GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #244Physical Sites Protection Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Ceni
Description: APPLAUDING that member nations have sites of outstanding physical beauty or that contain large numbers of endangered species
NOTING that such sites of physical significance are increasingly threatened with destruction
REALIZING that certain sites of physical significance need to be protected in the best interests of sapient peoples
The World Assembly hereby:
DEFINES sites of physical significance as the following:
(A) Natural formations or groups of such formations, or other physical features which are of outstanding universal excellence for their beauty or aesthetics, of special scientific significance, or of an unique nature OR
(B) Natural habitats home to a variety or large numbers of rare, important or endangered flora and fauna OR
(C) Outstanding examples of sites, man-made or natural, which have greatly influenced the culture, history or development of the area's inhabitants over a lengthy period of time OR
(D) Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological and evolutionary processes of various flora and fauna OR
(E) Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological processes of terrestrial, maritime, or coastal habitats and biomes;
Clause (C) of the definition is the Achilles heel, because it does not state whether a site still in use qualifies. As pointed out by The Dourian Embassy, the office building is still in use, and as such, could cause harm to the site, in which case, would, as mandated, have all its current activities be banned.REQUIRES nations to sufficiently protect such sites as determined by the PHPC;
MANDATES nations to
(A) Ban the harming in any way of such sites or their inhabitants, or to create a sufficient permit program that preserves the site and its inhabitants
(B) Ban commercial activities within the site that would cause damage to the site or its inhabitants
(C) Take the effects of developments within their nation to sites in their nation and in other nations into account;
Clause (A) and (B) of the mandate only becomes a problem because of clause (C) of the definition. (A) addresses activities detrimental to the preservation of the site, but is only insofar as it is non-commercial. As such, the permit, as stated by (A), will be nulled by (B), as (B) specifically addresses commercial activities.ESTABLISHES the Physical Heritage Preservation Committee as a non-profit organization to:
(A) Aid nations that cannot protect such sites themselves
(B) Aid agencies and programs overseeing such sites
(C) Set standards relating to the protection of such sites;
Here, (C) is the problem. Having PHPC set the standards may work for one site, but not necessarily for another. As pointed out by the author of this repeal, some sites could garner value by its degradation. Street art, for example could qualify as "degradation", and yet, it provides cultural value (in some instances, but not in all).ENCOURAGES member nations to:
(A) Make these sites available to the public when possible and desirable
(B) Preserve and protect sites that are not accredited by the PHPC
(C) Promote tourism to such sites without harming the site or putting tourists in harm's way
The PHPC shall certify sites as follows:
(A) The PHPC shall convene and any member may propose a site to be considered with the consent of the nation's government
(B) The PHPC shall look into evidence pertaining to the proposed site
(C) If such site meets one or more criteria listed above, the site shall be certified by the PHPC.
The PHPC shall decertify a site as follows:
(A) Any member or national government may propose a site to be delisted
(B) The PHCP shall determine whether the site still meets the criteria and/or deserves to be on the list
(C) If such site is determined to not merit inclusion, it shall be decertified
Votes For: 7,590 (56%)
Votes Against: 5,846 (44%)
Implemented: Fri Mar 15 2013