NationStates Jolt Archive

The text:
---
Description: Recognising that all nations share a common global environment;

Recognising that sites of pristine environmental significance should be protected for all people; and

Recognising that a lack of environmental protection protocols currently exists:

It is proposed that a World Heritage List be established. All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.
---

In this delegate's opinion, this would be disastrous. I don't want enemies of my state to have the ability to cripple my economy by declaring vital economic areas "Environmental Heritage Sites."

The text, as it stands, would allow member states to declare World Heritage Sites outside their borders, without discussion from the world community, and have it illegal for the nation containing the Heritage Site to exploit its resources.

The Saxon States are worried that its enemies would abuse this measure, no matter how well-intentioned. Would I declare all mines outside my border to be World Heritage Sites, and therefore artificially inflate my domestic uranium prices and thus posess a monopoly? Absolutely not, though I'm sure some of our less-than savory member states would jump at the chance.

I invite everyone to vote "NO."

I shall vote NO, but i believe the UN is being undermined by nations making arbitrary decisions and not looking clearly at the facts. I encourage all UN members to make informed decisions on which proposals they vote for or indeed against.

Catholic Europe would vote YES, believing this to be nothing more than a proposal solely out to protect areas of great enviromental beauty and importance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Catholic Europe would vote YES, believing this to be nothing more than a proposal solely out to protect areas of great enviromental beauty and importance. Nothing more, nothing less.

We agree in principle Catholic Europe, but we also take the stance that no matter how well intentioned a resolution is, if it is poorly written or does not adequately or properly address the issue at hand, it should be dismissed. This resolution simply does not set up a logical system to determine these 'world heritage' sites.

This is such a poorly thought out proposal, it saddens me. The potential for abuse is tremendous. Even at this very moment, I am contemplating the addition of all coal producing areas throughout the world. Then, when I have the only remaining mines, I shall be free to charge what I will for my coal.

After which, I am going to add all the forests in every country but mine. In this way, again I will have a monopoly on timber and can charge what I will for timber for construction. In a few short months, I will be wealthy beyond my wildest dreams.

Perhaps after that, we will move to diamond mines, and metallic ores such as iron, then precious metals like silver and gold. Soon, I will have all the world controlled by adding all locations to the list.

This is simply a resolution that MUST NOT PASS as it will take the liberties of one country and place them at the whims of any other.

VOTE NO!!!

shall be a great pleasure to add the Heritage List all the coal producing areas of all other countries. In this way,

Too many loopholes, I'm voting NO.

I agree. This proposal has a good intent (i think...) but even as a nutty environmentalist I cannot approve a bill which takes away such sovereignty. if it passes i will be very upset.

This bill is written so it can be used as a weapon against other nations. The nation itself should be the only one to determine areas of economic significance within its borders - not everyone else.

I shall vote NO, and encourage everyone else to do so.

Esamopia's grand announcement!

If this terrible resolution passes, at least without the removal of the part in which nations can declare areas outside of their borders as protected regions, then I must announce that Esamopia will declare the entire globe a protected zone and cripple things for everyone.

The resolution would work so much better if the decision makers are either non-partisan environmental experts working in conjunction with industry and government, or if countries decided the areas within their borders only!

The Rogue Nations of My Fancy are a foward-moving nation. Frankly, we can not spend our time worrying about forests and hills and little bunnies when we have more imporant things to attend to, such as the furtherment of our Information Technology Industry. As such, we would most likely have voted against this measure, even without the loopholes.

However, in the interest of being a super-duper UN member, might I suggest that, after this is shot down, you reword it? I am not suggesting that each nation deal with it's own historical treasures, as many nations would not. We, frankly, are one of them. However, perhaps each historical treasure could be taken on a one by one basis. Nation A proposes that Nation B has a historical treasure which is being mined. Then the UN would vote on whether this is indeed the case, or if Nation A is just trying to close down the mine for their own economic purposes.

Thus, a happy balance between environment and capitalistic maneuvering. For the record, we are not suggesting that each case actually be presented before the UN. Just a simulated vote behind the scenes. It would lower the significance, of course, but it would free up our time for other matters.

Like the furtherment of the Rogue Nations of My Fancy.

