The Great Smoky Mountains are among the oldest mountains in the world, formed perhaps 200-300 million years ago. They are unique in their northeast to southwest orientation,
which allowed species to migrate along their slopes during climatic
changes such as the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, the
glaciers of the last ice age affected the Smoky Mountains without
invading them. During that time, glaciers scoured much of North America
but did not quite reach as far south as the Smokies. Consequently,
these mountains became a refuge for many species of plants and animals
that were disrupted from their northern homes. The Smokies have been
relatively undisturbed by glaciers or ocean inundation for over a
million years, allowing species eons to diversify.

• Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site (1982)
  
• Chaco Culture (1987)
  
• Independence Hall (1979)
  
• La Fortaleza and San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto Rico (1983)
  
• Mesa Verde National Park (1978)
  
• Monticello and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville (1987)
  
• Pueblo de Taos (1992)
  
• Statue of Liberty (1984)
  

• Carlsbad Caverns National Park (1995)
  
• Everglades National Park (1979)
  
• Grand Canyon National Park (1979)
  
• Great Smoky Mountains National Park (1983)
  
• Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (1987)
  
• Kluane / Wrangell-St Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek (1979)
  
• Mammoth Cave National Park (1981)
  
• Olympic National Park (1981)
  
• Redwood National and State Parks (1980)
  
• Waterton Glacier International Peace Park (1995)
  
• Yellowstone National Park (1978)
  
• Yosemite National Park (1984)
  

• Papahānaumokuākea (2010)
  

http://whc.unesco.org/en/faq










The World Heritage List













Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?


The
site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located,
but it is considered in the interest of the international community to
protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.

The World Heritage Committee,
a group of 21 representatives from countries who have agreed to abide
by the convention, decides which sites of "outstanding universal value"
qualify for World Heritage status. UNESCO, or the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
adopted the World Heritage designation in 1972 after it was uncertain
if some of the world's landmarks would survive into the future.

http://www.unesco.org/en/education-for-sustainable-development/themes/environment/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/

http://www.georgewright.org/mab

On the other hand, many
concerns about how biosphere reserves operate in the U.S. are
factually based, reasonable, and put forth in good faith. This category
of objections includes legitimate concerns about national
sovereignty, the status of private property within biosphere reserves,
the amount of control the United Nations has over the management of
land included within biosphere reserves, and the effect that biosphere reserves might have on the economy of nearby communities.
The
fundamental point is that UNESCO, the MAB Council, the MAB National
Committees, or any other part of the United Nations have no power to
force changes in land/resource management or ownership upon
governments, public agencies, or private parties in the United States
(or any other country, for that matter). Through the MAB Council,
UNESCO does set standards for biosphere reserves, and through periodic
reviews it assesses whether the standards are being promoted. If they
aren’t, the Council encourages the reserve manager to make the
changes necessary to do so, but cannot force any changes. The United
States' participation in the biosphere reserve progam is entirely
voluntary, and land within U.S. biosphere reserves remains under the
control of its owners.


What does "biosphere" mean?

The
word "biosphere" refers to the three regions of the Earth capable of
being occupied by living organisms: (1) the surface of the Earth (land,
oceans, lakes, rivers, and other waters); (2) close-lying subsurface
areas occupied by plants and animals (including microorganisms), and
(3) the low-altitude atmosphere where birds, insects, other flying
animals, and plants can live. If you imagine a cross-section of the
Earth in space, a side view of the planet as if it were cut in half
from top to bottom, the biosphere would be a very thin slice of the
total picture — no more than the "skin" of the Earth along with the
area just above and below it. The word "biosphere" therefore conveys a special quality of rarity and value, and of life's inherent fragility.

MAB
was launched in 1970, and was formally endorsed by U.N. Member States
at the U.N. Conference on the Environment (the first "Earth Summit") in
1972. The original aim of MAB was to establish protected areas
representing the main ecosystems of the planet in which genetic
resources could be protected and research and monitoring could be
carried out. These protected areas were to be called "biosphere
reserves" in reference to the MAB program's name.


Like
all scientific programs, MAB has been refined over the years but still
is committed to its original aims. Today, MAB is a set of related
scientific research projects with three focuses:

• Minimizing the loss of biological diversity;
  
• Making people aware of how cultural diversity and biological diversity affect each other; and
  
• Promoting environmental sustainability through the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
  

What's a biosphere reserve?
A
biosphere reserve is a unique kind of protected area that differs from a
national park, wilderness area, national forest, or wildlife refuge in
several important ways.

• Biosphere reserves have three very different, but equal, aims: conservation of genetic resources, species, and ecosystems; scientific research and monitoring; and promoting sustainable development
  in communities of the surrounding region. All three of these aims are
  equally important in a biosphere reserve. (National parks and other
  kinds of protected natural areas usually are primarily concerned with
  conservation, and only secondarily with research and sustainable
  development.)
  

Under what legal authority are biosphere reserves created?

Biosphere reserves are not the object of
a binding international agreement or treaty. Instead, they are
governed by a "soft law" — the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves — adopted by the UNESCO General Conference. The
participation of U.N. Member States in the UNESCO General Conference
is the point of national oversight on the MAB Program. It
is the responsibility of each country, through its MAB National
Committee, to ensure that the biosphere reserves respond to the
criteria and function properly.

In most countries it is not been found
necessary to enact special national legislation for biosphere reserves;
instead, existing legal frameworks for nature protection and
land/water management are used. That being said, today an increasing
number of countries are passing national biosphere reserve legislation
in order to make their legal status perfectly clear.











