NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: The United Nations,

AWARE of the importance of forested ecosystems;

ACKNOWLEDGING economic benefits of forest industries and products;

NOTING environmental and economic problems, such as erosion, loss of biodiversity, and declining production and value of wood products that result from over-logging and other poor forestry policies and practices;

REQUIRES the utilization of scientifically sound forestry management as developed and widely recognized by forest preservation and production organizations;

MANDATES that:

1. Commercial forest activity be undertaken only after long-term tenure and use rights to the land and forest resources are clearly defined, documented and legally established;

2. Forest management operations maintain or enhance the long-term social and economic well-being of forest workers and local communities;

3. Forest management operations encourage efficient use of the forest’s multiple products and services to ensure economic viability, as well as environmental and social benefits;

4. Forest management operations conserve biodiversity and its associated values, water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes, and, by so doing, maintain the ecological functions and integrity of the forest. Such techniques include, but are not limited to:

a. avoidance of clear cutting, except where necessary as a means of conservation, regeneration or diversification,
b. incorporation of soil depletion prevention in all logging activities,
c. encouragement of diversity of native tree species, including maintenance of natural forest life-cycles
d. accommodation of threatened species in forest harvest plans, including preservation of natural habitats;

5. Management activities in high conservation value forests maintain or enhance the attributes which define such forests. Decisions regarding high conservation value forests shall be made with a precautionary approach. Attributes of high conservation value forests include, but are not limited to:

a. pristine or near-pristine condition
b. presence of endangered plant species,
c. habitat provision to endangered animal species
e. high value for eco-tourism;

6. Timber plantations be planned and managed in accordance with requirements of this and all other applicable UN resolutions. Plantation forests should complement the management of, reduce pressures on, and promote the restoration and conservation of natural forests;

7. A management plan--appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operations--clearly stating the long-term objectives of management, and means of achieving them, shall be written, implemented, and kept up-to-date by all forest management operations;

8. Monitoring shall be conducted by an appropriate national agency--one charged with environmental responsibility--in conjunction with the World Woodland Protection Team (WWP), established under UNR#66, and other relevant agencies (e.g. UNCoESB), and will assess forest condition, product yields, products chain of custody, management activities and their social and environmental impacts;

CHARGES the WWP to serve as an educational resource, providing guidance in preservation, reforestation, sustainable forest management, and other relevant topics, in addition to its other duties;

URGES member nations to work with local populations to eliminate use of slash-and-burn agricultural practices;

ENCOURAGES adoption of no-net-deforestation policies.


I see trees of green........ red roses too
I see em bloom..... for me and for you
And I think to myself.... what a wonderful world.

Louis, that was beautiful. And now, on to the sausage-making.

This resolution has been adopted as official Green Think Tank legislation. It balances the need to provide environmental protections of the world's forests with the need for wood and wood-products provided by the timber industry.

It is pragmatic and scalable.


Or to put it in the most basic terms:

Trees great! Logging okay! We make balance. Wheee!


Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Rubina
-------

Although I do not allow deforestation in the European Islands unless under the most extreme circumstances, we understand that some other nations require these lumber sources, and do not think it's the United Nations' right to tell them how to use their resources.

Joseph Arnarson, President and Ambassador of the European Islands, 2007

I'd ask what the category and strength would be, but obviously it'd have to be Environmental, Woodchipping.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/bowel.jpg

URGES member nations to work with local populations to eliminate use of slash and burn agricultural practices.

What happens in undervelope nations that can afford to plan and preserve and people need to use Slash and Burn techniques to survive by means of either Subsistence farming or cash crops?



The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador of Cookesland

What happens in undervelope nations that can afford to plan and preserve and people need to use Slash and Burn techniques to survive by means of either Subsistence farming or cash crops?



The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador of Cookesland

They ignore that clause, it only urges.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Although I do not allow deforestation in the European Islands unless under the most extreme circumstances, we understand that some other nations require these lumber sources, and do not think it's the United Nations' right to tell them how to use their resources.Thank you Ambassador Amarson for your comment. However, this resolution does not tell nations how to use their resources. If this passes, a nation is still quite free to decide whether or not to log their forests and to what extent.

The inconvenient truth is that the effects of poor forest management extend far beyond the initial location and thus become the concern of one's neighbors. The good news is that this resolution, unlike many others addressing the problem, acknowledges the need to (intelligently) harvest forest products (you'll note the absence of any 'cut one; plant one' folly) and attempts a balance between the two.

What happens in undervelope nations that can afford to plan and preserve and people need to use Slash and Burn techniques to survive by means of either Subsistence farming or cash crops?Representative Flibble is indeed correct. We merely urge you to not use slash-and-burn. However, we would point out that slash-and-burn is ineffective as a long-term agricultural technique and would urge anyone still using slash-and-burn to contact the Sustainable Agricultural Center (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973216&postcount=185) for assistance with better, long-term practices.

And thanks also to Rep. Flibble for noting category and industry effected. Assumption led to brevity when clarity was warranted.

--L.T.

The Armed Republic of the Toori has many colonies on other planets, however, our main colonie(here on nation states) is located in a massive island chain on the 8th continent, aka: Godhaven. We love our forests, we do not clear out forests for development, we just clear out the underbrush and start building. Also, our favorite national sport is paintball:gundge: :sniper: :mp5: which we would not be able to do without our forests. We do use wood, however, we have farms that grow fast growing trees specificaly for those uses. We do not deforest our lush home.

Aqua Anu finds this proposal very irrelevant to us and a waste of our money. We have no forests and that isn't due to deforestations, that is how these islands were when we found them.

We congratulate the Armed Republic of the Toori on their protective approach to their forests. As there is nothing in this proposal that they would object to, we look forward to their support.

#1 ) The problem with this legislation is that if you are talking about sustainable forestry, who is going to sustain it. This is the major problem with this kind of legislation. Sustainable forestry generally requires that the people who live in the area maintain and own the land.

A large portion missing from this is providing education and training so that the locals can institute sustainability projects if they want. Turning the land over to the locals often is the best thing for forests. This also means providing funding for education as well as funding for businesses that would be based on sustainability, ecotourism, hunting and fishing (for those right wingers out there)-- no forests, no hunting got that. Megacorp wants to make their money and run.

#2) The reasons forests survive in Ming, New Caldonia, and the Scandinvan countries is they are a permanent harvestable resource. There would be very few forests in if the emperor hadn't decided that they needed to manage their forests for the long term so they wouldn't run out of wood.

#3) This had very little to do with saving the one eyed skunk wombat. Please focus on what is important here, that is preserving the larger forests so people won't run out of wood, or have problems like "global warming". Focusing on the smaller things like the leper slug won't save the whole forest. Save the whole before the parts. Biodiversity should be done as a separate piece of legislation.

#4) Initially it might be a good idea to set this up as a voluntary action so people can create national parks, wilderness preserves, and managed forestry areas in their nations. This is the first stage in saving forests.

Aqua Anu finds this proposal very irrelevant to us and a waste of our money. We have no forests and that isn't due to deforestations, that is how these islands were when we found them.If the Aqua Anu have no woodchipping industries, then this proposal will not directly affect them nor their pocketbooks.

#1 ) The problem with this legislation is that if you are talking about sustainable forestry, who is going to sustain it. This is the major problem with this kind of legislation. Sustainable forestry generally requires that the people who live in the area maintain and own the land.

A large portion missing from this is providing education and training so that the locals can institute sustainability projects if they want. Turning the land over to the locals often is the best thing for forests. This also means providing funding for education as well as funding for businesses that would be based on sustainability, ecotourism, hunting and fishing (for those right wingers out there)-- no forests, no hunting got that. Megacorp wants to make their money and run.
...

#3) This had very little to do with saving the one eyed skunk wombat. Please focus on what is important here, that is preserving the larger forests so people won't run out of wood, or have problems like "global warming". Focusing on the smaller things like the leper slug won't save the whole forest. Save the whole before the parts. Biodiversity should be done as a separate piece of legislation.

#4) Initially it might be a good idea to set this up as a voluntary action so people can create national parks, wilderness preserves, and managed forestry areas in their nations. This is the first stage in saving forests.Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. I will certainly consider an education clause.

I am indeed addressing sustainable forestry--not 'save the forests' or 'establish national parks' or 'save the wombat.' If those are the proposals you are interested in, do write them; they are needed. Inclusion of biodiversity to the extent included in this proposal (referencing soft-/hard-wood cycles, for example) does not preclude a full-blown biodiversity proposal.

This proposal is directed toward commercial forestry operations and is also needed. It is not the place of this proposal, nor any from this body, to convey "ownership" of a nation's forests to any body, local or otherwise. Forest harvesting occurs in capitalist and socialist nations. Using principled harvest techniques benefits all regardless of the economic model and is one of the ways to guarantee sustainability of the forest.
#2) The reasons forests survive in Ming, New Caldonia, and the Scandinvan countries is they are a permanent harvestable resource. There would be very few forests in if the emperor hadn't decided that they needed to manage their forests for the long term so they wouldn't run out of wood. Indeed, this is the goal of this proposal and one that I believe it will achieve.

--L.T.

