NationStates Jolt Archive

I had this idea for a proposal a long while back, and am now reviving it. The draft below has been pored over and refined by the nations of The North Pacific, and is the best we can manage.


International Park Service

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Industries
Proposed by: Hersfold (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=Hersfold)

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS:

NOTICING that many places of historic importance or natural beauty can, at times, be unrecognized and forgotten;

REALIZING that many other such places have been protected by national and local governments, to help preserve their historic or natural sites, and that many more still need this kind of protection;

FINDING that many endangered species, while under some protection of national and international law, are still, in many cases, disappearing under the harsh and cruel tendencies of poachers, pollution, and human development;

SEEING that many of these noted locations are popular tourist destinations, for recreational and research purposes, and not wishing to inhibit this enjoyment;

HAVING PASSED the resolutions "Protect Historical Sites" (passed on Friday, May 23rd, 2003) and "World Heritage List" (passed on Saturday, November 15th, 2003);

HEREBY ESTABLISHES a United Nations International Park Service, to establish and maintain International Parks, Wildlife Preserves, and Historic Sites, according to the following guidelines:

1) These parks shall only be established at the consent of the nation(s) that the park is to be established in. The Service shall propose an area to be protected by the UN, and will negotiate any possible details with the nation’s government. If a nation so wishes, they may be the first to begin negotiations with the Service.

1a) The Service may also request to change an existing park to an International Park, or a nation may request this of the Service, while following the same guidelines.

2) These parks shall be open to the public, to allow the host nations to continue to prosper from tourism to the established park.

3) To help ensure the park is properly protecting the area it was established to protect, the UN shall request of all host nations that a portion of their law enforcement agency patrol the park at all times, to prevent the onslaught of poachers and other illegal activities, as ordained by the laws of the UN and of the host nation. Should these laws conflict, the host nation’s laws will have precedence over UN laws.

4) These parks will protect the established areas by prohibiting any gathering of materials by any organization other than the government of the host nation, should they decide to do so.

5) The Service shall only be allowed to request permission to establish an International Park, Reserve, or Historic Site from UN Member nations. Should other countries wish to host a UN-operated park, they must be the first to start negotiations. The same guidelines shall apply should a park be established in a non-UN member nation(s).

6) Should a park be established in multiple countries, the following guidelines must be followed by the host countries and the UN International Park Service:

a ) The host nations must have an alliance to establish an International Park, and must hold that alliance for the duration of the park’s operation.
b ) Customs facilities shall be established along the international border, should they not already be established.
c ) The laws of each country shall not expand into the other nation(s) territory.

7) The Service shall consist of 25 representatives from UN member nations, to be elected to one year terms annually.

THIS SERVICE, established to help protect places of historic and natural recognition by international law, shall immediately come into effect if passed.


Please comment here if you view this topic, especially if you have a reccommendation to improve the document. However, this proposal is extremely close to the maximum length of UN proposals, so please if you do have a recommendation, try to keep it short. Thanks!

This will probably be submitted within a few days.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Founder of the UNEC
UN Member
Founder, Part123

Umm.... Is anyone going to comment on this?

If there are no posts within the next 24 hours, I think I will just go ahead and submit this...

Here is the final draft:

International Park Service

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Industries
Proposed by: Hersfold

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS:

NOTICING that many places of historic importance or natural beauty can, at times, be unrecognized and forgotten;

REALIZING that many other such places have been protected by national and local governments, to help preserve their historic or natural sites, and that many more still need this kind of protection;

FINDING that many endangered species, while under some protection of national and international law, are still, in many cases, disappearing under the harsh and cruel tendencies of poachers, pollution, and human development;

SEEING that many of these noted locations are popular tourist destinations, for recreational and research purposes, and not wishing to inhibit this enjoyment;

HAVING PASSED the resolutions "Protect Historical Sites" (passed on Friday, May 23rd, 2003) and "World Heritage List" (passed on Saturday, November 15th, 2003);

HEREBY ESTABLISHES a United Nations International Park Service, to establish and maintain International Parks, Wildlife Preserves, and Historic Sites, according to the following guidelines:

1) These parks shall only be established at the consent of the nation(s) that the park is to be established in. The Service shall propose an area to be protected by the UN, and will negotiate any possible details with the nation’s government. If a nation so wishes, they may be the first to begin negotiations with the Service.

