NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings, friends. I bring a message from the people of the Republic of Peaonusahl and the great region of Terra Utopia. I encourage you all to read a proposal we have submitted to the United Nations. This proposal would set aside significant portions of unused government land for the purpose of preservation. As our cities expand, it is vital we protect wildlands for the well-being of our present and future inhabitants. This proposal is called the International Wilderness Act. I welcome all UN delegates to read this proposal and urge all members to support the cause of open space. I thank you for your time and bid you all peace and prosperity.

International Wilderness Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Woodchipping Proposed by: Peaonusahl
Description: In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas in the world, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United Nations to secure for the people of the world of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established an International Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of nationally owned areas designated by sovereign nations as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The International Wilderness Act would set aside approximately 25% of unused government-owned openspace in each nation for this purpose.

Definition of Wilderness- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped government-owned land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.


Approvals: 9 (Peaonusahl, Kezrai, Coolet, Firecrafter, FoxTopia, New Hamster, EcoVille, Sausage-Recta, Blue Sharks)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Aug 1 2004

Just doing my part as a senior UN ambassador.

There are a few things I'd like clarified before I make a statement on this proposal. First, does being designated as a "wildnerness area" mean that the government-owned land can never be developed again? Second, what fate befalls a nation if they don't have enough undeveloped government-owned land to fit the criteria? Third, do existing parks and preserves count towards the quota?

I thank my esteemed senior UN colleague for posting the proposal on the forum. I also appreciate your interest in the discussion of the preservation of open space.

I would suggest that it is firmly implied in this proposal that land that is established as "wilderness" will not be used for future development. I suppose, this is ultimately the discretion of the nation which controls this land. However, any misuse of wilderness territory would be in violation of this Act.

Any nation that is void of unused land would be exempted from this act- though I express my deepest sympathy for the citizens of any nation that don't have wild lands to visit and enjoy.

Current parks and wilderness will count toward the quota, as they are currently unused land.

In an age where we seek to improve our environment, it is vital to our civilization that we preserve our open spaces. This is one important step in reducing and reversing the damage that greenhouse gasses have had on our biosphere. In our effort to save our wild lands from extinction, we are essentially saving ourselves.

[OOC] Oh looky there, it's the Wilderness Act of 1964!

Yeah, my girlfriend is a national park ranger, I can't help it if the word 'untrammeled' sets my teeth on edge.

Good stuff. Note, however, that the proper administration of a wilderness area is not as cheap as you'd think. (Especially if the frickin' Bush administration hates your guts and wants to get rid of you entirely in its heart of hearts). Maintaining wilderness areas as genuine wilderness while still making them accessible for your citizens to enjoy is a costly - and ultimately non-profitable - business. You have to police them to stop infringements, and to do this you apparently have to field-strip AR-15s on the living-room floor. It's not a trivial task, is my point, especially when the magazine spring keeps escaping and flying across the room. Wilderness is expensive, and poorer nations may be hard-put to maintain them properly without outside help.

OOC: Hey, glad you recognized the language. I, too, am a park ranger. I must admit, my ability to write in "legalese" is quite limited, so I had to look for some help.

Yes, the effort to defend and maintain parkland can be somewhat costly at times. I wouldn't call it wholly unprofitable. And is profit really the goal in this type of an endeavor? I believe the rewards far outweigh the cost in this matter. The agency I work for gets only a small fraction of its funds from tax dollars and grant money. The majority of it comes from entrance fees. We are frequently under-staffed, under-funded, and under-paid, but the system works. We're used to that, however. We do alright and the parks are well taken care of...just ask the happy visitors who rise out of the smog of the nearby metropolis to visit this great wilderness.

Yes, the effort to defend and maintain parkland can be somewhat costly at times. I wouldn't call it wholly unprofitable. And is profit really the goal in this type of an endeavor? I believe the rewards far outweigh the cost in this matter. The agency I work for gets only a small fraction of its funds from tax dollars and grant money. The majority of it comes from entrance fees.

ooc: I agree that the goals of the park system go well beyond profit, and I agree that this is a wonderful thing. However, what is undeniable is that the things are costly. To a powerful economy with lots of tax revenue and many affluent tourists floating about, like the USA, this cost is not insurmountable, relatively speaking. You have to remember, however, that the UN contains many desperately poor Third World nations. For obvious reasons, poor Third World parks are more prone to poaching and other violations and hence require a lot more staff to run properly. Setting the things up in the first place is even more costly. The point is, imposing this on small nations without a promise of assistance is asking a bit much.

Also, some parks don't collect entrance - like Wrangell St-Elias, where I am just now.

I would agree that assistance is necessary. Our larger, more powerful and wealthy friends must help to float the bill. Especially, when considering our larger friends are probably the greatest polluters. It is true that smaller and poorer nations, such as a few in Africa that have struggled to keep poachers out. It's a worthy fight, as they're working to protect a number of endangered species. If the world got its act together, maybe it might work to help these poorer, less-developed countries. We might even be able to save the Amazon rain forest. But that is an idealistic world of fiction...

...hmm, like this one...

Support the International Wilderness Act!

P.S. Wrangell-St. Elias? That's the largest national park in the United States, is it not? Way the heck out where you are, who needs entrance fees?

Well done, boss.

Ahhh, well. I guess it died in sub-commitee. Did it die or was it killed? Anybody see?

Ahhh, well. I guess it died in sub-commitee. Did it die or was it killed? Anybody see?
Proposals expire after 4 or 5 days automatically.

The Head of State of the People's Republic of Bravakia gives his support for this proposal! To allow these areas for the use and enjoyment of the public is a wonderful idea *cuz the happier they are the more they leave me be :cool: *

Thank you, Bravakia. Perhaps we'll try to get a similar proposal to this one going sometime soon...perhaps, this time, to a more receptive audience.

Thank you, Bravakia. Perhaps we'll try to get a similar proposal to this one going sometime soon...perhaps, this time, to a more receptive audience.

Very few proposals make it to the resolution queue on their first pass. I'm of the opinion that, the few that do often appeal to a moderate base *and* involve unseen aggressive telegramming campaigns.

My advice to all proposal authors:
Make a hard copy print out or screen capture of your proposal endorsement count about 24 hours before you think it will expire. If you got around 40 endorsements on the first try, then only minor changes may be necessary and you may want to just resubmit your proposal. Telegram the delegates that already endorsed your proposal and ask them to re-endorse it *and* to give you advice on what to do next: future changes or giving up. They will be friendly.

If you got less than 40 endorsements, I'd recommend going back to the drawing board.

I've posted in the Scroll Islands about my support of this proposal so hopefully I can gather a following for ya.

Saving a caption of the names of all the nations that supported the proposal would have been a great idea. <sigh> Too bad I didn't think of it. I think it was an initiative worthy of the UN's consideration. And I do believe I tallied about 40 votes.

I think I'll re-word this proposal slightly: provide a little more specificity as to where the funding would come from and augment the amount of land to be preserved to appeal to a mainstream audience. The rationale behind wilderness, in my humble opinion, is one that can appeal to the masses...and not simple "tree-huggers" such as myself.

The International Wilderness Act, Mark II COMING SOON...

And we shall call upon our friends and allies, such as the great nation Bravakia, to aid us in the fight for openspace. Thank you!

I also support this proposal :-) so your not alone :-\

I thank you, AutoGrafth. All nations who wish to support the I.W.A. may do so by contacting me or leaving a message on this thread. I will let you all know when the new draft is complete and will, no doubt, request your support for spreading the message. Thank you again.