I do indeed agree that this new resolution should be voted against, mainly because 'extremist' nations will take advantage of the poor nations that so happen to be blessed with bounties of forests. This prevents smaller nations from incurring monatary fund to improve their own nations.

Much like how oil can make a nation rich.

I also invite others to vote 'NO'.



Sincerly,
Thomas

This measure would infringe on the sovereignity of all nations. I vote no.

The Confederacy of Stone River shall be making a resounding 'NO' vote on this issue. We must be able to take advantage of our land as we see fit. We will leave certain areas of forestland undisturbed, to preserve the environment, but we must be able to expand our industrial and commercial sectors as we determine. We will not be dictated about what we should and should not preserve.

Agreed. This resolution should NOT be passed. If it is, I make a motion to have nations of sound mind resign from the U.N. to keep their own nations from being imposed with such a law as this.

are why the Empire of Morgain is not in the UN.
Current tally:
For: 1664
Against: 753

People who think before they vote (or just hate trees): 753
People who don't think before they vote: 1664

Little Orange Kittens votes No, and suggests that we change the name of the UN to EPA.

The Kingdom of Minstral urges all free and thinking nations to vote NO on this feeble attempt by leftist tree-hugging liberal nitwits to wrest the control our of most Sacred Treasures from the rightful control of her peoples.

Such a resolution would seem to be a 'good idea' at the expense of crippling member nation economies.

King Minstral
Lord of the Mists
Keeper of the Sacred Grove
Guardian of the Secret Flame
Eater of Trout

If this resolution is passed, I ask all nations to proclaim all other nations, and all land everywhere, to be assigned to this list.

If poor legislation is passed due to either misinformation or foolhardy nations, then let us punish them within the bounds of their own law.

Abysseria, for those reasons stated above, votes no. I am upset to think about the legislative changes in my nation that will impact my ability to govern my sovreign nation.

This resolution is illogical.

This resolution should have been spiked by the moderators, because it pretends to affect only woodchipping, but ought to affect all businesses.

No one would list all other mining sites in the world as Heritage Sites to obtain a monopoly, because, in retaliation, the countries whose mining industry was under"mined" would declare the first country's mining sites as Heritage Sites. Perhaps the resolution should have some sort of ability to veto the Heritage site decisions, or some sort of vote required, but, otherwise, it is a sound environmental bill. It inherently accounts for the monopoly issue, and countries, if choosing global Heritage Sites, would probably try to choose sites that are not of great economic importance to the country they're in. This way no one would retaliate against them. Such economically valuable sites could get protection, though. It would most likely be if their own country put them on the list.

Again, if this legislation passes, I encourage everyone to submit every locale in the world to the list, thus defeating the purpose of the poorly written law.

The People's Republic of Andrewania has voted "No".

While our own government is comitted to protecting the environment, we do not feel it is right that another nation should be able to dictate what our government does, or vice-versa.

Any nation believing in its own sovereignty and the individual sovereignty of all nations the world over must vote "No" on this proposal. Let's not allow a mockery to be made of the UN as was done with the last proposal, comrades.

This resolution does what, exactly? As far as I can see, it just gives countries the ability to designate areas as national parks. Don't we already have that? They're just calling them by a different name, and, for some reason, giving us the ability to found national parks in OTHER COUNTRIES. Why?

... this proposal gives too much power to any one nation to declare World Heritage Sites. World Heritage Sites should be determined through a study and vote of all UN nations. I will vote "No" on this poorly written proposal.

Esamopia's grand announcement!

If this terrible resolution passes, at least without the removal of the part in which nations can declare areas outside of their borders as protected regions, then I must announce that Esamopia will declare the entire globe a protected zone and cripple things for everyone.

The resolution would work so much better if the decision makers are either non-partisan environmental experts working in conjunction with industry and government, or if countries decided the areas within their borders only!

I assume you are referring to;

It is proposed that a World Heritage List be established. All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.

It looks as if "All UN nations" is referring to the UN as a whole. If not, we can just pretend it does.

AB.IMP.CAES.GEKKO.MALLEVS.REX.ETVRIAE.IMP.LAT.SEMP.AVG

This legislation would, ignoring current states of usage or conservation, allow an outside body to deny usage of, hypothetically, any area of a nation's land to the nation and its people, including those indigineous to the proposed World Heritage site. The following modifications to the proposal must be made, if it is to balance the need for conservation with the needs of the people:

1) An area proposed as an Heritage Site must be ratified by the area's ruling body and/or inhabitants before becoming an Heritage Site.

