NationStates Jolt Archive

The Forest Protection Act

RECOGNIZING that there is both an environmental and economic need for standing forests in most member nations of the UN.

EMPHASIZING that forests of all types are a limited resource that are often exploited without consideration of the damage to natural ecosystems.

REALIZING that the current resolution is very vague and poorly written, however,
I have met strong resistance to repealing it until a better replacement is enforced.

This act places restrictions on the total amount of forest that can be cleared in a single nation.

From the point in time that this proposal is passed, all nations must set aside 20% of their total land as protected forests. If there is already less than that, this act does not require a nation to replant trees to meet 20%.

Only areas that are forested are protected by this act.

This protected area may include land that is privately owned, although it is encouraged that government land be used.

In any nation that has exactly 20% or less forest, two trees of the same species as those cleared must be replanted for every one whenever trees are cleared out of an area.

The trees may be replanted in another location as long as it is suitable for their growth.



Now before everyone starts screaming that it's already been done, this is meant to be passed after that thing's been repealed. Right now, I want to polish up the replacement a bit. Now this has been posted before, and I got absolutely nothing from anyone. Please, I'm sure it can be improved, let me know what you think. This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388767&page=3&pp=15) is the original thread.

Arbitrary numbers are the death of proposals. Let's take that 20% figure and apply it to city-states like Vatican City, Monaco, and . Let's add in Tunisia, Qatar Chad, and a few other desert states. How about Greenland and other tundra states? How many of those support the 20%? Yes, I know you gave them a free pass, but they now have to add a tree-tracking bureaucracy to make sure every downed tree is replaced.

Do those same bureaucracies need to be created in the vast nations of China, Russia, the USA, and Brazil? Almost certainly not, because they have vastly more than the 20% needed. The biggest deforesters can keep right on deforesting, because they started with more.

Sorry, bad idea to tie it to a number. Find a better way.

Especially such a large percentage. A fifth of total landmass? Can you imagine a nation like Japan trying to pull that much protected area (of any type)?

Wanting to protect the environment is all well and good, but when dealing with nations containing billions of people, living space becomes a major concern.

Ok, I see what you're both talking about, but what can we replace it with that will still be effective, but won't effectively stifle all cutting? The way It's written right now, my main goal was to give it as much flexability as possible while still being effective.