New Manth views rainforests as a waste of space. While we of course do not maintain that rainforests have no uses at all (their mitigation of greenhouse gasses has been amply demonstrated, for example), we believe that the land could be used in far more efficent manner. We are assured by our Minister of Human Resources that the population cram in New Manth's tenements would be far worse had we not bulldozed the rainforests to create livable, workable land. And coincidentally this also allowed us to get to the vast uranium deposits underneath. In fact since we found all that uranium we mostly use nuclear power now anyway, so we don't even need the rainforests for global warming purposes anymore.

Fortunately we're pretty much done cutting the rainforest down by now, so the proposal is unlilkely to affect us much :)

With respect,
Halys Mattan III, acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth.

This is a very thoughtful proposal, and we thank the ambassador of Rubina for bringing it to our attention.

We would join with those urging the inclusion of an education clause, from a perspective of national history. Some fifty or sixty years ago we set up a Forestry Commission, charged with the preservation of such publicly owned ancient forests as remained and with reforestation of certain other areas of the Gobbannium. While they were moderately successful at the former, the latter was carried out with a lack of imagination that has lead to regimented forests of uniform tree species with a singularly unnatural feel to them. We would be happy to share our experiences so that others do not need to repeat them.

We are not clear how this resolution will interact with issues of forest clearance beyond slash-and-burn agriculture. We presume it is not intended to completely forbid such clearances as may be required for agricultural use, road-building or urban extension, but we are not certain that the intent is clear.

If the Aqua Anu have no woodchipping industries, then this proposal will not directly affect them nor their pocketbooks.Actually, it'll smack around their economy just like everyone else.

...We would join with those urging the inclusion of an education clause, from a perspective of national history. ...

We are not clear how this resolution will interact with issues of forest clearance beyond slash-and-burn agriculture. We presume it is not intended to completely forbid such clearances as may be required for agricultural use, road-building or urban extension, but we are not certain that the intent is clear.Indeed, the resolution does not ban clear-cutting. However, it does limit its uses to those which qualify as sound forest management. Obviously forest resource management is only one aspect of a nation's interior resources and would be expected to work cooperatively with other such resources, including agriculture.

With respect to an educational function, we are investigating the possibility of including such in the proposal.

Actually, it'll smack around their economy just like everyone else.OOC I suppose: Color me surprised that the game is coded so roughly. I'm curious then, why do we, on environmental proposals, even have to select an industry if all nations, regardless of their primary industry, are impacted with every proposal?

OOC I suppose: Color me surprised that the game is coded so roughly.Well, since Max is an author of amusing novels and not a game programmer, I'd say it's pretty surprizing the thing's held up so well.

I'm curious then, why do we, on environmental proposals, even have to select an industry if all nations, regardless of their primary industry, are impacted with every proposal?It primarily smacks the specific industry, but it'll still hit nations. Also, just because Woodchipping isn't listed on their Spotlight doesn't mean they have absolutely no woodchipping industry. Yes, the #1 nation in the world for woodchipping would be hit harder, but every nation will be hit. That whole bit about "at the expense of industry" isn't just for show.

It primarily smacks the specific industry, but it'll still hit nations. ...<snipped> Thanks for the clarification. That's actually closer to how I thought it actually worked. And I hereby retract my "roughly".

This proposal has been submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=forest%20management).

The final version provides for educational resources in forest management.

I only really have one question.

Should I be looking somewhere else for the creation of the World Woodland Protection Team? I see them referred to and charged with some duties, but I seem to have missed their creation.

I suppose that it's pretty implicit that such an organization would be created to fill the jobs set out in the proposal, that's just a little out of the ordinary for us. It isn't a major part of Forest Management anyways, so it's proabably not a big deal.

OOC: It's entirely possible that I just missed reading the pertinent bit about it, or missed some other obvious fact that makes my question silly. I broke my glasses earlier today and am kinda guessing what half the words I'm reading are.

You can look forward to our disapproval. Nobody tells us what to do with our natural resources. All harvesting is nationalized. We will vote against this if it comes to vote, which I doubt it will.

I only really have one question.

Should I be looking somewhere else for the creation of the World Woodland Protection Team?

OOC: It's entirely possible that I just missed reading the pertinent bit about it, or missed some other obvious fact that makes my question silly. I broke my glasses earlier today and am kinda guessing what half the words I'm reading are.*facepalm* The WWPT is created in UNR#66 Illegal Logging, references to which found their way into the bit-bucket when number of words hit 3700. Unless we hit quorum tomorrow, I guess I'll have a chance to add that back in.

OOC: Ouch. I'm blind with 'em; blind without 'em. But it's a very good proposal. Trust me. ;)

You can look forward to our disapproval. Nobody tells us what to do with our natural resources. All harvesting is nationalized. We will vote against this if it comes to vote, which I doubt it will.There are many things we look forward to....

Better for all of us that most people realize the environment, like issues with diseases, isn't confined by national boundaries. You did read this carefully enough to see that it really is sovereignty neutral when one isn't knee-jerking?

We find nothing objectionable within this proposal and will support it if it comes up for vote.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Bumped because it's up to vote.

You did read this carefully enough to see that it really is sovereignty neutral when one isn't knee-jerking?

Um, no. I see foresting as a national issue. Forests are located within nations, which places them in my jurisdiction. I'll do what I will with them, and presently that is cutting them all down because my population approaches 1 billion and we are a small three-island atoll that needs the room.

I do realize that it doesn't stop logging, but it prevents a forest from being completely cut down for development.

Besides, we don't log for profit anyway. That's not a big industry.

AGAINST. I dislike environmentalists anyway.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad Un Ambassador

This Proposal has the full suport of The United States of Cookesland.


http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w107/Cookesland/thBlueeye-1.jpg
The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador

To Stop Deforestation Would Be Such A Burden On Economy, It Cannot And Shall Not Happen

I am completely against this issue! MY country needs deforestation. To stop deforestation would stop the income to many of my people. When they have less money, my country makes less money on taxes. The UN should not tell us how to use our resources.

I strongly support this proposal as it does an excellent job of covering everybodys needs in the area of forestry. In the immediate sense nations that don't already have similar legislation enacted will suffer an economic decline as they set up the all the departments required and start hiring foresters, plus nation that don't already do this will suffer a decline in thier timber harvests. However the long term benefits of this proposal as many. Over time timber havests can and will increase without endangering the environment, and the quality of the timber itself will increase resulting in greater profit per tree. Also even without the clauses specificly protecting species and enhancing biodiversity, simply using good forest managment practices will provide more and better habitat for the species that need protecting and the impoved forest condition will encourage greater biodiversity.

Until someone can show me a good reason to not support this proposal I will be one of its strongest supporters.

Hark, Council Chairman of The Nomadic Peoples of Travel Gnomes

Nord-Brutlandese UN Office
"Here's the new resolution up for vote, Carolina. Go give it to Madame Ambassador."
*looks at resolution* "NOT ANOTHER TREE-HUGGER RESOLUTION! Dang, it's so long! Our file cabinets'll be bursting!"
"If I hear any more complaint... Remember, you already have a reputation 'round these parts - "
"Okay, Bruno, I'm at it."
- - -
*seventeen hours later*
"Madame Ambassador, have we got a reply ready?"
"Uh, no. Adam spent seven hours translating that novel-length resolution - "
BEEP!
"Look like we have a message from home."

La delegatu mestreci viàoci votocche per la resoluzione. La Gobbierro di la Rinnosso Unnona di Norden e Marchòbrutellia supponece pianal hoci propone. Mieverdal, l'ufficie oèallareche per an'udattu. Gradece.

Dr. Simon l'Englàntino, Ph.D.
Finisterretto per l'Ivono e Rescoru Míagna
MP, Plano Verta Costa

"What does it say?"
"Vote yes for the resolution."
"But Madame Ambassador, somebody already voted for Brutland and Norden hours ago!"
"Huh?"
"Somebody voted for us."
"And what was the vote?"
"Yes for the resolution."
"Then we don't need to change the vote. However, Bruno, I'd like to talk to whoever that is who voted for the Kingdom without authorization."

i would like to say i said yes however i only said yes because that was the only one availabile. i dont think we should full out tear them out of the ground... but could we agree on a sensible planned way of doing it that pleases mostly everybody? thank you for your time

sincerly
Habdu mogshi
embasador to foriegn nations

Meh. New Anonia is for...I guess.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

P.S. Roderick Spear informs me he'll be here later, debating for this resolution.

Delphinidae Tursiops, being a nation full of tree huggers yet aware of the need other nations have for timber, supports this resolution.

After submitting the issue to the Deyagan people for vote, the Federation announces its support for the Forest Management proposal.

Finding a well-performed management system beneficial to both industry and the environment, the Rogue Nation of Syek supports this resolution. Bravo to those who compiled it.

Now I'm no tree hugger.. in fact I generally praise woodpeckers, beavers, and maple bugs for stickin' it to the man.. but I must say this is a good proposal. It's nice and specific, reasonable, and still allows for people to meet its mandates in their own way.

I want say yes to resolution, but my most excellent president (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s41/abfio/presidentofonitorincopoli.jpg) say:
I'm against. The forest is more important, but the welfare of people of Onitorincopoli is more important than forest. With the global market Onitorincopoli start a deforestation.
We need more house (the people is now 50.000.000) we need more factory.
Isn't simple say NO, but I must do it because my citizens want this.