2) Once an area has been established as a Site, it may be, in times of necessity, un-established as such. We should propose that a Site may be un-established by a 2/3 majority in the ruling nation's Senate, Diet, or other legislative body, or by a simple majority of the area's residents.

3) A UN designation of an area as a World Heritage Site may reasonably limit, but not abolish, any sustainable and benign harvesting of the area's renewable resources by the ruling nation or its people, or approved foreign contractors.

Please support my amended version of the World Heritage List. The language is changed so as not to trample national sovreignty.

This would weaken my economy, and the economy of others. I'm voting against it.

This would weaken my economy, and the economy of others. I'm voting against it.

This proposal is dangerously irresponsible as presented. Without an amendment to restrict listings to zones interior to the nation proposing addition of an area to the list, the resolution allows a nation to commit acts of economic warfare against other nations under cover of environmental concern. We beseech the mods to disallow this proposal.

Too late! All you suckers gotta live with it, because the UN is gonna ratify it. Have a nice day.

Too late! All you suckers gotta live with it, because the UN is gonna ratify it. Have a nice day.

Exactly... that is why when it passes I will make the entire world a protected zone and in so doing either force everyone to violate the resolution or to open up everyone's eyes and have them repeal it!!

As to the suggestion that the phrase "All UN nations" refers to the UN as a whole, then I must disagree... it would then say "the UN." As for pretending, well even if it did say the "UN organization," there is no method in NS-UN to have everyone meet and decide this sort of thing... so no matter how you slice it, vote NO!

a great example of why the amendment process exists irl.

Just a statement but, what if one nation labels another whole nation, not just a forest or landmark but the WHOLE nation as being "of historical importance." Would this not be damaging? Of course!

The World Heritage List seems to be basically (not all wealthy nations!) a scheme for wealthier nations to attack another nation in a subtle way.

The Kingdom of Froiselle is quiet wealthy, with its economy thriving but The Kingdom of Froiselle and the Church of Froiselle has both agreed to vote against this proposal and has decreed it "unreasonable beyond sense."

I write in response to the UN proposal currently at vote and the critisism leveled at it in this forum. I hope that by outlining several points my intentions will become clear and fears about the use of the word 'globally' will be dispelled.

Initially, when writing the proposal I was aware of the most important factor in getting initial approval for a motion. Regional delegates have precious little time to devote to analysing motions, thus mine had to be concise with a clear intention to stand a chance of receiving initial approval. For this reason alone I did not elaborate on selection criteria, appeals processes or bodies resposible for site evaluation.

Certainly, I modelled the proposal on UNESCOs WHC criteria for site identification and selection. To this end, nations can identify internal sites and volunteer these for listing. This measure does not seem to draw critisism within this forum. The element that does is the inclusion of the term 'globally'. I included this, hesitantly, to simulate the role that NGOs play in the selection process for many sites globally. As most of you are probably aware, it is VERY rare for real nations to volunteer sites for listing, with the exception of those seeking tourism revenue such an exercise guarantees. More often, global organisations such as Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the like put forward the submission and pressure governments to list sites. Developing nations often submit to such pressure to avoid the negative publicity that such global organisations can generate.

Within the limitations of a game such as nationstates, I believe the motion as outlined simulates this real world process. Stating that sites of 'environmental significance' are to be protected is intended to exclude such things as mine sites, military bases, farm land and such - these areas are already ecologically degraded and as such would not be eligible for listing. The interpretation would extend only to sites in a pristine state.

Lastly, to touch on another reality of the game, it should be noted that if the proposal does pass it will have little effect on the actual mechanics of the virtual nations. Realistically, passing the resolution would have an effect comparable to a real nation listing a national park or wilderness, simulating the loss of woodchipping resources that such action would cause. Allowing other nations to propose sites simply simulates the role of NGOs, thus enhancing the roleplay - not allowing any nation to list military basses and thus "reduce military capability" or any other element of national sovereignty. Besides, possessing such a capability is no different to simulating the role of NGOs, in that both are imaginary, non-existant elements of nationstates. Sovereinty cannot be undermined by anyone except those who know your password, thus you should not fear it.