MAB and the United States












The U.S.'s role in MAB


The U.S. MAB Program
is a voluntary, interagency effort which operates within the existing
authorities of the participating agencies. Established in 1974, U.S.
MAB is operates under a National Committee. Currently, that Committee is
dormant.

U.S. MAB' s mission statement is as follows:

The mission of the United States MAB
Program is to explore, demonstrate, promote, and encourage harmonious
relationships between people and their environments building on the MAB
network of Biosphere Reserves and interdisciplinary research. The long-term goal of the U.S. MAB Program is to contribute to achieving a sustainable society early in the 21st Century.
The MAB mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the United
States and internationally, through public-private partnerships and
linkages that sponsor and promote cooperative interdisciplinary
research, experimentation, education and information exchange on
options by which societies can achieve sustainability.

As a result of a UN treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection
of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” these sites come under
the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source
of major debate as to whether the UN has infringed on sovereign American territory.

However, the debate may be about to rage even hotter. Because Interior
Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has just announced his selections of 14 more
sites to be considered for nomination by UNESCO as World Heritage
Sites.
Today, of the original 22 UN Heritage Sites that are located on
American soil, fully 68 percent of American national parks, preserves
and monuments are included in the UN designations.


Proponents of the UN Heritage Sites say such designations are nothing
more than a great “honor” to the nation. They assure us that there is
no threat to American sovereignty and that all designated sites remain
firmly under control of the United States government.

If true, then the question must be asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary?
The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites
as United States parks or preserved historic sites. The land is
already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes.
These lands are valuable for their historical significance to this
nation. REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?










WHO OWNS WORLD HERITAGE SITES?


It is true that you will not find any UN documents clearly stating that
the world body controls or owns American soil through the World
Heritage Site Treaty. It is also true that you will not find
blue-helmeted UN soldiers standing guard over any of the sites.

To fully understand the threat to American sovereignty posed by the
UN designation of World Heritage Sites, one must first link this program
to a series of other treaties and policies, and how they impact
American sovereignty. Above all, one must understand that many in
our government see such programs as another tool to build massive
federal land-control programs.

There is strong evidence of close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site Committee. There
is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World Heritage
Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration’s Sustainable
Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive
federal zoning program that dictates property development on the local
level, in the name of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use.

The designation of United Nations’ World Heritage Sites and Biosphere
Reserves can and does result in the centralization of policy-making
authority at the federal level, particularly by the Executive Branch.
Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal Government
there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners to
dispute it or undo the designation.

Private property rights literally disappear, not only in the
officially designated area, but worse, in buffer zones OUTSIDE the
designated area. Not only has the federal government been using
these treaties and agreements to limit access to, and use of these
lands to all Americans, but they also have used the UN designations to limit use of private property OUTSIDE the boundaries of the site.



That is exactly what happened outside of Yellowstone National Park (a
World Heritage Site) when UNESCO delegates were called in by the Park
Service in an attempt to stop the development of a gold mine - located
OUTSIDE the park. The UNESCO delegates
declared Yellowstone to be the first “endangered” World Heritage Site
and called for a protective buffer zone of 150-MILES IN DIAMETER AROUND
THE ENTIRE PARK. The buffer zone would stop development and access to
millions of acres of private property. Such is the purpose of the World
Heritage Sites.

Moreover, in becoming party to these international land-use
designations through Executive Branch action, the United States is
indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the
Biodiversity Treaty - a UN treaty that has never been ratified by the
United States Senate.

Nevertheless, in 1994, the U.S. State Department published the
“Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program.” Taken straight
from the unratified Biodiversity Treaty, the State Department program
is to “create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents
the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the
internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.”

A chief tactic used by the UN and the Federal Government when
designating a biosphere reserve or a World Heritage Site is to rarely
involve or consult with the public and local governments. In fact,
UNESCO policy actually discourages an open nomination for World Heritage
Sites. The “Operational Guidelines for the Implementations of the
World Heritage Convention” states:

“In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process
and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State
(national) parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the
fact that a property has been nominated inscription pending the final
decision of the Committee of the nomination in question.
Participation of the local people in the nomination process is
essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State
party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future
decision-making by the committee.”

In other words, the nominating committee is to hide the fact that a
massive land grab is about to take place. Then, at the appropriate
moment, the committee is to involve some local yokels to make them think
they have something to say about the grab, then send them away, so
that the committee can move ahead, unhindered. They aren’t suppose to
worry about the fact that private landowners have just lost control of
their property.

This is not the way the U.S. Constitution says things should be done. This is how despots at the United Nations run things. The Administration is allowing them to do it for the sake of more Federal power.



By allowing these international land use designations, the United
States promises to protect the sites and REGULATE surrounding lands if
necessary to protect the UN-designated area. Honoring these agreements
forces the Federal Government to PROHIBIT or limit some uses of private
lands outside the international designated area UNLESS OUR COUNTRY
WANTS TO BREAK A PLEDGE TO OTHER NATIONS.

In a nutshell, here is the real game
being played. Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding
our nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that
the United States will manage these lands in a prescribed manner in
order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other
words, we have agreed to limit our right of sovereignty over these
lands.

That is why it is charged that World
Heritage Sites are an infringement on United States sovereignty. You
won’t find the smoking gun by reading the treaties. It can only be
found in understanding the “intent” and the “implementation” of the
policies.

CovOps wrote:

"THE COMMON HERITAGE OF ALL MANKIND"

Quote :

Damn collectivists!!!!!!!!!