NationStates Jolt Archive

Original Resolution:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #66
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.

Votes For: 10,608
Votes Against: 4,917

Implemented: Sun Jul 18 2004

[Repeal this Resolution]

Repeal idea:

COMMENDING the goals of Resolution #66, namely those to protect the important forests of the world;

SADDENED that Resolution #66 fails miserably in accomplishing these goals;

NOTING WITH REGRET that Resolution #66 does not give nations any new powers, as the principles of National Sovereignity give nations the right to punish lawbreakers;

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #66 does not even define "Illegal logging", so nations are under no obligation to do anything, thereby rendering this resolution meaningless;

CONCLUDING that Resolution #66 does not affect nations in any way whatsoever:

REPEALS Resolution #66: Illegal Logging

Trying to get rid of another pointless reduction of our industries. ;) Any comments?

Nice, but I think you're starting in the wrong place. This is, in and of, fairly harmless. I would support this, but I'd favour a repeal of Replanting Trees (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22) first.

OK.


RECALLING Resolution #23: Replanting Trees;

COMMENDING the assumed goals of the resolution;

BUT CONCERNED that the resolution does not accomplish its goals in an efficient way, and tries to mold all nations into the same circumstance;

CONCERNED that this resolution makes a measurement in "acres", which does not account for the environmentally preferable practice of cutting down only certain trees in a forest, which cannot easily be measured in acres;

FURTHER CONCERNED about the use of the measurement "acres", which would not be a standard measurement in nations in the NSUN per Resolution #24: Metric System;

CONCERNED that not all nations have the same number of trees, and that five acres might be a small fraction of the total forest area for one while being more than the entire forest area for another;

CONCERNED that Resolution #23 offers no method of enforcement, and that it allows corrupt corporations to unfairly gain an advantage by deceitful means;

REPEALS Resolution #23.

i would like to point that 'replanting trees' uses acres because the act on metric measures wasn't passed at that point.

i would like to point that 'replanting trees' uses acres because the act on metric measures wasn't passed at that point.
Yes, but just because something worked at the time doesn't mean it works now.

I'm wondering if that part is an HOC violation. I don't think it is, but I'm not sure.

I wouldn't include anything about the Metric System. RT was passed first, and it has plenty of other weaknesses. I like the point, though, that measuring in acres implies clear-felling, as opposed to cropping smaller areas, so I would make that stronger. Also bear in mind the replanting requirements actually specify 'who is responsible'. Well what does that mean? The government? The company? The individual logger? Simply saying something's vague won't always work, but in this case, I think it's clear that this allows the potential for a great deal of abuse.

frankly 'replanting trees' needs to be repealed first because its got a loophole so large that you could fly a jumbo jet through it.

If less than 5 acres is cut down then the act dosen't even apply.

Therefore The Empire will approve a repeal attempt on this.

Use the 4.9 loophole: 1500 lumberjacks cutting 4.9 acres a day yields 2682750 acres a year. Which is a lot of acres. Mkay, a possible wording is:

CONCERNED that Resolution #23 offers no method of enforcement, and that it allows corrupt corporations to unfairly gain an advantage by deceitful means, notably by outsourcing the felling of multiple areas smaller than 5 acres;

Also, I hate this clause:
BUT CONCERNED that the resolution does not accomplish its goals in an efficient way, and tries to mold all nations into the same circumstance;

"But" should be in the end of the previous, and the text itself doesn't say much.

Whatever you decide, count on my support.

RECALLING Resolution #23: Replanting Trees;

COMMENDING the assumed goals of the resolution, but;

CONCERNED that the resolution does not accomplish its goals in an efficient way;

DEFINING "selective cutting" as a system in which only certain trees in a forest are cut and "clear-cutting" as a system in which all of the trees in a forest are cut;

NOTING that from an environmental perspective, selective cutting causes less environmental damage than clear-cutting, and therefore should be favored in use;

CONCERNED that the use of "acres" in the resolution only makes sense when applied to clear-cutting, and so puts those in favor of selective cutting in a confusing legal limbo;

FURTHER CONCERNED that not all nations have the same number of trees, and that five acres might be a small fraction of the total forest area for one while being more than the entire forest area for another;

FURTHER CONCERNED that Resolution #23 offers no method of enforcement, and that it allows corrupt corporations to unfairly gain an advantage by deceitful means, especially by cutting down less than five acres of trees each day, which still yields a huge number of trees per year;

REPEALS Resolution #23.