If my most excellent president (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s41/abfio/presidentofonitorincopoli.jpg) say this, I must say NO to resolution.

Lamberto Canella
Ambassador of Democratic Republic of Onitorincopoli

To Stop Deforestation Would Be Such A Burden On Economy, It Cannot And Shall Not Happen
I am completely against this issue! MY country needs deforestation.So you both have terminal economies? After deforestation (the elimination of all forests), what then? Being totally dependent on other nations for all wood products can't possibly be good for your economic health.
i would like to say i said yes however i only said yes because that was the only one availabile.We're pleased to point out that the poll is not the resolution. Although one's voting options on the resolution are, by necessity, limited to two choices (or abstain from voting), "tearing them all out" or "not touching a single tree" are not your only choices under the text of the resolution.
P.S. Roderick Spear informs me he'll be here later, debating for this resolution.We look forward to seeing our dear friend, Mr. Spear, in the near future.


I want say yes to resolution, but my most excellent president (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s41/abfio/presidentofonitorincopoli.jpg) say:
I'm against. The forest is more important, but the welfare of people of Onitorincopoli is more important than forest. With the global market Onitorincopoli start a deforestation.
We need more house (the people is now 50.000.000) we need more factory.
Isn't simple say NO, but I must do it because my citizens want this.
You do seem to be between a rock and a hard place, Ambassador Canella. As above, I must point out that this resolution does not prevent logging, and that deforestation isn't a sustainable choice for any nation.

There are a wide-range of alternative building materials available these days, many of them quite economical. We would urge your nation to consider such for your current pressing needs, and would be happy to arrange a trade delegation to demonstrate them for your president. Once your forests and forest industries are gone, it becomes very expensive to provide those materials for your populace.

--L.T.

I cannot manage to convince my superiors to do anything on the issue, and I confess that I am struck by the desire to abstain.

Thusly, we abstain.

Most courteously,

I think that there can be a balance between logging and saving the forests. If you cut down trees, plant seeds to replace them. However, if it were that easy, it wouldn't be a problem. Not everyone does that. Some people simply do not care. We should carefully monitor all logging operations to make sure that they are doing their part to save the world we all live on instead of just trying to make a quick buck.

So it seems as though I never entered the vote in the first place. No matter, as we abstain, seeing no interest either way.

Plus we feel indecisive.

Meh. I'm off to get an office. Finally. They've been opening up.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

The Federal Republic votes no. Managing national forests is a strictly national affair, and we'd manage ours nicely, if we still had them.

To Stop Deforestation Would Be Such A Burden On Economy, It Cannot And Shall Not Happen

I am completely against this issue! MY country needs deforestation. To stop deforestation would stop the income to many of my people.

The forest is more important, but the welfare of people of Onitorincopoli is more important than forest. With the global market Onitorincopoli start a deforestation.

If your economies are truly so poorly planned that your survival is dependent upon turning your nations into barren, treeless wastelands, we really, really feel sorry for all your peoples. But the rest of us, thankfully, are not subject to that. Altanar reaffirms its support for this resolution.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Unified Virginia must say no to this resolution; deforestation is essential to establishing a strong economy. Our economies are not "poorly planned." Otherwise our economies would not be strong, as opposed to weak, fair, and the like.

And in order to maintain economic strength, deforestation is absolutely necessary. To restrict deforestation is in essence slowing down our economies, and merely increasing bureaucracy for zoning procedures.

The long term stage that should be maintained is an early clearing of land by which to build farms, parks, infrastructures, and factories. After such, more densely concentrated factory zonings and ports can be constructed. Only after the economy has been strengthened, established, and maintained by agriculture, industry, and trade can funds be diverted to ecology and environmental issues.

It is imperative and necessary for any nation's economic strength to clear land for the purpose of cultivating farmlands, factories, trading ports, and mines, with which the economy shall be built upon. Until the nation is of proper size can funds be diverted from other areas into ecology. Economy is strength, and strength is necessary for all young nations. Land clearance makes strong economies. This resolution however, does not.

For these reasons, Unified Virginia cannot support this unnecessary and oppressive resolution.

The Armed Republic of the Toori has many colonies on other planets, however, our main colonie(here on nation states) is located in a massive island chain on the 8th continent, aka: Godhaven. We love our forests, we do not clear out forests for development, we just clear out the underbrush and start building. Also, our favorite national sport is paintball:gundge: :sniper: :mp5: which we would not be able to do without our forests. We do use wood, however, we have farms that grow fast growing trees specificaly for those uses. We do not deforest our lush home.
I love the idea of the paintball sport... however, do we really need as many forests as we do? After intense research by my scientists, we have all come to agree that we do. Yes, we need the wood from the trees to expand our nations, but without the open space to help protect both out state animals and our sanity, civilization, I am sure, would quickly crumble. I think we should do all that we can to protect our forests, before it is to late. By the way Toori, DUCK! :sniper:

Although I do not allow deforestation in the European Islands unless under the most extreme circumstances, we understand that some other nations require these lumber sources, and do not think it's the United Nations' right to tell them how to use their resources.

Joseph Arnarson, President and Ambassador of the European Islands, 2007

Concur. People in many third world nations rely on forestry for basic livelihood. Unless we can either compensate them for lost income or find another source of income production for them, we have no right to tell them they must starve to serve our esthetic.

I suggest further study to determine ways of eliminating the hardships that this ban would cause.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/bowel.jpg

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7083/cardbex6.jpg

Respectfully,
Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov)


(For those who may have doubts, I hasten to add this was intended in a spirit of friendly jest. I've just found out (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12615584&postcount=193) Cluich has been deated, and I wasn't trying to bang nails into the Sheik's coffin. Especially since I hope Nadnerb will stick around.

Cluich, if you're reading this, the PINA interview you requested is ready (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12615544&postcount=192). Let me know if you still want to do it?)

This proposal doesn't actually enforce no-net deforestation and doesn't prohibit clear-cutting. It's not about stopping you cutting down trees, just making sure it's done in a sustainable fashion. As for the international aspect, air, soil and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity, bear no account to national boundaries. Hence, we will be voting FOR this resolution.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

The Government of Dov Rovicha does not believe that it is the function of the UN to interfere in the internal economics of a member nation.

We therefore vote against the motion.

We just hit some Uranium under a bunch of useless trees. Economy is up. Crime is down. Drugs are legal. Everything is great in Lundigrad. Lets start a nuclear war!

Well, Lundigrad, it is obvious that you are not taking this matter seriously. As such, Dov Rovicha will regard your comments with the contempt they deserve.

It is imperative and necessary for any nation's economic strength to clear land for the purpose of cultivating farmlands, factories, trading ports, and mines, with which the economy shall be built upon. Until the nation is of proper size can funds be diverted from other areas into ecology. Economy is strength, and strength is necessary for all young nations. Land clearance makes strong economies. This resolution however, does not.

By the time most nations have cleared sufficient land area for their economies to be as "strong" as you state, diverting funds into ecology may well be a moot point. If you've already reduced your biodiversity in a given area and chopped down all your forests, in effect creating a barren wasteland, throwing a few seeds at the ground once that's done is a minimal correction at best.

Starting from the very beginning with a plan for sustainable and managed forest cultivation is far more effective long-term, in preserving one's environment and also preserving economic sectors such as agriculture and timbering. After all, if your land is no longer arable due to topsoil loss, and you no longer have any trees to cut down, how will those industries continue to exist?

It's all about having a long-term view of how you run things. That's what this resolution encourages. Ignoring the concept of sound forestry management and putting your head in the sand does not.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

On behalf of the Soviet Gathering, i must state that we would never allow this kind of sugestion to NOT get passed. Your forrests, are what secure the life of this planet, and we CANNOT afford to lose it. Your thoughts also go to the Animals of the woods, who cannot substain live without the trees. Man-kind can't just destroy the planet at will.


The UN ambassedor of The Soviet Gathering, on behalf of The Union Of Soviet Socialists.

Ambassador Agaranth, I empathis with what you are saying and fully understand your sentiments.

But I again ask why the UN should be involved in this matter? Surely the economic activities of individual and sovereign nations within their own borders, is not something the UN charter covers?

It is all well and good Ambassador Agaranth for developed nations to sit and attempt to dictate to those struggling to achieve developing status and boost their economy, when they have already committed the very action they now seek to outlaw.

Why didn't your nations, Ambassadors, follow the same lines that you now extoll, when you were building your industrial and economic basis? Why do you now feel it necessary, now that you have achieved your prosperity, to impose restrictions on those nations that seek to follow your example?

By the time most nations have cleared sufficient land area for their economies to be as "strong" as you state, diverting funds into ecology may well be a moot point. If you've already reduced your biodiversity in a given area and chopped down all your forests, in effect creating a barren wasteland, throwing a few seeds at the ground once that's done is a minimal correction at best.

Starting from the very beginning with a plan for sustainable and managed forest cultivation is far more effective long-term, in preserving one's environment and also preserving economic sectors such as agriculture and timbering. After all, if your land is no longer arable due to topsoil loss, and you no longer have any trees to cut down, how will those industries continue to exist?

It's all about having a long-term view of how you run things. That's what this resolution encourages. Ignoring the concept of sound forestry management and putting your head in the sand does not.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The scenario which you have painted is an unlikely, extreme, worst-case scenario. It is an amalgamation of ridiculous, unlikely, and overly pessimistic predictions.

