NationStates Jolt Archive

Feel free to make comments on my rough draft and suggestions before it becomes a proposal:

Description: The United Nations,

RECALLING UN Resolution #23, "Replanting Trees", and the deficiencies thereof,

ALSO RECALLING UN Resolution #66, "Illegal Logging", and the deficiencies thereof

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the differing economic and environmental circumstances of member nations,

RECOGNISING that the wood that forests provide are important to society,

ALSO RECOGNISING that farming and industrialization requires land to expand

FULLY AWARE that forests convert carbon dioxide into oxygen that is required to sustain life on earth,

1. DECLARES its support for responsible forest clearing practices;

2. REQUIRES member nations to:
- promote the replanting of trees in forests;
- make every reasonable effort to preserve the wild life of forests;
- take appropriate steps towards ensuring forest preservation;
- Pass laws preventing wood cutting in at least 20% of the nation's forests

3. ENDORSES the practice of preserving a portion of the nation's forests;

4. STRONGLY URGES the ban of slash-and-burn farming techniques

5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that forests will be preserved and if not, at least portions of it.

Co-Authored by: Gruenberg

Lots of noting without any explanation. Needs more detail.

The Dancing Bananalandian delegation applaude this resolution as a whole, however we have some specific criticsms that we hope will improve it, and increase it's chances of passing.

divert wood cutting from rain forests to other forests and/or woods;

"So, we can preserve our three-and-a-half acres of imported rainforst and burn everything else to the ground and salt it? Awsome!"

Seriously, I hughly sugget re-writing this resoltuion to include forestry as a whole, as many nations do not have rainforests, or very little, and could just wipe everything else out.

make every reasonable effort to preserve the wild life of the rain forests;

"You just bulldozed right over that endangered owl's burrow!" "Well, I yelled at him to get outta the way first, what more can I do?"

This clause should be expanded on, lacking a definition of reasonable effort, this could lead to easy resolution abuse. Perhaps add a clause defining reasonable effort or something.

WISHING to control the clearing of rainforests and ban the slash-and-burn technique:

Redundant, cut it and the ohter clauses stating your concern for the rainforest. They just waste space and clutter up the resolution....and just out of curiosity, whats with the colon?

Well no, I would disagree with putting rainforests and forests in general together.
It is well known that areas of rainforest cleared for agriculture lasts at most 5yrs before all the silt is washed away. A normal forest loses its trees and wildlife, yes, but the land remains fertile as long as it is allowed to rest like any other land.
So all that results from the former is poor harvests and the need to cut down more trees. The latter is initially harsh, but is economically viable for decades.

Moreover, the wood industry is also different. Loggers will mow down acres of rainforest to reach a wood such as mahogony, which is rare, not caring about the other trees crushed in their path. A forest is in general composed of only one or two types of tree, and far easier to replant as well.

Well, I agree with most of the resolution, but I hate having numbers we have to reach.
I also disagree with diverting the wood industry to other types of trees.
Sorry, but if this were to come up right now, I'd vote AGAINST it.
:( Good idea though...I guess some modifications could sway my vote.

This looks suspiciously like my proposal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, we don't need more tree crap until we sort out Replanting Trees and Illegal Logging.

3. AUTHORISES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate any disputes arising from the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies;.


How does a Trade Commission save the rainforest? So what if it can settle disputes over how much whatever goes into recycled paper or any item or how one recycles that paper. This says nothing about it having any say over my cutting down trees and using them for natural unrecycled paper. So why are we setting up this UNFTC in a proposal to save the RF? Or was the UNFTC set up in a current resolution and this AMMENDS their functions... thus is illegal until you repeal that one and give them this duty in a new one.

The people of Cluichstan oppose this measure, as we regularly need to clear-cut what little forestland we have left in order to get at the uranium deposits located beneath them.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Are there many forests in Antarctica?

Actually, there's some credible scientific evidence that slash-and-burn agriculture carried out on a small scale can be beneficial to the forests, by creating glades in which (when the farming ceases) new young trees can grow: It's only when the sapient population involved becomes too large for a reasonable length of time to be left between successive uses of the same patches of land -- and for the steeper hillsides to be avoided -- that it really becomes a problem...

A better way to do this would be: Long Term Managed Forestry Act:

1) A certain amount of the forests will be permanently set aside for ecotourism: fishing, hiking, nature photography, and nature lodges.

