UN Forest Management, Logging for the environment.

Current word count: 3709

I've been niggling around with this for awhile, mainly for lack of time. It's fairly dense reading, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Comments? Suggestions?

This looks like a really good, and very thorough, proposal; sustainable forestry is one of the issues I'd hoped the UN would cover at some stage.

Great idea; excellent.

Originally I was thinking this was a bit utopian, but combination of 'maintain' and 'long-term' probably mitigate that.

Except where necessary as a means of conservation, regeneration or diversification. While I agree most clear cutting is highly negative, there are some circumstances in which it can be beneficial.

Agreed, up to a point. Diversity is good, but care needs to be taken to prevent introduction of invasive species, or unwitting changes in the ecosystem: perhaps 'reasonable' or 'appropriate' could be added as a qualifier?

Another excellent idea.

While this seems a sensible provision, that last bit may really set people off. One thing that occurs to me is we already have a UN logging agency: the WWP. Maybe they could be used here? And the clause could be restructured to say that this monitoring shall be conducted in consultation with the WWP and other relevant agencies (e.g. the UNCoESB).

Again, great; can't see anything objectionable.

Bits I didn't ping-pong = I agree completely with them.

A few other thoughts:
- Does slash and burn deserve a mention? On an industrial scale, it should be completely avoided, and on a local level, it's still not advisable: perhaps there could be something about working with local populations to reduce dependence on slash and burn agricultural practices.
- There could be something about reducing dependence on timber through the development of alternatives (synthetic woods) and also (within a carefully planned context) fast-growing varieties that quickly replenish logged land.
- If there is a way to use the, poor but half-ok, Illegal Logging resolution, it would be good, because it has some useful ideas - the stamp of approval for certified wood in particular - that it doesn't really follow through on.
- There could be a general endorsement of no net deforestation.

Changes in the 2d draft are in red. A couple of notes about some of your suggestions (and thanks for those!).

Thanks for the reminder about slash-and-burn. I also think it might be worth a stand-alone ban resolution at some point, especially since it can focus on the agriculture/soil preservation aspect.

Clause 2 is useful in countering invasive logging practices; without being harsh, it says thou shalt not scam the little forest people. Though if I have trouble getting word count down, it's the clause that will probably go.

Clause 4, sub c ... diversity of species and maintaining natural forest cycles (hmm, better wording than original... may switch), I've used "native" rather than "appropriate", partly because "appropriate" lacks definition--appropriate to who or what. There's a small problem with "native" in that in rare occasions, introduction of non-native species isn't a bad thing. The counter argument is, that in those rare cases good forestry practices would include such introductions. "Reasonable" may be the way to go, but there again, reasonable to whom?

That said, I think there may be sufficient content in the biodiversity/native species/invasive species area for a separate resolution. That way plant and animal issues can be addressed together

Inclusion of Illegal Logging... at this time, I'm going to hold off on including reference to it (other than the WWPT as monitor), partly just for word count issues. If I do add it, should it be simply ... RECALLS UNR# blah blah?

I've changed clause 8 to refer to timber plantations, to make it a little clearer that the fast-growth replenishment is what's being referred to. I'd rather not encourage fast-growth replenishment... it's a major issue with logging companies clear-cutting and then seeding with white or yellow pine, which are good for the logging company but are lousy for natural forest cycles. As for synthetics, with good quality forest management (and appropriate use of timber plantations), there's no great need to rely on synthetics except for those nations who have already over-logged. I'll keep it in mind, and if it doesn't make it into the proposal itself, it can be used in debate (and hopefully a FAQ, if I get that done as well).

I'm going to work on getting it back under the word limit, tighten up some phrasing and such.

Would you recommend taking the proposal to Reclamation?

Activity is pretty low at Reclamation, but it might be worth posting it: if Ausserland is around, he may have some useful comments. As it stands, your character count is looking too high - 3500 limit.

Otherwise, I agree with all the changes, except the grammar of the final clause seems a bit wobbly. A missing word, maybe?

New draft, somewhat different.

A little rearranging (plans and monitoring moved to last of MANDATES), took slash and burn out of list of practices, but left in the ENCOURAGES clause. I'd appreciate a read-through to make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything.

I'm fuzzy on the branding rules, is "sponsored by GTT" okay or does it need to be cowritten? Am assuming it's okay to consider this official GTT legislation....

Current word count: 3374

Were you planning on keeping this at the top? It will, anyway, have the text 'A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.' It might look a bit redundant.

The proposal text itself looks fantastic. I can't see that the changes have omitted or altered anything of importance. The only bit I'm less keen on is the preamble: it hints at problems without really being more explicit. Perhaps it could specifically note that poor forest management leads to environmental, economic and humanitarian problems such as soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, loss of natural resources, population displacement, and so on.

I'm pretty sure they changed the rules such that crediting organizations/alliances/regions was verboten. In any case, I'm not personally wild about the practice. I'd be very pleased if this were considered GTT legislation, but I think we'd have to keep mentions of it largely to the thread on Jolt (which will be tons of fun, no doubt). So I wouldn't bother putting a co-credit, especially given you're tight for characters.

I've ripped out the "description"--will use it in the Jolt thread.

The preamble now reads as:

AWARE of the importance of forested ecosystems,

ACKNOWLEDGING economic benefits of forest industries and products,

NOTING that over-logging and other poor forestry policies and practices leads to environmental and economic problems, such as soil depletion and erosion, loss of biodiversity, loss of natural resources, and declining production and value of wood products

I'm planning on posting it for comment/suggestions over at Jolt, probably tomorrow or Sunday.

In the meantime, I've thrown together a list of the most ecofriendly delegates (based on the daily issue) for a TG campaign.

Ok, that preamble seems much better. And when you plan to submit it, I can help TG.

Oh, and I meant to say: are you sticking with 'UN Forest Management' as a title? It gives a slightly misleading impression, given the emphasis of the proposal is on those conducting the logging to do the management for themselves. Just a thought.

No, that was just for here. The title is Forest Management


...unless someone suggests a more spiffy moniker.

Forest Management sounds good.

Question for anyone that knows about the character limit. Does the 3500 (with spaces) include title, category and strength/industry information? Or just the text itself?

Also, if I re-establish the WPPT can I add duties to it without falling prey to a house of cards violation?

3500 is just the text: title/category/strength is automatically added.

I would have said that yes, you can give new duties to the WWPT, but Fris made a new ruling that made me slightly confused. Best to check before submission, but as your proposal stands I can't imagine them having a problem with it.

Incidentally, I think you've handled objections on Jolt admirably so far.

The clarification Fris made for Gobb is pretty clear that subsequent resolutions can add duties to committees like the WPPT, but not to orgs, so I'll go ahead with adding monitoring and education duties to the WPPT.

Given that there's nothing environmental in the last three pages of the proposal list (except WhaleCo's attempt to kill more whales ;P), I'm going to go ahead and submit this version this weekend...

BTW, thanks for the compliment... I'm learning, slowly.

Ok, that version works for me. Good luck.