Unless you know the minds of the senators and leaders of other countries better then they know their own, you are hardly in any position to be proclaiming how they would restore their environment, nor in any position on imposing restrictions and laws by which they should.

The triumph of commerce, of industry, of the exportation and importation of grown, natural, and manufactured goods will provide all resources necessary to preserve and/or restore the environment of a nation. You also fail to realize that lumber industries are not the only industries in existence, there are manufacturing industries, mining, many others. And there are in fact trees used for agricultural purposes as well, say the harvesting of cherries. From cherry trees. Which are in fact trees, and do in fact hold down top soil.

And on a final note, we support the above statement by Dov Rovicha.

Surely the economic activities of individual and sovereign nations within their own borders, is not something the UN charter covers?

IC:
Charter? What charter?

When did this happen?

OOC:
NS ≠ RL. We don't have a charter, sorry.

Delegate of Don Rovicha,

Yes, I agree with you that this is NOT something that the UN should normally even look at, much less make it so that we must vote upon it. However, to many countries are not taking the matter into their own hands, forcing the UN to decide the issue for them. While my nation has yet to face the issue of deforestation, i fully plan to severlly limit the lumber companies when the time comes. I urge you to reconsider your position and help pass this bill for the good of the world.

Delegate of Don Rovicha,

Yes, I agree with you that this is NOT something that the UN should normally even look at, much less make it so that we must vote upon it. However, to many countries are not taking the matter into their own hands, forcing the UN to decide the issue for them. While my nation has yet to face the issue of deforestation, i fully plan to severlly limit the lumber companies when the time comes. I urge you to reconsider your position and help pass this bill for the good of the world.

I am forced to agree, even though i am not a member of the UN yet, that Jedi is completely right in both of his previous two posts. The UN must take action to preserve or future on this planet.

Spot on, Dr. Hodz. As often as we have looked, we have been unable to find a UN charter. It has, however, made for a great romp through the UN building. That Mr. Smithers turns up in the oddest of places.
But I again ask why the UN should be involved in this matter?
Perhaps you missed, Ms. Benson's succinct and thorough answer to this very question.
As for the international aspect, air, soil and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity, bear no account to national boundaries.
I would expand that with a single example. Nation A operates its forests with no regulations or guidelines. A large forest on its western border is clearcut in a very short time and, because Nation A does not require it, nothing is done to ameliorate the soil erosion that will most assuredly occur.

Nation B sits beside and below on the floodplain to Nation A. The rainy season comes and the water that would have been retained in Nation A's western forest drains quickly and fatally through Nation B's heavily populated eastern region. The flooding is extensive and deadly. Nation B is rightly angry.

In addition, the topsoil that used to be held by the western forest of Nation A is now making its way through Nation C. The continuing high level of contaminants in the waters has caused a number of Nation C's cities to have to increase filtering and seek new sources of potable water. There have also been detrimental effects on the freshwater species that Nation C and their neighbor Nation D, even further downstream, depend on for livelihoods.

One nation's utilization of one of their natural resources through unnecessarily poor forestry practices has now negatively impacted at least three nations.

Why didn't your nations, Ambassadors, follow the same lines that you now extoll, when you were building your industrial and economic basis? Why do you now feel it necessary, now that you have achieved your prosperity, to impose restrictions on those nations that seek to follow your example?Who says we did not follow these very same guidelines? There are many developed nations that have never experienced deforestation (and yet still have forest industries).

You seem to be arguing that this resolution is unjustly harsh on developing nations. It is true that developing nations, in general, have economies based largely on their unprocessed natural resources. What is also true, is that there is no reason for such countries to exhaust those resources wastefully. This resolution allows flexibility for developed and developing nation alike, to utilize their resources to their best effect, while ensuring that use is not harmful to ecosystems that extend beyond your borders.

How touching. A lovely hypothetical Nation A,B,C, and D example. How about some reality? Here in the Protectorate of Maximus Libra, we have few forests. The land is that way.

But We make wise use of our resources. It's called conservation. In a land with few trees one must make decisions carefully. To help our neighbors in Oakshanker and Barbender, We are damming our rivers for hydro power and to help alleviate their flooding problems.

Business is responsible and will do what ever it takes to make money, sustainable and profitable.

The United Nations has no business mandating what consenting countries do with their economies in their own regions. We vote No.

Dezmar
Ambassador Plenipotentiary from the Protectorate of Maximus Libra

We cast our vote in favour; this document is a wonderful approach to sustainable development with the appropriate flexibility to avoid inhibiting progress in the short term while ensuring development in the long term..

This is an international issue as the detrimental effects on the environmental equilibrium do not know borders. We are therefore unwilling to leave conservation to intangible concepts such as the rational self-interest of other member nations which cannot be quantified or guaranteed. Our environmental security cannot be assured with such an unstable foundation.

We would prefer a concrete framework for conservation.

Anravelle Kramer.

I suppose this thing passing will be the fluffies' revenge for the repeal of the whaling ban.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Praise be to those in power in the Protectorate of Maximus Libra. We the Oppressed Peoples of Barbender wish to thank Dezmar, Ambassador Plenipotentiary from the Protectorate of Maximus Libra, for his help in convincing his government that it was in the best interest of the Maximus Libra to help alleviate problems in the Oakshankers and with my peoples of Barbender with our flooding problems by the damming of your rivers.

We from the Republics of Sinners believe in free trade and mutual defense of our nations. Barbender is currently in the middle of joint military maneuver with Oakshankers with the main goal of building trust and cooperation between our two militaries. The secondary goals involve selective deforestation for the greater good of my country and that of the region. Another goal is that through deforestation Barbender limits the migration of the alien species of naked mole rats from Oakshankers. This pest species is slowly destroying the environment of my country. OOC :( think of the rabbits in Australia)

Any naked mole rat we can kill; we put on a skewer, then freeze, and then sell it to Oakshankers because it's the main dish in Oakshankers for profit.

All of Barbender's various lumber related industries have provided my government insight into where and how to deforestate to not only maximize profit but to help in the national defense of Barbender. The best part is the sustainability of it all, conservation is best for big business. Businesses that don't follow conservation waste valuable national resources.

Lastly, why does the UN have to make a feel good resolution so they can try to hold back third world nations? Just because you feel bad about succeeding doesn't mean the UN has the right to tell the members of the UN how to use resources. The UN is not a "Father Knows Best State" it shouldn't tell sovereign nations how to run their countries. First world countries didn't start out at the top; they had to go through a lot of growing pains just like the third world countries are going through now. Why should we make it harder on them and handicap ourselves in such a resource wasting manner? Barbender votes NO on this resolution.

Disgusted at the UN,
Tauren
Ambassador and Left Hand of the National Church of Barbender.

I would expand that with a single example. Nation A operates its forests with no regulations or guidelines. A large forest on its western border is clearcut in a very short time and, because Nation A does not require it, nothing is done to ameliorate the soil erosion that will most assuredly occur.

Nation B sits beside and below on the floodplain to Nation A. The rainy season comes and the water that would have been retained in Nation A's western forest drains quickly and fatally through Nation B's heavily populated eastern region. The flooding is extensive and deadly. Nation B is rightly angry.

In addition, the topsoil that used to be held by the western forest of Nation A is now making its way through Nation C. The continuing high level of contaminants in the waters has caused a number of Nation C's cities to have to increase filtering and seek new sources of potable water. There have also been detrimental effects on the freshwater species that Nation C and their neighbor Nation D, even further downstream, depend on for livelihoods.

One nation's utilization of one of their natural resources through unnecessarily poor forestry practices has now negatively impacted at least three nations.

We have some comments on this matter. Let's say this resolution passes... and Nations B, C, and D followed it because they are members. Nation A isn't, and the hypothetical situation above still happened. Even if this resolution would pass, Nations B, C, and D would still be affected.

We realize, though, that we cannot force non-members to comply with passed resolutions, but we would just like to point out that this resolution might not totally eliminate the possibility of an ecological disaster happening.

Several delegates had raised a pretty valid point that the manner of using their natural resources should be a matter of national concern. Though our vote would not change for the time being, the matter is still being debated by the Cabinet back home. Because this would not affect us directly as these regulations are already in our nation's books, the issue before us now is whether we should impose it on other nations.

And also, we must bear in mind that there can be other ways (aside from this) of utilizing natural resources without causing much ecological damage. We think that these other possibilities should be kept open.

Thank you.

On Behalf of the Permanent Representative of Brutland and Norden to the United Nations,
Adam di Sadalucco
Official Translator for the Nord-Brutlandese Delegation to the UN

Worldsong had not intended entering this debate. For one thing, it's about land, which we're not all that expert on; and for another, we see little point in popping up, saying, "Jolly good show!" and submerging again. We'd rather let our vote speak for us.

However, delegates keep saying something that sounds very odd to a First Singer's ears: things like "we decide what we do with our land" and "our nation's forests".

We don't think we own the sea we swim in. The coral that grows in one place is no more ours than the coral that grows in another place. Do you really think you own the land you live on? People die. Nations disappear. The land continues. All you can do is affect its health. You're its custodians, for those who come after.

The actions this proposal mandates are all to do with passing on the land in decent condition. Most of them seem aimed at passing it on in better condition. That's not something you can do one by one, because one group's efforts might cancel out another's. It's something that nations have to do together. If the UN nations start acting together, that will show the others how to look after the land, too.