1a) The Service may also request to change an existing park to an International Park, or a nation may request this of the Service, while following the same guidelines.

2) These parks shall be open to the public, to allow the host nations to continue to prosper from tourism to the established park.

3) To help ensure the park is properly protecting the area it was established to protect, the UN shall request of all host nations that a portion of their law enforcement agency patrol the park at all times, to prevent the onslaught of poachers and other illegal activities, as ordained by the laws of the UN and of the host nation. Should these laws conflict, the host nation’s laws will have precedence over UN laws.

4) These parks will protect the established areas by prohibiting any gathering of materials by any organization other than the government of the host nation, should they decide to do so.

5) The Service shall only be allowed to request permission to establish an International Park, Reserve, or Historic Site from UN Member nations. Should other countries wish to host a UN-operated park, they must be the first to start negotiations. The same guidelines shall apply should a park be established in a non-UN member nation(s).

6) Should a park be established in multiple countries, the following guidelines must be followed by the host countries and the UN International Park Service:

a ) The host nations must have an alliance to establish an International Park, and must hold that alliance for the duration of the park’s operation.
b ) Customs facilities shall be established along the international border, should they not already be established.
c ) The laws of each country shall not expand into the other nation(s) territory.

7) The required funding for these parks shall come from the host nations until such time as the UN may fund them.

THIS SERVICE, established to help protect places of historic and natural recognition by international law, shall immediately come into effect if passed.


I will leave this for 24 hours. If at that time, no objections have been raised, the proposal will be submitted.

With absolutely zero comment on the proposal here, I have decided to take this as a good thing and proceed with the submission.

The proposal may be found on page 12 of the current proposals list.

Now on page 8, the proposal recieved 15 approvals overnight.

Sorry, missed a day.

Now on page 1, with 29 approvals.

This proposal will be re-submitted as many times as is neccessary.

A modification, should this worthy document be resubmitted: while your document suggests that development is a threat to these areas, the only provision for environmental protection that it demands is that materials may not be gathered from these parks and that poaching should be prevented. There is no measure specifically mentioned against development - for instance, building houses all over parkland, or covering the whole thing with an HEP dam. Without this the document is somewhat hollow.

Another concern I have is for indigenous peoples who are accustomed to sustain their livelihood from the land designated for parks. Forcing such people out of parklands could cause great cultural loss, hardship and resentment. Many parks with significant indigenous populations, including Rehochipe's Clavinian National Park [ooc: and Wrangell-St. Elias in Alaska, where I am just now] allow natives of the region to gather such materials from parkland as are necessary for subsistence; I appreciate that the document is already hovering around the word limit, but the exclusion of this caveat could cause untold harm.

Nusku Capleton
Special Liason to the UN
Rehochipe

2) These parks shall be open to the public, to allow the host nations to continue to prosper from tourism to the established park.
The one-size-fits-all nature of this phrase bothers me. If I may use a 'fictional' analogue ...

A National Park known as Carlsbad Caverns is open to the public. While casual visitors may be impressed by its awesome size and apparent majesty, other knowledgeable visitors are aware that much of what made this cavern great has been lost by its very publicness. Early visitors destroyed formations that were millenia old, access paths required by national accessibility law destroyed even more of the natural beauty, and restroom facilities, elevators, and even a lunchroom in garish plastics were added to make it more acceptable to 'the public'. Ask a botanist or a biologist about the lighting and the traffic, and you'll get even more problems to worry about.

Less than 10 miles from this highly visible tourist mecca is the lesser known Lechiguilla Cave. It has miles of passage featuring delightfully delicate formations that have never been disturbed by the hand of man. Gated, access-managed by the Park management, and allowing only specific scientific excursions, this unique location would be forever destroyed by 'open to the public'. Yet it's on the same National Park preserve as the other.

That's just one 'fictional' example that I happen to be extremely familiar with. Can we say that each of the other 'fictional' preserves doesn't have similar criteria, not generally known to the public?

