining or visually appealing animals draw more private donations and attention than the less attractive organisms that may be of greater evolutionary or practical significance, and encourages the use of such animals to raise desire among the private sector to protect the ecosystems that are home to these animals and countless other less appealing but useful organisms,

5. URGES timber-exporting nations to control timber prices by controlling supply in order to increase profit and slow deforestation,

6. CREATES the Forestry Preservation Agency to monitor timber production internationally, and charges it with the mission of insuring that any area used to harvest lumber will be replaced by planting an equal number of trees in an area of equal size adjacent to the woodland being cleared, so that the indigenous animals don't have to migrate or be otherwise relocated,

7. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to organize efforts to catalog DNA samples of endangered species of all types of organisms, particularly those species beyond reasonable human assistance, to provide the groundwork for future genome mapping or cloning projects in order to restore and/or study lost biodiversity,

8. FURTHER REQUESTS that member nations increase governmental efforts and funding to screen the untested 95% of our species for potential medicinal benefits.



Citations:
[1] John Vandermeer and Ivette Perfecto, Rethinking Rain Forests: Biodiversity and Social Justice, as reprinted by Theodore D. Goldfarb in Notable Selections in Environmental Studies Second Edition

[2] E.O. Wilson, The Current State of Biological Diversity, as reprinted by Theodore D. Goldfarb in Notable Selections in Environmental Studies Second Edition

[3] Biological Diversity; Report to the U.S. Senate from the National Institutes of Health http://www.easi.org/nape/senrep.html

Approvals: 19
Voting Ends: Fri Sep 3 2004


This proposal was originally submitted a few weeks ago.

Once again, we are trying to limit our telegramming effort to only UN Delegates whom have previously endorsed this proposal.

Thanks for your time.

Same as your other proposal which is:
"I like this proposal. I will endorse it.

The only problem is it says alot without doing much. It states a position that the UN states supports, without backing it up. It does not have any actual regulations that would effect any nations, and I think a resolution needs that to be worthwhile."

Same as your other proposal which is:
"I like this proposal. I will endorse it.

The only problem is it says alot without doing much. It states a position that the UN states supports, without backing it up. It does not have any actual regulations that would effect any nations, and I think a resolution needs that to be worthwhile."

Actually this resolution (as with many environmental resolutions) has claws:


2. CALLS FOR creditor nations to give debtor nations credits in exchange for undertaking conservation efforts, half of the credits to be used for conservation or regrowth efforts and the other half as the recipient nation sees fit,

Now these claws might not come out and grab a hold of everybody ... afterall the common house cat doesn't frequently bite the hand that feeds it, but analysts from the Xtraordinary Gentlemen have assured my government that creditor nations like mine will in fact see a slight increase in our taxes as we give these debtor nations some credits for long-term conservation.

Of course, my population is more than willing to take a short-term hit in order to continue on the path of sustainable development ... most "Green" states would probably agree.

I apologize if this pops up twice, but I got booted when trying to make the first post.

I like several things about the proposal, but do have two major concerns.

Section three seems to be a blanket statement about international assistance programs. Considering how vital many of the medical, social welfare, food, and other such programs are to some countries, this resolution would have a dramatic negative impact.

I also have a couple of issues with section 6. While I like the idea of having an enforcement agency monitor the logging industry, I am curious who will sponsor and maintain the agency. As of now, the UN has no funding mechanism, and is not allowed to acquire taxes to do so (although I understand that there is some debate on that issue at the moment).

Also, this clause would supercede the "Replant Trees" resolution from back in July of 2003, and in fact be much stricter. The previous resolution had a 5 acre minimum, but this resolution states only 'any area'. A minor thing, but one open to abuse. Also, the requirement for 'adjacent' replanting assumes that there is open and useable ground nearby. This creates a problem if the nearest open land is a highway, or worse, an endangered species habitat.

Again, I approve of the general intentions of the policy, but could not in good conscience vote for the proposal as it is currently written.

Best Regards,

Tomas Quinn
United Nations Representative for the Republic of Agnost

I apologize if this pops up twice, but I got booted when trying to make the first post.

I also have a couple of issues with section 6. While I like the idea of having an enforcement agency monitor the logging industry, I am curious who will sponsor and maintain the agency. As of now, the UN has no funding mechanism, and is not allowed to acquire taxes to do so (although I understand that there is some debate on that issue at the moment).