Do the nations that are voting against want to not manage the land resources sensibly? Do you want to not plan how best to do that? Do you want to not make sure that others do their share? This proposal is about making sure those good things do happen, in the land where you live and in the land where your neighbours live. I can't really see what the argument is about.

First of all I would like to thank the nation of Rubina for a wonderfully well written resolution proposal which is now up for consideration. Unfortunately Retired WerePenguins will be opposed to it.

I like trees. There really aren't all that many in the Antarctic. In fact with the exception of a few wierdo places there are none! I think trees should be preserved. I think every nation should be encouraged to preserve them.

But, and this is important, this is not an international issue. This is a national one. This is not about the creation of an international body, but forcing nations within the UN to create and adopt national regulations that put them all at a disadvantage compared to non UN nations that do not need to create such laws and regulations.

I have the feeling that this will pass with a wide margin. I am not opposed to tree hugging. Those Frustrated Franciscans do it all the time and have special poison ivy covered trees which they ecourage their enemies to hug. But I would remind the delegates one important word of wisdom. "When hugging a tree be sure not to impale yourself on one of the branches!"

Maximus Libra;12618470']How touching. A lovely hypothetical Nation A,B,C, and D example. How about some reality?Names were changed to protect the guilty and innocent alike.
The United Nations has no business mandating what consenting countries do with their economies in their own regions.And yet, looking over the list of passed resolutions, we see numerous examples of exactly that, many of which received large amounts of support from nations now invoking the "You can't tell us what to do" shield.

If you'll take a moment from bashing your knee against the table, you'll notice the resolution does not prevent you from continuing to utilize your forest resources.

We have some comments on this matter. Let's say this resolution passes... and Nations B, C, and D followed it because they are members. Nation A isn't, and the hypothetical situation above still happened. Even if this resolution would pass, Nations B, C, and D would still be affected.

We realize, though, that we cannot force non-members to comply with passed resolutions, but we would just like to point out that this resolution might not totally eliminate the possibility of an ecological disaster happening.The Official Translator di Sadalucco raises a good point here.

As with all UN legislation, this has no binding affect on non-members, and should not as membership in this organization is voluntary. We believe it to be in the best interests of members with forested borders with non-members to diplomatically come to an agreement that involves the non-member voluntarily complying with the guidelines contained in the resolution.
Several delegates had raised a pretty valid point that the manner of using their natural resources should be a matter of national concern.If those national decisions impacted only the single nation making them, we would agree with them. But they don't. We believe this resolution, aimed at the means of use rather than the use itself (you see no logging bans or requirements to plant one tree for every tree harvested here) has enough flexibility for nations to direct the use of their resources to the best of their interests.

This is not about the creation of an international body, but forcing nations within the UN to create and adopt national regulations that put them all at a disadvantage compared to non UN nations that do not need to create such laws and regulations.How is having a healthy, sustainable, long-term forest industry a disadvantage?

Worldsong had not intended entering this debate.

Ambassador Mattan looks up for a moment from his freshly-delivered whale steak, courtesy of the recent UN resolution repealing the whaling ban, to address the delegate of Worldsong.

"Funny how they reel you in, isn't it, er... sir?"

Do you really think you own the land you live on?

...Of course we do. What kind of question is that?

Most of them seem aimed at passing it on in better condition.

Who defines better? A bunch of treehuggers? Pardon my saying, but I enjoy the city much more than some godforsaken empty forest in the middle of nowhere, nor do I believe that the aesthetics of a bunch of smelly backcountry hikers should determine what is 'better' for the rest of us.

Do the nations that are voting against want to not manage the land resources sensibly?

We already manage the land sensibly. You may trumpet all you like about the benefits of sustainable forestry, we still find that the supporters of this proposal have vastly exaggerated them. There is no comparing the economic output of a hundred thousand acres of forest with tthat same hundred thousand acres as part of a modern industrialized city. Forests are an extremely inefficient use of New Manth's precious land, sir, and with 250 million people and growing we cannot afford to waste our scarce natural resources pleasing the aesthetics of naturalists. We would rather feed a man and give him a job than show him a pretty photograph of a forest, and we can feed and give jobs to many times more men in a factory than in a sustainable logging operation.

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, acting UN ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

After glancing at said propsal, I beleive that and additional clause is warranted. A clause that states that a certain % of the originaly trees must be left on a per acre bassis. In other words, if you wish to build a housing development or wish to do lumber cutting, you must leave 10% of the original trees on each acre.

Doing so would leave a great percentage of the oginal forestry intact as well as increasing the value of the land. If you look at current real estate trends, properties that have old and large trees on them have a higher sell value.

The percentage can be adjusted depending on whether ot not one is cutting in an urban/suburban or rural/forested area.

Would my fellow august members of the UN please provide a simple clarification. It is my understanding that the UN is supposed to provide standards for actions between nations. When conflicts between nations arise, the UN is supposed to be a forum for resolving these issues.

Why then is the UN intent on interfering with the internal decisions of its members. This forest proposal is merely the most recent example of such interference. The Kingdom of Ardwyr intimately knows the uses that forests and forest lands can be put to. We submit however, that what we, or any other nation, decides to do with their own land is no one elses business...as long as it does not directly affect any other nation.

His Royal Highness
King of Ardwyr

scribed by Fitzalen

I suppose this thing passing will be the fluffies' revenge for the repeal of the whaling ban.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Episode 3025: The Fluffies Strike Back.

I need a UN card...

In other words, if you wish to build a housing development or wish to do lumber cutting, you must leave 10% of the original trees on each acre.

Ambassador Mattan looks up from his meal again. So much whale meat, so little time... but there is also official duty to attend to, such as the current debate.

"Please. if there is one thing I would applaud in this proposal, it is the absence of ill-conceived quotas. If leaving trees standing improves the value of property as much as you suggest, then I am sure the owners will leave some trees standing of their own accord."

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

We already manage the land sensibly. ...with 250 million people and growing we cannot afford to waste our scarce natural resources pleasing the aesthetics of naturalists. We would rather feed a man and give him a job than show him a pretty photograph of a forest, and we can feed and give jobs to many times more men in a factory than in a sustainable logging operation.Becherie, please send a message to the Trade Ministry. The "oh my goodness, the price on that just went up" list has grown by one.
After glancing at said propsal, I beleive that and additional clause is warranted.Once at vote, the resolution text is not changeable. In addition, a one-size-fits-all percentage for set asides is inherently unworkable on an international scale. Some forests warrant an 80% set-aside; others a mere 2%. This is something that nations, within the guidelines of accepted forestry conservation science, must decide for themselves.
It is my understanding that the UN is supposed to provide standards for actions between nations. When conflicts between nations arise, the UN is supposed to be a forum for resolving these issues.We would be interested in where you got this impression, your majesty.
We submit however, that what we, or any other nation, decides to do with their own land is no one elses business...as long as it does not directly affect any other nation.And as a number of people have already explained. Environmental issues in one nation directly impact other nations.

How is having a healthy, sustainable, long-term forest industry a disadvantage?

Because any industry must be profitable. The costs (and these are short term costs) for following this resolution are significant to the forest industry. (And I'm not just talking stat wank here, this is from generally reading the resolution.) This would produce a significant difference in the price of finished goods from the UN nation compared to a nearby non UN nation. You can do one of two things, you can limit imports of the non UN nation in your nation but this in effect shits the pain towards those that use finished goods in your nation (the costs of houses increases for everyone in your nation that needs to buy a house which in turn produces a force for higher wages and so on and so forth). Conversely you can have free trade and the national forest industry will fall because it can't compete with the non UN foret industry.

Moreover there may be a greater push by the non UN nation to promote short term profits by increaseing clear cutting etc. (Make hay while the sun does shine as it were.) The net effect could be worse for the world since non UN nations outnumber UN nations.

Make no mistake I am all for a good way to get more trees. Given the nature of the nations in and not in the UN I think a better approach would be to look at the problem from a carrot not a stick perspective; in terms of how we can encourage the promotion and growth of forests. Clearcutting is not just for the woodchipping industry; you clearcut in order to get the space for the mega-mall and the mega-mall parking lot. It is often cheaper to clearcut and build a new mall than to rebuild on an old one that has gone fallow, with fields of tar and concrete instead of trees and grasses.

Becherie, please send a message to the Trade Ministry. The "oh my goodness, the price on that just went up" list has grown by one.

Ambassador Mattan frowns.

"Pardon me? If that was a snide dig I fear that I have missed the punchline. In any case I must say that such tactics will hardly be effective in winning my vote, Ambassador!"

Given the nature of the nations in and not in the UN I think a better approach would be to look at the problem from a carrot not a stick perspective; in terms of how we can encourage the promotion and growth of forests.

"I find myself in complete agreement with the representative from Retired Werepenguins. Rather than throwing up legislative roadblocks in an attempt to force companies to take a less economically viable path, would it not make more sense to attempt to make the path you desire them to take more attractive, so that businesses would embrace it willingly?"

With respect
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

The proud forest culling people of InfinityIX refuse to allow these opressive and human distaining "tree people". This is their way of life, it has worked for as far back as our history records and we cannot allow this interference by radicals who want nothing other than to toss us back into the stone age and have us worshiping the things around us as gods!

