NationStates Jolt Archive

If the "World Heritage List" proposal is passed, any UN Member will be able to list the most productive timberland, coal mines, even gold mines, of any other Member Nation, and "protect" them from exploitation.

All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally.

Imagine the fun members will have declaring each other's valuable mineral production facillities "protected!" This will allow members to devastate each other's economies, and destroy the legitimate functioning of their industries.

Why, even "farmland" can be restricted from "environmentally-damaging activities," such as plowing (promotes erosion), seeding (crowds out native species), and using pesticides.

Doesn't anyone read these proposals? The speed with which you guys sign away your sovereignty is astounding!

That's an interesting point. If it was just locally, I'd support it. Now, I'm not sure. I predict it passes, though. Most people won't even look at the debate.

No less than TWO amendments for that one sentence are on the proposals list at the moment. So, best plan would be to vote for the resolution (which is a good one except for the one bad sentence) and then endorse (if you're a delegate) and vote Yes on one of the amendments. Simple, no?

As a side note, I would think there'd be some kind of automatic UN review process to prevent things like you're describing....as well as to prevent, for example, a country declaring its main military HQ a "heritage site" so that their enemies can't attack it, etc. So this may be a moot point anyway...sure you can nominate your enemy's farms, but it won't do you any real good if it gets thrown out in ten seconds by the review board.

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

No less than TWO amendments for that one sentence are on the proposals list at the moment. So, best plan would be to vote for the resolution (which is a good one except for the one bad sentence) and then endorse (if you're a delegate) and vote Yes on one of the amendments. Simple, no?

Y'all think we're stupid or something?

How 'bout instead we vote down this poorly-written piece of work and they try again later?

Ain't no way we're gonna get saddled with this here piece of legislature as it stands.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

As I have stated before, should this resolution pass, the People of the Federation of Owning States ask that all nations proclaim that the entire world be listed as a form of protest.

Yet another bad proposal...I can't remember when I last voted for any proposal and I can't believe that assinine freedom of humor joke of a propsal passed almost 3 to 1. Just shows you the average age of the people in this game...

As I have stated before, should this resolution pass, the People of the Federation of Owning States ask that all nations proclaim that the entire world be listed as a form of protest.

:idea: I second that! Let's face it, there is no reason why my political and economic rivals should be able to claim my land as "Protected"... "Protected" from what!? :arrow: Development!

First off can you liberal bleeding hearts just shut up for a while i mean seriously. This proposal is going to destroy economy because now what are countrys going to be importing and exporting. How do you regulate what countrys can claim on your land! every country is going to suffer economically and enviromentally. Whoever posted the resolution should be shot and all those who supported it engulfed in liquid nitrogen.

:idea: California is on FIRE because they disallowed timber cutting... please note this fact ECO-NUTS::: more damage is done when an entire state is burning than when a few trees are cut down...

1) You don't vote for a BAD PROPOSAL on the assumption that it will be overturned. There is no guaruntee that such an overturn will occur, and therefore you are slitting your own throat and hoping that someone will bind your wound before you bleed out.

2) This is a BAD, sovereignty denying proposal. Don't try and defend it with a lot of theory. This time, BAD is BAD. You are giving countries universal power to declare any location in the world a "World Heritage Site." There is no "review process," no safeguards. I don't care who your target audience is, the letter of the law must be adressed when writing these proposals, because there are those who will always adhere to the letter.

it is bad, if anything if some countries feel others are being too polutant then other countries should persuade them to change, but having everyone choose, that could put things at risk.
In ZetaOne we do mine in eviormental areas but we do little to the area, and replanting of the damaged area becaomes in progress after the operation.