Many resolutions have passed without provisions made for a funding mechanism. That is why I'm supporting Sophita's proposal. :)


Also, this clause would supercede the "Replant Trees" resolution from back in July of 2003, and in fact be much stricter. The previous resolution had a 5 acre minimum, but this resolution states only 'any area'. A minor thing, but one open to abuse. Also, the requirement for 'adjacent' replanting assumes that there is open and useable ground nearby. This creates a problem if the nearest open land is a highway, or worse, an endangered species habitat.


http://www.skytowerpoet.net/nationstates/the_united_nations/Environmental.pdf

Click on the bookmarks and go to the "Replanting Trees" resolution (page 3).

That proposal only mandated replacing trees when over 5 acres of forest land are logged.

What I like here is that more detail is provided, whereas before you had to simply replant an equal number of trees. Here you have to mitigate using a similar area.


6. CREATES the Forestry Preservation Agency to monitor timber production internationally, and charges it with the mission of insuring that any area used to harvest lumber will be replaced by planting an equal number of trees in an area of equal size adjacent to the woodland being cleared, so that the indigenous animals don't have to migrate or be otherwise relocated,

As for your concerns about destroying native habitat, I think the specific mentioning of indigenous animals and relocation makes it clear that the replanting is a mitigation measure, and like the subject of the proposal, is designed to protect endangered species.

I'm sorry to here that your nation won't support this proposal though. :(

For what it is worth ... I do want to reassure the members of this forum that this is just a proposal and though not mine, I will certainly share any constructive comments (all of which I've see thus far are) with the Xtraordinary Gentlemen. :)

If it doesn't make it through this time, we are always open to changes. And even better, if you suggest language changes for us, that will make my job as a go between much easier.

[OOC: The other nations in my region are either heavily involved with sports programs right now or just starting school. Their work got dumped in my lap ... which is probably a good thing, as it keeps me out of the rest of your proposals and resolutions making my own picky suggestions!] ;)

I would certainly be interested in seeing a revised version of the proposal, mostly because I'd like to see many aspects of it put into effect.

Other arguments above notwithstanding, I would most like to see chamges in the language of section 3 to be certain that vital assistance programs (especially those concerned with medical and food support) are not undercut in the interest of better infrastructure.

I apologize if that's just a restate of what I had above, but I want to make sure I was communicating it properly.

These credits being given to debtor nations, are they loans, with interest being charged on it? Because I am inherently distrustful of large countries lending money to smaller countries. And are they barred from having strings attached, like the enforced liberalisation of banking laws for example. I would hope so. Apart from that I have no problem with this resolution.

These credits being given to debtor nations, are they loans, with interest being charged on it? Because I am inherently distrustful of large countries lending money to smaller countries. And are they barred from having strings attached, like the enforced liberalisation of banking laws for example. I would hope so. Apart from that I have no problem with this resolution.

Truthly the answer is "it depends". Sometimes these credits (which already exist ... the resolution is just seeking to give debtor nations an economic incentive to get with the program and get back up on their feet) are in fact loans, with interest being charged.

With that in mind, you can see how removing some of that debt can help their economies reach a stable point sooner. And believe it or not, there is a reason creditor nations will want to take advantage of this ... it is the yet undiscovered bio-resources in these nations that we all may need one day.

Unfortunately, my government was pointing out that the process of swapping flags in order to circumnavigate the UN ban on whaling may have hidden political costs ... favor trading. I am convinced that the same favor trading may exist with respect to international aid. I don't see how we can stop that ... or even if we should.

Truthly the answer is "it depends". Sometimes these credits (which already exist ... the resolution is just seeking to give debtor nations an economic incentive to get with the program and get back up on their feet) are in fact loans, with interest being charged.

With that in mind, you can see how removing some of that debt can help their economies reach a stable point sooner. And believe it or not, there is a reason creditor nations will want to take advantage of this ... it is the yet undiscovered bio-resources in these nations that we all may need one day.

Unfortunately, my government was pointing out that the process of swapping flags in order to circumnavigate the UN ban on whaling may have hidden political costs ... favor trading. I am convinced that the same favor trading may exist with respect to international aid. I don't see how we can stop that ... or even if we should.