New Manth views rainforests as a waste of space. While we of course do not maintain that rainforests have no uses at all (their mitigation of greenhouse gasses has been amply demonstrated, for example), we believe that the land could be used in far more efficent manner. We are assured by our Minister of Human Resources that the population cram in New Manth's tenements would be far worse had we not bulldozed the rainforests to create livable, workable land. And coincidentally this also allowed us to get to the vast uranium deposits underneath. In fact since we found all that uranium we mostly use nuclear power now anyway, so we don't even need the rainforests for global warming purposes anymore.

Fortunately we're pretty much done cutting the rainforest down by now, so the proposal is unlilkely to affect us much :)

With respect,
Halys Mattan III, acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth.

The tannoy crackles to life:

Attention Morons, your bus is leaving.

The tannoy crackles to life:

Attention Morons, your bus is leaving.

Ambassador Mattan barely looks up from his whale steak.

"Could someone get Security to escort this cretin off the... oh. You are actually a representative? Huh. Well it takes all sorts I suppose."

Given the nature of the nations in and not in the UN I think a better approach would be to look at the problem from a carrot not a stick perspective; in terms of how we can encourage the promotion and growth of forests.Your economic analysis may be true, but it is true only for some and only for the short-term.

The presence of a stick-- we would point out not nearly as brown and sticky as resolutions in this arena are wont to be-- does not preclude the presence of a carrot. We encourage you to write such a proposal and would consider it for support.
It is often cheaper to clearcut and build a new mall than to rebuild on an old one that has gone fallow, with fields of tar and concrete instead of trees and grasses.Proving in one sentence that the economic bottom line isn't the end-all be-all.

Ambassador Mattan frowns.

"Pardon me? If that was a snide dig I fear that I have missed the punchline. In any case I must say that such tactics will hardly be effective in winning my vote, Ambassador!"A dig, sir? More like the fresh breeze of reality. Surely you don't expect nations that rush headlong through their natural resources, choosing urbanization/industrialization over everything else to be able to purchase natural resources from others at less than what the market will bear? Your factories will long sit idle without raw materials.

Given your initial statement, Amb. Mattan, we doubt if your vote was ever up for winning. We would rather good sense and logic determine one's vote, leaving cajolery and whinging to those who have less than nothing to say.

this resolution would be pretty good, exept point 8 which states that there will have to be a goverment agency to monitor its applications. i refuse to create another agency, becouse it will requre tax inccrease. I think let the UN agency perform the monitoring by it's self.

A dig, sir? More like the fresh breeze of reality. Surely you don't expect nations that rush headlong through their natural resources, choosing urbanization/industrialization over everything else to be able to purchase natural resources from others at less than what the market will bear? Your factories will long sit idle without raw materials.

"Predictions of doom and gloom which have been made for years, Ambassador, and have never come true. New Manth has enough uranium to serve her energy needs for the next century and a quarter, even considering projected population growth, and by then I'm sure we'll have figured out how to make matter-antimatter reactors or something similarly improbable. And even if that were not true, new lands are opening up all the time."

Given your initial statement, Amb. Mattan, we doubt if your vote was ever up for winning.

The Ambassador chuckles.

"A fair point, and I freely admit that I am probably not the most efficient use of your resources."

Mattan winks.

"Nevertheless, there's no such thing as a lost cause, as we say back in New Manth."

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

It is my pleasure to announce that the New Cultural Revolution finds this resolution to be most agreeable. I have consequently cast our vote in favour and look forward to its smooth passage.

Certain delegates would do well to note that nature pays little heed to lines scarcely more tangible than those drawn in sand. Forests cross borders. The soil in which they take root and from which they extract nourishment has no sense of national jurisdiction. National sovereignty has little to no bearing on much of what is positied in this resolution.

Benedictions,

Peaceful Tree-People in Favor by vote of 103% to -3% *

We are strongly, strongly FOR this resolution. Even though we are only UN oberservers.

First, deforestation is a severe problem for Peaceful Tree-People. Not only does it decrease ecotourism and natural beauty, but it takes down the spirits of our people. No, seriously, when you hit a tree-person with an axe, he dies. Simple as that.

Second, we are especially glad of the inclusion phrase "timber plantations be planned and managed in accordance with requirements of this and all other applicable UN resolutions" because it recognizes that, first, tree-people actually exist, and second, tree-nursury is disgusting. This only helps confirm our Ecomancipation Producimation by ensuring the horrendous practice of buying and selling tree people, raising them, and subsequently cutting them into 5.08 x 10.16's.**

Third, we are friggin' tired of people cutting our ambassadors in half. We thought that would have stopped or at least decreased, due to the UN's Diplomatic Immunity, which, by the way, does affect us on diplomatic missions to UN nations.

We do have one complaint, however. Why so weak? Why not outlaw the barbaric practices of timber plantations? Why not outlaw logging altogether? We're not endangered yet, but why wait until we are? Seriously, what's the deal here; if I had a UN nation propose a resolution to
limit the raising, butchering, and dicing of human beings, what would be your response? If I said that human population management programs needed to socially and economically benefit the butchers, when would you finish that obnoxious laughing/respiratory vibrations that you heterotrophs undergo? If I proposed an argument against murder, because it would decrease tourism value, what kind of gun would you muder me with?

We implore the General Assembly to ponder the following assertion: logging is murder.

-Dr. Pineangio Moss
Star Anise of the UN Oberservation Mission

** Since the Metric System repeal failed, we are using centimeters for convenience.

* +-2000%

this resolution would be pretty good, exept point 8 which states that there will have to be a goverment agency to monitor its applications. i refuse to create another agency, becouse it will requre tax inccrease. I think let the UN agency perform the monitoring by it's self.Reviewing the monitoring clause, we see no requirement for you to form a new agency. Environmental concerns could easily be assigned to a pre-existing department, office or functionary, who would then liaise with the WWPT.

<snip>*nods* Very well said.

Ambassador Agaranth, I empathis with what you are saying and fully understand your sentiments.

But I again ask why the UN should be involved in this matter? Surely the economic activities of individual and sovereign nations within their own borders, is not something the UN charter covers?

It is all well and good Ambassador Agaranth for developed nations to sit and attempt to dictate to those struggling to achieve developing status and boost their economy, when they have already committed the very action they now seek to outlaw.

Why didn't your nations, Ambassadors, follow the same lines that you now extoll, when you were building your industrial and economic basis? Why do you now feel it necessary, now that you have achieved your prosperity, to impose restrictions on those nations that seek to follow your example?

We're glad you understand and emphathize with our stance on this resolution. To answer your questions, deforestation and its harmful effects, as many delegates have already pointed out most ably, don't respect such transient things as national borders. That fact is, by itself, exactly why this is a matter worthy of UN attention. And we feel it is important to note that this resolution does not say developing nations can't use their forests; it only makes sure they (along with developed nations) do so responsibly and in a sustainable fashion. This is something that will be of benefit to developing nations long-term, as it will help them preserve their environment while maintaining their economies. And for the record, Altanar did not go the route of raping and pillaging its environment to build its economy. Our economy is not as strong as some nations, but we like the fact that our air is clean and our land doesn't look like a blasted moonscape, and we still have an economy strong enough to provide for our people.

The scenario which you have painted is an unlikely, extreme, worst-case scenario. It is an amalgamation of ridiculous, unlikely, and overly pessimistic predictions.

Unless you know the minds of the senators and leaders of other countries better then they know their own, you are hardly in any position to be proclaiming how they would restore their environment, nor in any position on imposing restrictions and laws by which they should.

The triumph of commerce, of industry, of the exportation and importation of grown, natural, and manufactured goods will provide all resources necessary to preserve and/or restore the environment of a nation. You also fail to realize that lumber industries are not the only industries in existence, there are manufacturing industries, mining, many others. And there are in fact trees used for agricultural purposes as well, say the harvesting of cherries. From cherry trees. Which are in fact trees, and do in fact hold down top soil.

In response, we say this: have you read the national descriptions of many of the other nations in the NS multiverse? Blasted and raped environments are, in fact, all too common.

As for your statement that we are in no position to know the intent of other nations, or what they might do, you may be right. But we do know that, frequently, the common good does not win out over simple greed. That is why it is sometimes, regrettably, necessary to intervene to protect the common good. The environment is one of those areas where it is sometimes necessary, because it affects all nations, not just yours or mine. We also feel that someone might want to point out to you that your cherry tree example really would have no relevance here, unless your cherry growers are so inept that they cut their orchards down on a regular basis.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

OPEN RESPONSE TO ALL THOSE WHO THINK THAT "DEFORESTATION IS ESSENTIAL TO A STRONG ECONOMY."

I have one word for you:

Haiti.

If you think deforestation is a good thing, have a look at the once-forested nation of Haiti, now utterly devoid of trees because of subsistence slash-and-burn and non-restorative consumption. True, the despots in power are more to blame than the citizens who were desperate for fuel for cooking fires and housing material, but nonetheless, the nation is a complete disaster and recovery of any kind is unlikely for at least a generation.

Face it, folks, you're wrong. Responsible forestry and logging is the only way to ensure the continued presence of trees (barring some future-tech thingy). The presence of forests is indeed a global/world issue, given their natural carbon sequestration ability and production of oxygen.