This draft takes into account Gruenberg's suggestions.
EDIT: and Fonzoland's & Kirisubo's

I'd also suggest something about the actual goal: replanting. It doesn't make sense to mix '5 acres' cut down, and then have to replant 'the same number'. It also doesn't specify tree type, which is both a loophole, and potentially unsound. Furthermore, I don't see what's to stop the CEO of Saws R Us replanting hundreds of saplings in his back garden, and then pulling them out again. It makes no provision for managed aforestation. Not that I want to give replacers too many ideas.

I'd also suggest something about the actual goal: replanting. It doesn't make sense to mix '5 acres' cut down, and then have to replant 'the same number'. It also doesn't specify tree type, which is both a loophole, and potentially unsound. Furthermore, I don't see what's to stop the CEO of Saws R Us replanting hundreds of saplings in his back garden, and then pulling them out again. It makes no provision for managed aforestation. Not that I want to give replacers too many ideas.

Something like:

CONCERNED that there is no restriction on the type, age or location of the replanted trees;

?
Are there any other words I could use besides "concerned"?

NOTING WITH REGRET might work. I would leave out 'age', as I think 'type' is sufficient to govern that sort of thing. I would also add 'or for the future treatment or care, or lack thereof, the replanted trees', or words to that effect.

Nice, but I think you're starting in the wrong place. This is, in and of, fairly harmless. I would support this, but I'd favour a repeal of Replanting Trees (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22) first.

Ok, I will vote FOR both repeals. Replanting Trees seems especially vague and useless.

-Foreign Secretary for Teid to the UN.

Draft the third:
RECALLING Resolution #23: Replanting Trees;

COMMENDING the assumed goals of the resolution, but;

CONCERNED that the resolution does not accomplish its goals in an efficient way;

DEFINING "selective cutting" as a system in which only certain trees in a forest are cut and "clear-cutting" as a system in which all of the trees in a forest are cut;

NOTING that from an environmental perspective, selective cutting causes less environmental damage than clear-cutting, and therefore should be favored in use;

CONCERNED that the use of "acres" in the resolution only makes sense when applied to clear-cutting, and so puts those in favor of selective cutting in a confusing legal limbo;

FURTHER CONCERNED that there is no restriction on the type, location or future care of the replanted trees;

FURTHER CONCERNED that Resolution #23 offers no method of enforcement, and that it allows corrupt corporations to unfairly gain an advantage by deceitful means, especially by cutting down less than five acres of trees each day, which still yields a huge number of trees per year;

SADDENED that all reasons presented above render Resolution #23 virtually unenforceable, unneeded and useless:

REPEALS Resolution #23.

I have nothing further to add to this. Strategically, it might be better to wait a week before submitting it, so as to distance yourself from Repeal "Save the forests of the World". Anyway, when you are ready to submit, I'll be happy to help out with a TG campaign.

I'll probably submit it around Friday. Other comments are welcome.

I can help with a TG campaign as well.

its usually better to submit anything on a monday morning since there isn't that many delegates round over the weekend.

I can help with a TG campaign as well.

its usually better to submit anything on a monday morning since there isn't that many delegates round over the weekend.
Oh. I assumed the opposite. So should I submit it tommorrow or next Monday?

Oh. I assumed the opposite. So should I submit it tommorrow or next Monday?

Depends. If you submit it tomorrow, you'll come up after Repeal "Mandatory Recycling". I personally would be inclined to wait a week, so as to put some time between yourself and another environmental repeal, as well as the one that passed at the end of 2005; also, I'm sure there's room for additional improvements to the draft.

OK. I'll submit next Monday. Suggestions are still wanted.

“I must admit, it is a worthwhile goal to repeal this resolution. It wastes a lot of law enforcer’s time. Why, only last week it caused forty thousand rural peasants to be put to dea- err – punished, for illegal logging for firewood in Lord Atum’s Holy Domain…” – Lord Jehvah

OK. I'll submit next Monday. Suggestions are still wanted.

As much as it pains me to say this, since I would really like the resolution in question to die a fiery death, you might actually want to let a few non-repeal proposals come up for vote first to avoid the "why are we doing nothing but repeals?" bitchfest.

I am in favor of this, and will support this resolution. However, I am weary that the drafting of a new resolution that will prevent severe deforestation will be too far in the future.

I am in favor of this, and will support this resolution. However, I am weary that the drafting of a new resolution that will prevent severe deforestation will be too far in the future.

I think that once this and Replanting Trees fall, there will be interest in drafting something more sensible and less utopic.

I think that once this and Replanting Trees fall, there will be interest in drafting something more sensible and less utopic.

I would be interested in drafting such a resolution. Hopefully, when the time comes, I will have the edoursements available to do so.

I would be interested in drafting such a resolution. Hopefully, when the time comes, I will have the edoursements available to do so.

You should consider joining the GTT (see my sig).