Specifically, the example I was thinking of was the (real world) US using it's influence in the IMF and World Bank to ensure that developing countries only get loans if they remove restrictions on the movement of capital, allowing financial speculators in to transfer currency into dollars, causing the country in questions economy to go into recession.(See George Monbiot's book the Age of Consent for a more detailed explanation). I am against this practice of attaching conditions to loans, but especially when the loans under consideration are for protecting the environment. What exactly do you mean when you say you are not sure that we should stop this practice?

I am against this practice of attaching conditions to loans, but especially when the loans under consideration are for protecting the environment. What exactly do you mean when you say you are not sure that we should stop this practice?

The loan credits are issued for protecting the environment, but the original loans themselves could be for many issues. Half of these credits are then dedicated for conservation practices.

I think clause 2 works like this:

Let's say my government owes your government $M 100,000 (Spice Melange). Under the provisions of this resolution, if my government applies $M 10,000 to a new local conservation project, your government would hopefully forgive $M 20,000 of its $M 100,000 debt to your nation.

Now that I've worked through the example, I think that I have some questions here how this is designed to work, and will actually go back and talk to the Xtraordinary Gentlemen. :) But the above is at least the basic principal behidn the idea.

Just a point of interest ... with the only telegrams being sent for this proposal going to delegates that had previously endorsed this proposal, the previous endorsement count of 19 went up to 43.

It is possible to slowly collect endorsements without aggressive telegramming campaigns, but I'm not sure when a critical mass will be reached.

(NOTE: the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space proposal has 24 endorsements on its first pass, and not a single telegram has been sent out in favour of that proposal.)

I think clause 2 works like this:

Let's say my government owes your government $M 100,000 (Spice Melange). Under the provisions of this resolution, if my government applies $M 10,000 to a new local conservation project, your government would hopefully forgive $M 20,000 of its $M 100,000 debt to your nation.



Ah, right I get it now. I thought that if I loaned you $100 000 (sequins) then you would have to spend half of it on conservation efforts. Thats actually a really good idea; you've got my vote.

Other arguments above notwithstanding, I would most like to see chamges in the language of section 3 to be certain that vital assistance programs (especially those concerned with medical and food support) are not undercut in the interest of better infrastructure.

I wanted to address this because it's been brought up a couple times here. And I also apologize for the lateness, school and work have been keeping me tied down. I will however be resubmitting this proposal shortly, so I don't want anyone to worry that they've missed the chance to support or advise this project.

Section three at present states "3. REQUESTS a refocus of international assistance programs to developing nations that pertain to the building of infrastructure, with the goal of offsetting poor construction planning and minimizing environmental damage,"

I'm starting to recognize that this may be a little awkwardly worded on my part, but I think the operative words here are "that pertain to the building of infrastructure." That claus prohibits the refocus or restructuring from spilling over into any non-construction types of assistance programs. Health services, for example, would (and I agree, most definitely should) remain unaffected.

Too often a creditor nation will offer money to a debtor to build highways or bridges, and then offer no supervision or even advice to insure that the construction is well-planned and doesn't unnecessarily damage the environment. What I envision section three doing is moving us creditor nations away from that practice and towards a more well thought out, proactive, and environmentally aware type of infrastructure assistance to developing nations.


OOC: As far as the creation of the organization, it was just kinda thrown in because a lot of people want to know exactly how an idea will be monitored or enforced. If I had just said "Thou shalt replant trees and make sure you replant as many as you take down, preferably somewhere near where you took them down," everyone would probably wonder how the heck I planned to supervise that in "reality." Obviously large logging corporations won't be inclined to acquiesce to a rule just because the rule exists. So it's not so much an attempt to circumvent the proposal rules as it is an attempt to make the particular idea more viable and give it a little realistic touch.

I'm starting to recognize that this may be a little awkwardly worded on my part, but I think the operative words here are "that pertain to the building of infrastructure." That claus prohibits the refocus or restructuring from spilling over into any non-construction types of assistance programs. Health services, for example, would (and I agree, most definitely should) remain unaffected.


Ah, this makes a good deal of sense, now that you've pointed it out. And I completely agree with your reasoning; a more proactive attitude would be much more useful in such programs.

This proposal has been resubmitted if anyone wishes to approve it or get the word out. I have little time for campaigning, so this proposal so far has relied on Mikitivity's efforts and word of mouth. Any help is, as always, greatly appreciated.

Just for background information, this proposal was in a multi-regional draft phase for about a month, and this is the third submission. The second submission gained approximately 60 approvals.