This isn't about the Northern Spotted Owl or long-haired vegetarians using crystals for deodorant lashing themselves to sequoias. It's about the respnsible management of a resource. The difference between forests and flocks or herds is that forests serve a global purpose.

Ambassador Mattan barely looks up from his whale steak.

"Could someone get Security to escort this cretin off the... oh. You are actually a representative? Huh. Well it takes all sorts I suppose."

Your brave front in the face of your own nation's economic and environmental collapse is, at best, amusing, and at worst...uh...well, amusing, really. Intangelon stands ready to sell you well-regulated wood and related products at any rate the market will bear.

Benji begins to snicker uncontrollably.

Excuse me, sir, just trying to stifle my laughter at a "modernized, industrial" nation having to buy lumber. Ah, well -- it takes all sorts, I suppose.

Your economic analysis may be true, but it is true only for some and only for the short-term.

But short term is all it can take to destroy an industry. We really need to move the discussion from the two extreeme alternatives of clear cutting every tree in sight to the draconian measures imposed on UN member nations only by this resolution. Correct me if I am wrong, but under this resolution Christmas Tree farms would be illegal. (Trees are planted on a plot of land much like any other crop and are all harvested at the same time ... technically clear cutting on a small scale.) Old vinyard recycling (most vines stop makig good fruit after a century) could be debteable because we are talking vines not trees, but this might be a nit pick.

Unfortunately if this resolution is passed UN nations hands would be so tied up that I don't think an effective carrot resolution can be writen.

Our national scientists have found that more people die from climbing trees than from heart disease. These trees are a menace, like those whales. And they need to be stopped. Unless we deforest as fast and as wildly as possible, using as much slash and burn as napalm, these trees will KILL OUR CHILDREN.

Correct me if I am wrong, but under this resolution Christmas Tree farms would be illegal.
Each clause has both a local (specific forest area) and a national effect (a broad view of a nation's forests). This is consistent with forest management. Christmas tree farms are specific in scope, small in area of effect and are less "forest" than "agriculture" since the product is not the timber but the tree itself. There are three sections of the proposal that could effect such operations, but would not make them illegal.REQUIRES the utilization of scientifically sound forestry management as developed and widely recognized by forest preservation and production organizations;

4. Forest management operations conserve biodiversity and its associated values... including...a. avoidance of clear cutting, except where necessary as a means of conservation, regeneration or diversification,

6. Timber plantations be planned and managed in accordance with requirements of this and all other applicable UN resolutions. Plantation forests should complement the management of, reduce pressures on, and promote the restoration and conservation of natural forests;Such farms would fall under the classification of plantation forests. By their nature they "reduce pressures on" timber forests by providing an alternative to people prematurely harvesting fir and pine that in maturity would be used for furniture, housing and paper wood. Note next, that clear-cutting is not banned. If clear-cutting conforms to sound forest management, as it would on a Christmas tree farm, it is a usable technique. About the only things that would impact such farms from this resolution (and again if in compliance, not make them illegal) would be the encouragement of biodiversity and any soil retention amelioration needed. Neither aren't such bad ideas, even for a Christmas tree farm.

Draconian? No, merely forward-looking.

--L.T.

OPEN RESPONSE TO ALL THOSE WHO THINK THAT "DEFORESTATION IS ESSENTIAL TO A STRONG ECONOMY."

I have one word for you:

Haiti.


Benji, Benji, Benji...where the hell is this Haiti you're talking about?

Benji, Benji, Benji...where the hell is this Haiti you're talking about?You really ought to make sure you know the answer to a question before asking it.

The People's Republic of Gods Free Haiti (www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=gods_free_haiti) is a very large, safe nation, renowned for its barren, inhospitable landscape.

[It's] ...national animal is the penguin, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation

Despite all this opiums about trees being rehired, I don't not feel this is a intentional issue, and one the UN should be adjourned with.

Mrs Malaprop

How will fire be used to manage the forests? Are steps to be taken to ensure that overgrowth will not be a problem?

You really ought to make sure you know the answer to a question before asking it.

OOC: Oh, FFS...

How will fire be used to manage the forests?
As the resolution is silent on that issue, I'd assume that that would be up to the individual nations to decide.
Are steps to be taken to ensure that overgrowth will not be a problem?See above.

Anyway, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is going on record as opposing this resolution. While we do manage our forests responsibly, we see no need to force other nations to do so (especially when we can simply sell our logs to those nations who fail keep their forests around at vastly overinflated prices).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

How will fire be used to manage the forests? Are steps to be taken to ensure that overgrowth will not be a problem?

As the resolution is silent on that issue, I'd assume that that would be up to the individual nations to decide.The resolution isn't really silent on the issue.
REQUIRES the utilization of scientifically sound forestry management as developed and widely recognized by forest preservation and production organizations;Forestry's understanding of the role of fire (and overgrowth) has varied over time and is still subject to research. Current thought is to mimic the natural fires of the past, by using controlled burn and clearing techniques to counter any overgrowth that has built up. The actual use in any particular nation would be dependent on the conditions of the forests and current evidentiary-based forest management techniques.

...(especially when we can simply sell our logs to those nations who fail keep their forests around at vastly overinflated prices).It appears the lot of us with wood products to sell are bound to make a killing for quite some time.

--L.T.

Quite an interesting discussion, so far. There has actually been a decent amount of time spent debating a number of issues surrounding the resolution. Impressive. There are, naturally, a number of knee-jerk opinionists on both sides of the fence, but those have to be expeccted in an assembly this large.

Some excellent points have been made in support of Forest Management. The one that really draws my attention was best put by the honourable representative of Quintessence of Dust. To paraphrase: destruction of the environment knows no national boundaries. I fear that many of the arguments in favour, however, sound, to me, like the UN playing nursemaid to its members, and preventing them from making their own mistakes.

Some of the arguments against Forest Management have some definite merit as well. Rational nations will use some form of responsible logging practices anyways, being one of my favourites, along with the standard response of the UN delving into internal affairs of nations again.

There are economic arguments for both sides. The resolution allows for a continued logging industry with some guidelines, but will give short term advantage to non members who do not have to abide by it.

For what it's worth, there is something that can be done about non members whose logging practices are environmentally unsound. Trade sanctions are the first things that come to mind. Military force, if it comes right down to it. The UN won't be performing either of these for you, but there's no reason to assume yourself powerless simply because you can't get the UN to do your dirty work.

Taking a bit more of a lean towards political darwinism, I'm inclined to oppose Forest Management. If there are nations out there that are foolish enough to completely obliterate their own ecosystem, then there is much profit to be made off of them in the meantime, and they won't be bothering us for too long before the land becomes vacant and people with a more rational approach to the environment are free to move in and try to fix what they can.

Before anybody goes off to cry hypocrite after looking at the profile of The Dominion of Kivisto, please keep in mind that we are located in the Antarctic, and there are very few trees to begin with. Frankly, it's amazing that the White Rhino manages to survive at all in such a brutally cold environment. The penguins must laugh at them day in and day out.

The Dominion has cast its vote against this proposal, but we must remark that we are rather impressed with how well it is written, and the excellent job that the Rubinan delegation has done with it.

As a final thought or two....

Despite all this opiums about trees being rehired, I don't not feel this is a intentional issue, and one the UN should be adjourned with.

....what? I'm not huge on grammar fascism, but....what?

Despite all these opinions about trees being (?)rehired(?), I don't feel this is a international issue, and one the UN should be concerned with.

That's a little better, but I am uncertain where the rehiring of trees comes into play, or what variation on that word is supposed to be there.

Taking a bit more of a lean towards political darwinism, I'm inclined to oppose Forest Management. If there are nations out there that are foolish enough to completely obliterate their own ecosystem, then there is much profit to be made off of them in the meantime, and they won't be bothering us for too long before the land becomes vacant and people with a more rational approach to the environment are free to move in and try to fix what they can.
Yet their own actions will inevitably impinge on other nations' wellbeing, yes? So your opposition is based on an element of faulty reasoning, surely? Though, when I take pause to consider the matter, Kivisto's geography is such that you would still not suffer.

Ah. I appear to have answered my own question.

That's a little better, but I am uncertain where the rehiring of trees comes into play, or what variation on that word is supposed to be there.
* ooc: "rehired" = "aired"? I hope S&M (oo-er, etc.) reappears in the UN forum, this has been amusing. *

Benedictions,

I fear that many of the arguments in favour, however, sound, to me, like the UN playing nursemaid to its members, and preventing them from making their own mistakes.
Is that a bad thing? My government doesn't particularly want anyone else to repeat its devastatingly stupid reforestation plan of half a century ago, after all, so educating forest managers about forest management sounds like a good idea.

....what? I'm not huge on grammar fascism, but....what?
Mrs Malaprop seems to be afflicted by malapropisms. Funny, that.

Despite all this opiums about trees being rehired, I don't not feel this is a intentional issue, and one the UN should be adjourned with.

....what? I'm not huge on grammar fascism, but....what?

Despite all these opinions about trees being (?)rehired(?), I don't feel this is a international issue, and one the UN should be concerned with.That's a little better, but I am uncertain where the rehiring of trees comes into play, or what variation on that word is supposed to be there.

Kivisto, Google spoonerisms and malapropisms before you tear any new holes in this bit of grammatical silliness.