2) The plants and animals in forest represent a renewable natural resource, destroying them will permanently destroy the development of future medicine and botanicals from the forests. As part of this act we encourage that a certain portion of the rainforest be set aside for botanical and pharmaceutical research.

3) Trees will be thinned based on a managed forestry basis. 1) To prevent excess accumulation of detritus which could cause fires. 2) On a continuous basis based on age and condition so they will be a permanent resource.

4) To create greenbelts and limit pollution a certain of forest will be preserved around cities near forests.

5) For sewage treatment managed natural wetlands represent a superior form
of sewage management than heavy machinery.

6) Wood ethanol and biofuels are a potential forest resource. Research on an international basis should be maintained.

Are there many forests in Antarctica?

Not anymore. ;)

OOC: Actually, my post was a reference to one of the daily issues.

Are there many forests in Antarctica?

Well, the notion of rain forests in antartica does seem strange, but then so do foul mouthed dolphins. Recently my retired naval officers set up a small colony there. (Those female were penguins ... ) According to recet reports they recently found a nice rain forest but it was sitting on top of a uranium pile, so they tore it down. This has, apparently, significantly harmed tourism because the tourist population is now threatened. (They claim that the tourist is their national animal ... I'm glad they didn't start eating them like we did with pelicans.)

Actually, there's some credible scientific evidence that slash-and-burn agriculture carried out on a small scale can be beneficial...

Yes you are correct. Slash-and-burn puts an uncountable number of nutrients into the soil, but when farms are put on that land it is impossible for trees to grow back there. Slash-and-burn also is a waste of wood. It wouldn't be quite so bad if the wood was used for something.

okay, we're kind of getting off subject. Back to the proposal. Oh, and if any of you feel like re-writing the thing and posting it here for me to look over, I've got no objections.

okay, we're kind of getting off subject. Back to the proposal. Oh, and if any of you feel like re-writing the thing and posting it here for me to look over, I've got no objections.
Well, I'd still like to know whether you originally copied my proposal.

Well, I'd still like to know whether you originally copied my proposal.

I sent you a telegram at nation states.

Ok.

Well, some general points:
- no sense concentrating on rain forests - broaden it to all forests
- don't ban slash and burn - perhaps just "strongly urge" its banning, or similar

Ok well if we do it to ALL forests, we will reject it.
It'll hurt our economy, and hurt the construction of homes and/or businesses.
Sorry.

[I]
2. REQUIRES member nations to:
- promote the replanting of trees in forests;
Thus if we replant fruit or nut trees we meet this one of replanting trees in forests.
- make every reasonable effort to preserve the wild life of forests;No hunting on Sundays and holy days preserves a number of critters so we meet this one.
- take appropriate steps towards ensuring forest preservation;Stay out of the woods during weekdays as they are only open to public weekends and holy days.
- Pass laws preventing wood cutting in at least 20% of the nation's forestsSince most of the trees in our forest are not suited for wood products but provide fruits and nuts we don't cut a greater percent.
3. ENDORSES the practice of preserving a portion of the nation's forests;We do also as about 21% is peach trees used in the wine production.
4. STRONGLY URGES the ban of slash-and-burn farming techniquesThe only time we burn any area is if it has been infected with something and burning is the only way to end the infection thus stop it's spread.
5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that forests will be preserved and if not, at least portions of it.A dozen trees in a small city park is a well preserved forest or at least a portion of what once was a greater forest. As with the word HOPE here you don't sound to confident this will even work to save that small amount.

So what are you trying to say?

Too hurtful on the economy? I don't know..
Needs some modifications so it won't slow growth.

modifications? elaborate. what kind of modifications?

The real problem with the idea of managed forestry and it slowing growth is that UN countries will simply trade outside their borders for wood until they have a large enough stock of managed forestry. This is what happens with Japan, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries.

Ok well if we do it to ALL forests, we will reject it.
It'll hurt our economy, and hurt the construction of homes and/or businesses.
Sorry.
Ever heared of a tree house? You don't need to kill the forest to build.

Ever heared of a tree house? You don't need to kill the forest to build.

Um...and what, praytell, do you use to build the house part of the treehouse?

Um...and what, praytell, do you use to build the house part of the treehouse?
Bricks.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

http://70.85.169.212/3578/154/emo/z7shysterical.gif

Straw?

Lots of noting without any explanation. Needs more detail.


Agreed. But I like the concept. I would support a rewritten one whole heartedly.

Lots of noting without any explanation. Needs more detail.

What should I add more detail to?