The Kingdom of Stoinia recognises the looming threat of losing our natural ecosystems at the hands of pollution. Without our rich fields, dense Varcathian forests or Carracan coral reefs, Stoinia would lose its character. Under the continued expansion of our species, by land & sea, we’ve damaged numerous species in the process and irreversibly altered their habitats. We must take action now. Hence why we propose the following standard resolution. We believe this voluntary resolution sends the right message to whole world at large of what this institution can do for Pacifica as well. Let us band together to ensure our children can enjoy the same nature we had.
Tudor Segărceanu Speaker of the Assembly & Ambassador of the Kingdom of Stoinia
World Forum
RES # (YYYY)
Assembly of the World Forum
Distr.: General
DD Month YYYY
Resolution # adopted by the Assembly on DD Month YYYY
Resolution on Nature Conservation
Section A — Purpose
The purpose of this resolution is to limit the reduction of natural ecosystems at the cause of human expansion & human-created pollution.
The World Forum recognises the hazardous dangers of the eradication & reduction of existing ecosystems to the wellbeing of the planet & its inhabitants.
Section B — Definitions
An ecosystem is a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment. In addition, a natural ecosystem is defined as its state prior to having contacted human expansionism & human-created pollution.
Reforestation & maritime restoration campaigns are defined as intensive programs to maintain or restore natural ecosystems who have been damaged due to human expansionism & human-created pollution.
Section C — Implementation
All members of the World Forum who ratify this resolution shall voluntarily implement legislation within 5 years to guarantee at least 25% of its natural ecosystems – including territorial waters – to be preserved by constituent’s laws.
In addition, the Assembly of the World Forum asks the Committee for Climate & Environment to identify the most threatened ecosystems and prioritise the conservation of said ecosystems.
Members of the World Forum – and their constituent companies – may apply for funding for reforestation & maritime restoration campaigns at the Committee for Climate & Environment in order to facilitate the conservation of nature.
I know, that we have climate accords independent from the WF [OOC: Source (Discord)], which of course also call. within the limits of trying to slow down climate change. for nature conservation. However not mentioning the threat of climate change and its effect on ecosystems at all is negligent in my opinion, since it is nowadays the No. 1 reason for why more and more of our ecosystems are destroyed and it won’t help, if we continue down our path of polluting the atmosphere with green house gases more and more and as a small band-aid plant some trees or protect some fish. The problems are bigger than this and such the solutions must be too.
As for the resolution itself, even if we take it at face value, I think it’s poorly crafted.
Why focus on voluntary action? If this resolution passes, the goal can only be reached if the members have to commit to the mission and should not be able to opt-out, just so they can green-wash their election campaigns while actually not doing anything.
Why do we only set a goal for five years, but not for 10 or 20 years? If we only set one goal, why do we limit ourselves to protecting 25% of the natural and important ecosystems? Aren’t those something like 75% too few?
I think, it’s worth it to think about a general resolution that deals with nature conservation and climate change. As such I’m open to not cast this relatively inactive discussion aside yet and hope for us to come up with a better draft, using the propsal of Ambassador Segărceanu as its base.
Helene Meise Vice-Speaker of the World Forum
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Gianatla
One agrees with one’s college from Gianatla, this bill does not nearly have a wide enough and ambitious enough scope. In addition to Ambassador Meise’s concerns, I believe the scope of protected ecosystems should be much wider in terms of diversity, after all the whole world is not Forests and Seas, there is much more in diversity, we should widen the scope to Taiga, Savannah, Meadows and Wetlands as a minimum.
While I understand the vigour to safe the planet, I must remind you that overzealous actions through the World Forum, despite the honourable goals, are as counterproductive to reforms as rudderlessness to revolutions. What this resolution aims is to strike a middle ground which overall will benefit the planet and give a platform within each nation to further expand upon.
Need I remind you that small nations such as Livana, Eria, Petea, Conaro and Anserisa exist? Do we wish to badger them for not destroying their economic infrastructure in exchange of restoring ecosystems? Frankly I find this ecological focus of certain perspectives nothing short but the culling of man. This resolution was drafted for all nations, big and small, in mind to make them implementable. This is a global crisis which requires global efforts and a forum for it. As it stands currently, very little nations have little to none of legislation to effectively combat climate change in the proposed manner. Our goal is to limit, not to ban human encroachment into natural habitats.
If this Assembly will press more drastic demands for the sake political gains instead of reforming to a durable balance between nature and humanity without the loss of progress, I fear it will close any sensible discussions to achieve our common goal to ensure a brighter future for Pacifica.
As it stands, the Kingdom of Stoinia stands behind the resolution in its current form.
Tudor Segărceanu Ambassador of the Kingdom of Stoinia
We hear the addition from the Izaakian delegation and therefore tweak the fine-print to include the mentioned habitats as well as many others through broader wording. After all, this was the intent behind our original draft. We thank the Izaakian delegation for the constructive addition.
Tudor Segărceanu Ambassador of the Kingdom of Stoinia
World Forum
RES # (YYYY)
Assembly of the World Forum
Distr.: General
DD Month YYYY
Resolution # adopted by the Assembly on DD Month YYYY
Resolution on Nature Conservation
Section A — Purpose
The purpose of this resolution is to limit the reduction of natural ecosystems at the cause of human expansion & human-created pollution.
The World Forum recognises the hazardous dangers of the eradication & reduction of existing ecosystems to the wellbeing of the planet & its inhabitants.
