NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal Name: The UN Wildlife Refuge Protection Act.
Category: Environmental

PROPOSAL: The U.N. is to enable the protection, and welfare of wildlife refuges located in all member nations. Every nation if it ever decides to erect such an enterprise will be protected by the U.N. from having that area developed or exploited either from a member country or itself.

ACKNOWLEDGING: Certain member nations may not wish to erect a wildlife refuge, which is completely at their own discretion; therefore they will be able to submit selected endangered species to another member country who is willing to harbor them in their own wildlife refuges via the U.N. International Wildlife Harbor Program. These animals would also be protected from any member nation who harbored an animal from another nation from using that animal for personal profit and gain

Effects of this proposal:

Article 1. To protect all member nations’ wildlife refuges from over development, and irrational exuberance in the pursuit of resources, or personal gain.

Article 2. To allow other member nations the ability to preserve their wildlife without the need to build wildlife refuges via the generous donations of willing member nations.

Article 3, In the interest of preserving wildlife, current wildlife refuges will be protected by the U.N. even if a succeeding government of the country in which the refuge resides wishes to destroy the refuge for personal profit and gain.

Article 4. Allows member countries to decide which wildlife species it wishes to harbor within the refuge at any given time. Any ADDITIONS to this list would be brought to the UN for approval. Subtractions to the list are illegal, and can include economic sanctions brought upon the host country.

Article 5. Creates the UN International Wildlife Harbor Commitee, whose intention is to oversee the sharing, and protection of donated wildlife to all wildlife refuges.

Article 6. Donated wildlife which are harbored in other nations are protected under the UN. No member nation who willingly harbored wildlife from another nation is allowed to use that animal for personal profit, or gain. This includes but is not limited to: Food, Labor, Performance Acts, etc.

Such a proposal would not bode well with the voters of Cobdenia; the only Cobdenians who would be interested in such a proposal are the Great Crested Newts, who have neither the vote nor the desire to vote at the present time.

I'm missing something. I can set up a wildlife refuge in your country? And the UN will prevent you from doing anything about it?

Otherwise, why do I need UN protection? I'm the government! If I set up a wildlife refuge in my nation, I'll protect it.

If some renegades in my nation set up a "wildlife refuge", are you proposing that I give up my right to pave it over?

The U.N. is to establish a UN-wide wildlife refuge act, whereby every nation if it ever decides to erect such an enterprise will be protected by the U.N. from having that area developed or exploited either from a member country or itself.

I don't believe a sovereign country is going to one the UN mandating what it can or cannot do. Since there is no process for appeal of an original agreement in your proposal, a nation - under different leadership at the time - can submit an agreement by which the UN will protect their refugee, yet, say 50 years later, another leader can do nothing to change that because your proposal work no appeal process or change of agreement procedure.

I'm missing something. I can set up a wildlife refuge in your country? And the UN will prevent you from doing anything about it?

If some renegades in my nation set up a "wildlife refuge", are you proposing that I give up my right to pave it over?


no no no, the resolution allows countries who are eitehr unable, or unwilling to create a refuge the ability to donate wildleft to a member country willing to take them.

Think of it like an elephant refuge in California. Elephants are not native to california, yet there is a refuge there for them. Its not owned by an asian country, but rather California allows animals from other regions to use their wildlife refuge areas.

This resolution is allowing other countries to donate their animals to WILLING recipients. If you dont want some country's three eyed gecko, then you have no obligation to harbor the gecko.

I don't believe a sovereign country is going to one the UN mandating what it can or cannot do. Since there is no process for appeal of an original agreement in your proposal, a nation - under different leadership at the time - can submit an agreement by which the UN will protect their refugee, yet, say 50 years later, another leader can do nothing to change that because your proposal work no appeal process or change of agreement procedure.

Actually, yes your correct. Wildlife Refuges will be protected even if new leadership takes over, and wishes to plow it over and make it a parking lot. This is one of the main tenents of the resolution. It protects regardless of any future design.

Such a proposal would not bode well with the voters of Cobdenia; the only Cobdenians who would be interested in such a proposal are the Great Crested Newts, who have neither the vote nor the desire to vote at the present time.

Are Great Crested newts supposed to be people, or an endangered species?

If they are, you are more then able with this proposal to donate your newts to a willing recipient for protection under this proposal


If they are people, then The People's Dominion of Snoogit urge your nation to allow alll your people to ability to vote.

The Greated Crested Newt is Cobdenia's national animal.
We have, however, no desire to send them to another country because; they taste too good in a white wine sauce for that!