To bring it back to the real world:1) These parks shall only be established at the consent of the nation(s) that the park is to be established in.
3) the UN shall request of all host nations that a portion of their law enforcement agency patrol the park at all times
7) The required funding for these parks shall come from the host nations
Since establishment, protection, and funding of said parks must come from the host country and not the UN, I honestly fail to see the need for UN intervention in this process.

The only qualifying statement would be #6, establishing a park across national boundaries. Given that the two or three nations involved are not prohibited from creating independent alliances to the same effect, and given that such alliances need not limit themselves to UN member nations, Frisbeeteria questions the need for this proposal.

The one-size-fits-all nature of this phrase bothers me. If I may use a 'fictional' analogue ...

To bring it back to the real world:
Since establishment, protection, and funding of said parks must come from the host country and not the UN, I honestly fail to see the need for UN intervention in this process.

The only qualifying statement would be #6, establishing a park across national boundaries. Given that the two or three nations involved are not prohibited from creating independent alliances to the same effect, and given that such alliances need not limit themselves to UN member nations, Frisbeeteria questions the need for this proposal.

First, your "fictional" example does illustrate a problem with what you call a one-size-fits-all approach. I would like to think we can find a way to protect natural wonders and yet also find another way to promote tourism ... not for the sake of improving countries economies, but for the very reason that I feel even intra-state parks are still worthy of UN attention.

Political boundaries change, and but cultural heritage does not. Culture is a shared / international interest, as supported by the passage of:

Protect Historical Sites, 2003.05.23
World Heritage List, 2003.11.15

The ancient Bock Casemates of Miervatia are not just a treasure to be enjoyed by the people of Mikitivity, but they also play an important historical role for many other North Pacific nations.

Before we draw a line at man-made structures, I specifically call the Miervatian Bock Casemates out as an example because these crypts were built so long ago in natural caves. It is easy to imagine that other countries may have even older crypts or burial mounds that are including in a natural park.

Another natural wonder of Mikitivity that surely has international import would be Mt. Delenn. Though the CCSM exist on the western slopes of this mightly volcano, its sheer size is something that attracts visitors from across the Pacifics. Even if the CCSM park at Mt. Delenn is not integrated with other national park systems, I think the idea of the UN basically extending the World Heritage List to include some Natural Heritage locations is something we should talk about.

Also, in addition to your post, Mikitivity, I did notice that something was tastefully left out in Frisbeeteria's quote:

7) The required funding for these parks shall come from the host nations

7) The required funding for these parks shall come from the host nations until such time as the UN may fund them.

As of now, the UN cannot fund a lemonade stand. I have tried to fix this to little success, so this is how proposals will have to be worded for a long time. However, the UN intervention is to be sure that all nations recognize this as a, as Mikitivity called it, "Natural Heritage" site, and protected by the more influental international law.

As for your natives in Clavinian (ooc: and Wrangell-St. Elias), I probably should write in a clause allowing them free rein - I did not even think of that. The UN cannot, and I will not accidentally make it, create another Trail of Tears in NationStates.

Unfortunately, I just sent in the second submission :headbang:. I am afraid that this may have to wait a few days. In the event that it seems it may reach quorum, I will ask the mods to remove it, but this is rather unlikely, so I am not too worried as of yet. However, this is a mixed blessing as it does allow us time to figure out what should be removed. Yes, removed. The initial submissions several months ago (back when we had the old crappy forums) were very close to the limit, and surpassed it when I added the info about the past resolutions. I had to take out the number of votes for each resolution to get it through. If we are to be adding clauses, something must go.

The proposed change can be added to clause 4, and will look something like this:

4) These parks will protect the established areas by prohibiting any gathering of materials by any organization other than the government of the host nation, should they decide to do so, and any natives whose sustenance comes from the land now designated as a park, and also by allowing no further development of the land in the park except for buildings required by the service to operate the park.


If this is added, I believe it will put the proposal 149 characters over the limit.

This change must be shortened, or else something must go.

I would reccommend the most unneccessary clause in the proposal, the last line starting with "THIS SERVICE". Removing that would place the proposal just under the limit, without having to shorten the changes. I remain open to suggestions, however.

The current submission can be found on page 10.

Alright then, since no one has posted here in a LONG time, I will make the change stated above.

Good news! International Park Service has reached record levels of approvals!