Kivisto, Google spoonerisms and malapropisms before you tear any new holes in this bit of grammatical silliness.
OOC:
gah! Logic has been introduced to my fragile psyche! Run Away!

*flees*

I completely missed that reference. Nice. That's pretty humourous.

Ambassador Mattan sets aside his empty plate and, after calling for an after-dinner snack of shark fin soup, rises to address the Assembly once more.

"It has been brought to my attention that this resolution bans clear-cutting "except where necessary as a means of conservation, regeneration or diversification." Missed that on the first read-through. What about where necessary as a means of city-buildingification, hmmm? Or are we supposed to have trees growing through our living room windows?

I must also question whether the environmental harm to one's neighbors caused by cutting down a forest within one's own borders is really as dire as has been made out. After all, the scenario which was proposed, some nonsense about nations A, b, delta, gamma, whatever..."

Mattan shrugs.

"In any case, the idea that a flood originating in one nation, because it has cut down its forests, also devastating three more nations rather relies on the assumption that they have destroyed their own natural flood control as well, does it not? In which case they hardly have reason to be angry at Nation Alpha! After all, if Nation 2 is made up of rolling, richly forested hills I doubt the mudslides or whatever it was from Nation A will make much headway!"

Your brave front in the face of your own nation's economic and environmental collapse is, at best, amusing, and at worst...uh...well, amusing, really.

"Thanks for the concern. Despite your dire predictions, our economy is doing just fine, thanks. (http://www.nationstates.net/new_manth ) Rather better than your own, I must point out."

Excuse me, sir, just trying to stifle my laughter at a "modernized, industrial" nation having to buy lumber. Ah, well -- it takes all sorts, I suppose.

"What is so bizarre about buying lumber? It happens all the time. You don't seriously think there is no international trade in lumber?

In any case, we already have quite satisfactory trade arrangements for supplying what lumber we need. Unless you're willing to undercut our current suppliers, we must decline your offer."

Respectfully,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

Would anyone care to explain the phenomenon of soil erosion to the New Manth representative?

Benedictions,

"Ambassador, not Representative, is my office, sir or madam, though you may call me by the title of Duke as well if you would prefer. As to your question, why not do it yourself, if it is so simple? Enlighten me as to why only trees can save the New Manthian nation from destruction at the hands of all-consuming mudslides. While you're at it you might take a crack at explaining how nations without significant forests still exist."

Mattan pauses for a second as an aide brings in his shark fin soup.

"It might be worth taking into account in your argument that New Manth is and always has been one of those nations. The Sahara existed before our nation was founded and I am sure it will remain after we are gone, yet we have not found ourselves washed into the sea just yet."

With respect,
Duke Halys Reisschart III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

Esteemed Colleagues:

I related the following from scientific studies conducted by the University of Saints, located in central Maximus Libra

Primus: CO2 sequestration and oxygen production are accomplished by chlorophyll. (The green color) Yes, other pigments do also but nearly as well.

Secondus: Plankton in the ocean is the primary source of oxygen production and CO2 sequestration.

Tertieaus: There is more chlorophyll in an acre of 15.24 cm grass than in an acre of 15 metre trees. (Blasted metric system, you convert it into your own measurements)

Quarterous: Data suggests that if the primary concern is CO2 sequestration and oxygen production, then trees should be cut and grass planted.

Quintiuos: If the issue is erosion, further data suggests that there are many species of grass and shrubs that adsorb water at impressive rates and hold soil well.

Sextus: If the concern is biodiversity, then I suggest you open up a conservatory (with your own money) and import those plants and animals that you feel are endangered from the nation that has decided to deforest themselves.

Septus: If you just like trees and all the "eco-tourism" they appear to draw, then see above paragraph.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambassador Plenipotentiary
Protectorate of Maximus Libra

Would anyone care to explain the phenomenon of soil erosion to the New Manth representative?Do you think it would do any good, Minister Gao?

Ambassador Reisschart, if your nation indeed lies on the edge of a desert and you pay any heed at all, the mechanism and dangers of soil erosion should be quite apparent.

Leetha Talone,
Ambassador

"You know, I really just can't find a reason to care. At first I thought it sounded fluffy. Then I started reading the thread, and... I still just don't care. We've ridiculous amounts of forest in the Commonwealth. They're in no danger.

"So... er... We abstain."

The Wolf Guardians;12625907']"You know, I really just can't find a reason to care. At first I thought it sounded fluffy. Then I started reading the thread, and... I still just don't care. We've ridiculous amounts of forest in the Commonwealth. They're in no danger.

"So... er... We abstain."
Good for you, and your neighbours. Not so good for New Manth's neighbours.

This resolution MANDATES a position that erodes a countries ability to develop their natural resources as they see fit and that is not a position ChaZZZlandia is comfortable with. The freedoms of liberty which include the use of personal property which MAY also include forrest land or other similar resources are regularly infringed upon by radical conservationists and as such ChaZZZlandia WILL NOT support this resolution in any shape or form...

tehReal~ChaZZZy
founder of ChaZZZlandia

This resolution MANDATES a position that erodes a countries ability to develop their natural resources as they see fit...The freedoms of liberty which include the use of personal property which MAY also include forrest land or other similar resources are regularly infringed upon by radical conservationists ...

A Response From The Komasi State Department:

"The point made by our colleagues from the great nation of ChaZZZlandia is one that, while valid, does not express a fundamental understanding of the uniqueness of this issue. It is natural to be suspicious of an infringment on your personal rights, and this resolution will certainly affect a number of nations, especially those who depend greatly on the lumber industry as a dominant sector of their economy. In this case, however, we the supporters of this resolution have a greater interest in mind: that of the preservation of our ecosystem.

This resolution seeks to prevent further damage to that system, and is designed specifically to counter commercial interests that benefit from it. The free market ideas of production and consumption should not be applied to exhaustible resources until reliable alternatives are ready to be phased in to replace them. Such alternatives do not as yet exist. Slowing down commercial freedom in this one sector will, at least, give the planet some time to recupperate after its many fruits have been extracted for our grateful benefit.

Therefore, Komasi is proud to fully support this resolution and to encourage economic conservatives to vote in favor of this resolution. This issue is bigger than concerns about the freedom of our market places. Our planet deserves some respect, so please do not let small-minded bottom line decision making add to the destruction of our planet. Thank you."

Komasi Minister of State

Ambassador Reisschart, if your nation indeed lies on the edge of a desert and you pay any heed at all, the mechanism and dangers of soil erosion should be quite apparent.

Leetha Talone,
Ambassador

"Oh, we are quite aware of soil erosion as a concept, though as I must reiterate the western half of New Manth has been a treeless desert for thousands of years before our civilization arose, and yet our civilization has somehow avoided falling into the sea, nor have our neighbors found themselves buried in mudslides. I simply do not believe either that soil erosion is the menace you make it out to be, assuming proper caution is taken, nor that trees are the only or even close to the best way of combating it."

Mattan shrugs.

"And frankly the whole silliness about mudslides is only one aspect of my dislike for this resolution. Other issues, such as the grotesque total ban on clear-cutting save for "conservation, regeneration or diversification", worry me far more. Surely these are not the only acceptable reasons to need to cut down an entire area of trees."

OOC: Oh, FFS...

OOC: Come on, you know I wouldn't have pulled Haiti out of my ass without looking to see if its NS counterpart was anything like the RL version.

That said, I should have placed a "fictional" or "mythical world of RL" tag in front of my example before scanning the NS multiverse for a Hatian counterpart. You were right to chastise me, but you must admit, Rubina got you there.

Anyway, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is going on record as opposing this resolution. While we do manage our forests responsibly, we see no need to force other nations to do so (especially when we can simply sell our logs to those nations who fail keep their forests around at vastly overinflated prices).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

A very good point. Not enough for me to change my vote, but a very profitable point.

deforestation is not suitable for the nations and regions the tree's give air and what do we give back , a nice axe in the leg now we should treet tree's more respectivly and stop slashing them down!

would the U.N. please halt from sending un-needed telegrams saying i havent voted i actually have voted thank you very much and i voted yes so please stop telling me to do something i have already done

sincerly
obdu mgoshi
the peoples republic of zeroina

would the U.N. please halt from sending un-needed telegrams saying i havent voted i actually have voted thank you very much and i voted yes so please stop telling me to do something i have already done

sincerly
obdu mgoshi
the peoples republic of zeroina

Since when do you get telegrams saying you haven't voted? I've never gotten one even when I was purposely abstaining because I didn't give a rat's ass how the vote turned out.

would the U.N. please halt from sending un-needed telegrams saying i havent voted

The UN doesn't send such telegrams. The only telegrams you get from the UN are your acceptance and the Compliance Ministry reports, which tell you when a resolution has passed.

As you have neither in your telegram box (I'm a game moderator and I checked) ... what are you talking about?

Well done! The forests of the world will (in a few decades) be much the better for this legislation, so congratulations to Ambassador Talone for presenting it and to the UN for passing it!

would the U.N. please halt from sending un-needed telegrams saying i havent votedAnd to be sure, the only TG campaign was done during the quorum phase and those, naturally, were only sent to delegates.


The resolution Forest Management was passed 8,624 votes to 3,261, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Drinks and environmentally-sensitive finger foods ;) for all in the Green Think Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?) lounge.