Knowing that I will likely cop several rebuttals, I will check back regularly and will endeavour to respond to statements or queries from you all. My computer is not in the best of health and I am in the middle of my final assessment for my honours degree though, so this may be a haphazard process.

Cheers

Your rebuttal was well written, but still suffers the basic flaw that ne nation is subject to the whims of others. While admirably trying to similate a more real-world experience, you are forgetting the actual game experience. I am the ruler of Kugleria. I shall not relinquish any of the control I have gained. Some of the suggested amendments that create a body to oversee and nominate sites seems a much more acceptable and realistic option... although the point seems moot. Without careful reading, the majority of our less detail oriented brethren seem to have this well on the way to passing.

Lo! for the Most Equal Citizen of Erehwon Forest has this to say: There's at least two hundred thousand square kilometers of "pristine condition" forest in Erehwon Forest. There used to be about 300,000km^2. Yes, this is partly why our great nation is called what it is. The survival of the few animal species that live in our lands only requires some 10 or 20 thousand square kilometers, max. The rest WILL be dozed down at the rate that the industries and growing population centers. That 10,000-20,000km^2 will stay untouched, no matter what.

Some of my neighboring countries have little or no areas in "pristine condition" left. Having nothing to lose, they surely will vote FOR this resolution, and then try to argue that all of my remaining forests should be added to the World Heritage lists. In fact, I have in my hands a governmental report -- the leak of the paper to the press had nothing to do with foreign intelligence of Erehwon Forest, despite of persistent rumors -- from 2 neighboring countries that clearly state that they will do so as soon as the motion passes.

This will mean that the development of our great nation will be hampered severely. With the current population boom, the costs of living will rise up to 100% in just 10 years after the resolution passes because it will be impossible to push the boundaries of our cities. Either that, or we impose strict limits to reproduction (which I'm sure no one in the UN will like), and face the fact that in 50 years, we will have 30 million pensioners and 10 million workers.

And the economic consequences will be even worse. We will have to import nearly everything to support our growing population -- exactly what our neighboring countries are aiming at by lobbying for this resolution -- causing huge foreign debts. Our economists estimate that the Balance of Payments will reach a record breaking -250 billion Units, 3 times as high as ever before, in the first year after the resolution as domestic firms will bankrupt by the hundreds, facing little or no chance of competing with foreign businesses which can expand as necessary to meet the rising demand, since they operate in countries where the countryside is a toxic wasteland to begin with.

In other words, this resolution as it is worded right now, will completely bankrupt Erehwon Forest. Should it pass unmodified, Erehwon Forest will cease to exist in 30 years by the latest, when some neighboring, militant non-UN member country invades us, unhampered by our crippled Defense Forces, to abuse our untouched natural resources.

Well, either that or we will resign from the UN.

This bill is written so it can be used as a weapon against other nations. The nation itself should be the only one to determine areas of economic significance within its borders - not everyone else.

I shall vote NO, and encourage everyone else to do so.

Agreed, it is an invitation to abuse.

Perhaps a UN environmental education and tourism council could be created to promote truly voluntary sanctuaries.

This bill is written so it can be used as a weapon against other nations. The nation itself should be the only one to determine areas of economic significance within its borders - not everyone else.

I shall vote NO, and encourage everyone else to do so.

Agreed, it is an invitation to abuse.

Perhaps a UN environmental education and tourism council could be created to promote truly voluntary sanctuaries.
An interesting solution - Abysseria would support such a council.

If this gets passed I might just drop out of the UN altogether. Anyone who wants a piece of my land can claim that it holds some signifigance to their nation, and then all of a sudden I can't build anything on my own land anymore.

Yes, I also agree the individual nations should decide upon their own environmental issues. This proposal seems too much like "Big Brother" to me. It would be too easy to abuse this resolution.

Agreed... If the UN is going to start/continue meddling with how we manage our own natural resources, Beelze will no longer remain a part of it.


If this gets passed I might just drop out of the UN altogether. Anyone who wants a piece of my land can claim that it holds some signifigance to their nation, and then all of a sudden I can't build anything on my own land anymore.