Many thanks to the following Delegates:

Flibbleites, Maxitron, The Furious, Kiwipeso, Tzorsland, Xerxes855, East Hackney, Cutez0r, Coolet, Tramuntana, Mousebumples, Majowe, Tihland, Atlantic Quays, Kwazamarzians, Thel DRan, Order From Chaos, Melpomenica, Timotheria, Novus Terra, Vehkataipale, Thermidore, Concerted Socialists, Quox, Callistine, Tuesday Heights, Mcmoo, Howard Springs, Bynzekistan, Raggy-Doll, North-West Europe, Collective Nightmares, Random sadistic freaks, Rocknroll shananigans, JujenDanq, Robin Lori and DJ, Drunken Butterfly, EcoVille, Duddridge, Sovietporcin, Candia, Moodgies, Berquest, Virtillius, Kerjika, Orioni, Nekurzeme, Hallad, Dragonama, Al-Zar, New Valley, Lost _City_Of_Atlantis, The Duke of Dust, Sabatonia, Avei, Checkers McDog, Mike Tedesco, Peaonusahl, Musk Ox, Real Freedonia, The Jannelandia, Squatia, Cairo140, Fairyport, Phuckneckville

Sorry to anyone whose name is not here, you must have approved it after I posted.

As stated above, this will be submitted again, but also with the change above, which should help improve the document a little. Please continue to support this. And everyone else, please support this to help it reach quorum! Thanks again to those above and to all who wish to support this. Live Long and Propser!

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS:

NOTICING that many places of historic importance or natural beauty can, at times, be unrecognized and forgotten;

REALIZING that many other such places have been protected by national and local governments, to help preserve their historic or natural sites, and that many more still need this kind of protection;

FINDING that many endangered species, while under some protection of national and international law, are still, in many cases, disappearing under the harsh and cruel tendencies of poachers, pollution, and human development;

SEEING that many of these noted locations are popular tourist destinations, for recreational and research purposes, and not wishing to inhibit this enjoyment;

HAVING PASSED the resolutions "Protect Historical Sites" (passed on Friday, May 23rd, 2003) and "World Heritage List" (passed on Saturday, November 15th, 2003);

HEREBY ESTABLISHES a United Nations International Park Service, to establish and maintain International Parks, Wildlife Preserves, and Historic Sites, according to the following guidelines:

1) These parks shall only be established at the consent of the nation(s) that the park is to be established in. The Service shall propose an area to be protected by the UN, and will negotiate any possible details with the nation’s government. If a nation so wishes, they may be the first to begin negotiations with the Service.

1a) The Service may also request to change an existing park to an International Park, or a nation may request this of the Service, while following the same guidelines.

2) These parks shall be open to the public, to allow the host nations to continue to prosper from tourism to the established park.

3) To help ensure the park is properly protecting the area it was established to protect, the UN shall request of all host nations that a portion of their law enforcement agency patrol the park at all times, to prevent the onslaught of poachers and other illegal activities, as ordained by the laws of the UN and of the host nation. Should these laws conflict, the host nation’s laws will have precedence over UN laws.

4) These parks will protect the established areas by prohibiting any gathering of materials by any organization other than the government of the host nation, should they decide to do so, or any natives whose sustenance comes from the land now designated as a park, and also by allowing no further development of the land in the park except for buildings required by the service to operate the park.

5) The Service shall only be allowed to request permission to establish an International Park, Reserve, or Historic Site from UN Member nations. Should other countries wish to host a UN-operated park, they must be the first to start negotiations. The same guidelines shall apply should a park be established in a non-UN member nation(s).

6) Should a park be established in multiple countries, the following guidelines must be followed by the host countries and the UN International Park Service:

a ) The host nations must have an alliance to establish an International Park, and must hold that alliance for the duration of the park’s operation.
b ) Customs facilities shall be established along the international border, should they not already be established.
c ) The laws of each country shall not expand into the other nation(s) territory.

7) The required funding for these parks shall come from the host nations until such time as the UN may fund them.


Above is the final draft, to be submitted momentarily. Thanks for the comments, the requested change has been made.

Excellent. Will prod East Hackney to re-endorse the thing...

Muchas gracias, senor!

I think he already has. Thanks! (to the both of you)