I, for one, support this proposal. I especially like the fact that if a capitalist succeeds me as Grand Duke of Olwe, he can't destroy our nation's wildlife refuges just to satisfy his own greed. That sort of long-term protection is actually needed for this proposal to have any sort of, well, relevance. My only question is: What sort of allowances are made for extremely destructive national animals? Wandrellas have been known to level entire cities in Olwe... I doubt a wildlife refuge hosting one could last very long.

I, for one, support this proposal. I especially like the fact that if a capitalist succeeds me as Grand Duke of Olwe, he can't destroy our nation's wildlife refuges just to satisfy his own greed. That sort of long-term protection is actually needed for this proposal to have any sort of, well, relevance. My only question is: What sort of allowances are made for extremely destructive national animals? Wandrellas have been known to level entire cities in Olwe... I doubt a wildlife refuge hosting one could last very long.

Hmm, thats a worthy addition, that all wildlife should be registered with the UN for protection. Perhaps a modification allowing certain exceptions to wildlife that could pose a hazard to its populace would be in order. THe UN would likely have to review such a claim first, but it is up to the host country to decide what wildlife species it wishes to put in its wildlife refuges

Once a country decides what animals are going in its refuge, it can apply for wildlife refuge protection. My advice is to not include that animal in your protection program

The Greated Crested Newt is Cobdenia's national animal.
We have, however, no desire to send them to another country because; they taste too good in a white wine sauce for that!

If you wished to send even just two newts to a willing host country, you could thus preserving the great crested newts.

Indeed for a long time the People's Dominion of Snoogit loved our precious Snoogarian Cattle. They made the best Snoogarian Beef, but as time grew on and the supply started to run low, we put them into refuges until their population returned to normal.

New revised edition of the proposal is up including grammatical, and spelling changes as well as clarification via the wonders of MSword. (In original post)

Does article 5 create a committee, or just a program? Given Hack's latest guidance...

Members of LovAmore's National Congress, at their monthly, regional delegate meeting discussed this over crusted trout. One said, "Does Snoogit suggest that the UN will control some or our land?"
Well, you see, the problem with this, though the idea is compassionate, is that the United Nations would control member nation's lands. Those who don't erect a wildlife refuge would probably be looked down upon by the rest of the governing body. We wouldn't want this. what if a nation can't afford a national wildlife refuge, will they be looked down upon? I surely hope not. What if LovAmore's economy collapses tomorrow, and our wildlife refuge has to be shut down, who gets the burden, who decides who gets the endangered species...what if no one will take it? It would cause too much controversy among member nations, and view endangered epscies as a burden to the world. this isn't what LovAmore wants. if a nation will not protect an endangered species, and it only exists in their country, then so be it, it'd thier land...not the Un's. No offense intended.

I, for one, find this questionable. What about cases where a government is actively trying to exterminate dangerous lifeforms that cannot be successfully preserved without loss of life and severe property damage?

The Greated Crested Newt is Cobdenia's national animal.
We have, however, no desire to send them to another country because; they taste too good in a white wine sauce for that!


*makes note to request sending Ghost Wind into Cobdenia to... appropriate significant breeding stock of the Greated Crested Newt.*

*makes second note to increase on-hand stock of white wine*

I, for one, find this questionable. What about cases where a government is actively trying to exterminate dangerous lifeforms that cannot be successfully preserved without loss of life and severe property damage?

animal preservation is decided upon by the member nation. If an animal is severely damaging your population, keep it off your list of endangered species.

This act also allows member nations to donate animals to other countries if they cannot afford to harbor animals themselves. It also does not give the UN the authority to decide what animals make it into your refuge, only protecting them after they have been placed in such refuges.

This has no impact on a member nation's endangerd species list, nor does it control what wildlife goes into a refuge. Its main goal is to protect wildlife refuges after they have been created. But it also gives a provision that if a member nation wishes to protect its animals, but not harbor them on their land, they will have the ability to do so.

I think the whole permanence thing is a non-starter.
If you want to say the host nation can't just change their mind and eat the protected species, maybe a clause about returning them to their original nation would do.

I think the whole permanence thing is a non-starter.
If you want to say the host nation can't just change their mind and eat the protected species, maybe a clause about returning them to their original nation would do.

It shall be noted in article 6, and unfortunately if there is no permanence, this proposal becomes meaningless.

I will be submitting this to the UN on monday barring no further discussion.


I thank you all for your participation in getting this resolution finalized.