Section B — Definitions
An ecosystem is a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment. In addition, a natural ecosystem is defined as its state prior to having contacted human expansionism & human-created pollution.
Reforestation & maritime restoration campaignsEcological restoration campaigns are defined as intensive programs to maintain or restore natural ecosystems who have been damaged due to human expansionism & human-created pollution.
Section C — Implementation
All members of the World Forum who ratify this resolution shall voluntarily implement legislation within 5 years to guarantee at least 25% of its natural ecosystems – including territorial waters – to be preserved by constituent’s laws.
In addition, the Assembly of the World Forum asks the Committee for Climate & Environment to identify the most threatened ecosystems and prioritise the conservation of said ecosystems.
Members of the World Forum – and their constituent companies – may apply for funding for reforestation & maritime restoration campaignsecological restoration campaigns at the Committee for Climate & Environment in order to facilitate the conservation of nature.
The Central Bailtemmic Republic is proud to support the biological community of interacting human organisms and their physical environment, and steadfastly opposes the human expansionism of the World Forum.
Li Huang Representative of the Central Bailtemmic Republic
The United Provinces agree with most of the resolution, however, we believe a different percentage, or no percentage at all, should be applied to territorial waters of nations with already limited access to coasts.
Also, we would like to remind the WF that, there are nations that are bigger, and nations that are smaller. A 25% reduction in available land use doesn’t have the same effect on the biggest nations and in the smallest one, this resolution specially harms the smallest nation and their activities in their territory.
While a bigger nation may have more than 25% of untouched territory to spare, smaller nations that are already densely-populated territories wouldn’t find any are to spare, nor any way to displace population.
That’s why we suggest the use of a sectioned system, where nations with less land area have a smaller percentage, and where the water area is separated from the land area and follows the same criteria, so nations with less access to oceans or water reservoirs don’t need to give as much as nations with large coastlines.
We think this is an important change to make this resolution more tempting to all nations.
Kliegme fundamentally agrees with the sentiment, but will not accept nor agree to a quota dictating 25% of a sovereign nation’s land to be left to waste.
We don’t believe that the assignment of land to avoid further worsening of the current global climatic situation is a “waste”. The fight against climate change is a worldwide effort to avoid the negative effects it will have upon economies and lives. Most likely, the economic product of those lands will be less than the price we have paid or will have to pay for surviving climate change if we do nothing.
Indeed, this is for the future of our children and humanity as a whole is it not? How is a farmer expected to provide for their family when their land is taken away from them. How is the worker going to get paid if their factories close down. How is the average person expected to settle down for a family when the already rising cost of living is worsened from expensive food prices from the lack of crops. What children are we to protect when having children is a liability in this new economy. In this regard we do not think this is a good approach to climate protection.
What we should strive for is not ignorance of reality, but rather turning human activity that usually results in pollution reduce in less, if not zero, pollution. Farming can be more cleaner, and so can industry.
We already expressed our thoughts on the appropriation of land that people use, and expressed how we are against it, and expressed how it could be resolved. We neither think people should be displaced nor negatively affected by this resolution.
With that on the side, many nations have vast areas of lands that are not used for the housing of people, nor crop use. Those areas are used as land fields, or in discriminated deforestation.
How are our farmers supposed to raise crops with plagues, rising temperatures and water shortages? What world you want to raise children in if it’s uninhabitable?
These are excuses used to avoid taking action now. When the effects start taking place, we blame the measures we didn’t take, instead of our ignorance of the problem.
We have been suffering the effects of climate change for years now, and they only get worse. Besides that, taking action with just one measure won’t do enough, neither we preach that. The real issue is that bringing this to the WF is needed to remind the governments the problems we have put aside for years on end for the short-term benefits.
Want to make industry less contaminant? We preach that. Using that as the only solution? We don’t. Neither we preach blaming issues like the rising of the cost of living on something different from the root of said issue. Those problems aren’t produced because of climate change resolutions.
The Imperial State of Ryccia will not even try to implement this absurd resolution. To seek solutions to the climate crisis doesn’t mean we have to turn back the clock and cordon off lands that can be of use to our respective peoples. We believe that combatting the calamity of global warming must be focused on finding solutions and policies tailored for human survival and prosperity. Answer me this: if we were to subtract the environmental factors, what is more important to humanity, a forest, or a place to call home and build a life in? Making sure we don’t boil ourselves to death should not and should never mean depriving our citizens of the chance of partaking in the blessings of the lands our ancestors passed on to us. It is the land of our people, it is their sovereign soil. If our technology progresses to the point where the ecological benefits or consequences between opting to keep some trees standing or allowing our people to prosper by building farms and homes are moot, the beneficial choice for humanity would be to turn on the chainsaw for our children and for our growth, not keep it off for birds and bugs.
Furthermore, it is our opinion that deciding and implementing restrictions on the usage of land should be done via a complex, scientific and case-by-case basis, not by randomly imposing blanket restrictions and arbitrary quotas. This legislation is not only an affront to our sovereign right to rule our territories, it is also irredeemably flawed, even for its own purposes.
The vote on the Resolution on Nature Conservation in its latest form has been opened. It will close after three (3) days on the November 19, 2023 10:40 PM→November 22, 2023 10:40 PM.
Aye
Abstain
Nay
0voters
Jan Saats Speaker of the World Forum, Ambassador for the Republic of Eflad
The Central Bailtemmic Republic is proud to support the biological community of interacting human organisms and their physical environment at the World Forum, and steadfastly opposes the human expansionism of its opponents.
Li Huang Representative of the Central Bailtemmic Republic
