[DRAFT] World Heritage Act

[WallachIX]

DRAFT:

World Heritage Act

Strength: Significant - Strong
Category: Environmental

DEFINING...
[1] cultural resources as archaeological sites, artefacts, historic structures, and culturally sensitive landscapes;
[2] natural resources as land, water, soil, plants, and animals;
[3] World Heritage as the cultural and natural legacy of our ancestors and what we will leave for our descendants;
[4] Aboriginal Title as the common law interest in land established by indigenous groups -- requiring governments consultation with indigenous people when planning development;

ACKNOWLEDGING...
[1] the amazing biodiversity of our world;
[2] the significant achievement of our forebears;

RECOGNISING...
[1] the social, economic, historic, and scientific imperative of maintaining the integrity of the archaeological record and world ecosystems;
[2] that many nations lack policy regarding the management of cultural and natural resource and that this omission has led to damage and even destruction of them;

MANDATING...
[1] member nations introduce and enact laws prohibiting the looting, polluting, vandalism, and otherwise unnecessary damage of cultural and natural resources, especially those that are unique, significant, endemic, and/or endangered;
[2] member nations create policy requiring project developers to have Environmental Impact Assessments [from hence forth referred to as EIA's], minimally including but not necessarily limited to archaeological and geological surveys, conducted by qualified professionals;
[3] professionals conducting EIA's obtain government issued site permits;
[4] EIA reports are to be submitted by resource managers to the developers and regional or national governing authority for evaluation in a timely fashion prior to the execution of projects;
[5] member nations work to restore historical monuments and other heritage sites that have been damaged;
[6] member nations must engage in repatriation of grave goods, human remains, and items of cultural patrimony to their respective indigenous groups;

ENCOURAGING...
[1] member nations to acknowledge aboriginal title and land claims and establish an amicable dialogue with indigenous peoples within their borders;
[2] the creation of a World Heritage Organisation to develop a forum for discussing all facets of World Heritage including: helping members manage cultural and natural resources, establishing specific multilateral goals, improve conservation, research, and preservation efforts, obtain professional advice;

PROPOSING...
[1] member nations compile and evaluate a list of high profile heritage sites, with the goal of submitting those sites short listed to the World Heritage Organisation;
[2] the World Heritage Organisation create and publish a World Heritage Site list from the submissions of member nations, classifying them in terms of if they are natural, cultural, or both as well as threats to them, uniqueness, and sensitivity;

[Flibbleites]

Wouldn't this idea be better suited for the Education and Creativity/Cultural Heritage category?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Hey that is a pretty good start to the draft although we refer member states as... member states or member nations or member countries or similar, but it would also be a great idea that member states be encouraged to faithfully restore historical monuments as well.

PROPOSING...
[1] members enact laws prohibiting the looting, polluting, and otherwise unnecessary damage of cultural and natural resources, especially those that are unique, significant, endemic, and/or endangered;
[2] nations create policy requiring project developers to have Environmental Impact Assessments [from hence forth referred to as EIA's], including but not necessarily limited to archaeological and geological surveys, conducted by qualified professionals;
[3] professionals conducting EIA's obtain government issued site permits;
[4] EIA reports are to be submitted by resource managers to the developers and regional or national governing authority for evaluation in a timely fashion prior to the execution of projects;

This bit doesn't seem to hurt national sovereignty too bad at all, but the proposal should require member states to do something. In this case in part 1 you could consider something along the lines of:

REQUIRES member countries to introduce laws to ban looting, vandalism or deliberate damage to cultural and natural resources, especially those that are unique, significant, endemic, and/or endangered;

However, there would be a need to define what is a cultural or heritage site to make this clearer.

ENCOURAGING...
[1] members to acknowledge aboriginal title and land claims;
[2] the creation of a World Heritage Organisation to help members manage cultural and natural resources, establish specific multilateral goals, improve conservation and preservation efforts, etc;

The aboriginal title and land claims may be a bit too ambiguous and you may want to clarify the committee you are creating: maybe they can have a part in the EIAs.

Do keep in mind that in a large proposal member states must be mandated to do something although in mild effect proposals, "encourages" and "urges" will do.

[WallachIX]

thanks for the recommendations.

i've done a bit of editing for now, but will have to add some more later. i like your idea for restoring historical monuments and i was thinking of adding something regarding repatriation.

i didn't want to establish a particularly strict definition of a cultural or natural heritage site because i think there needs to be some fluidity to it. i could add maybe a bit about member nations having to justify their choices upon submission?

as far as aboriginal title a definition wouldn't hurt i suppose, but it's a fairly common idea, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title

Aboriginal title is a common law property interest in land. It has been recognised in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and increasingly in other common law countries as well, such as Malaysia and Nigeria[citation needed].

The requirements for establishing an aboriginal title to the land vary across countries, but generally speaking, the aboriginal claimant must establish (exclusive) aboriginal occupation from a long time ago, i.e. before the assertion of sovereignty, and continuity to the present day.

Aboriginal title can be extinguished by the Crown, but again, the requirement to do this varies by country. Some require the legislature to be explicit when it does this, others hold that extinguishment can be inferred from the government's treatment of the land...

[Bears Armed]

DRAFT:

World Heritage Act

Strength: Significant - Strong
Category: Environmental
Effected Areas: Development, Forestry, Tourism, Parks & Recreation

OOC _ The rules don't let you choose "Development, Forestry, Parks & Recreation" as the area of effect for 'Environmental' proposals: this has to be either 'Car Manufacturing', 'Uranium Mining', 'Wood Chipping', or 'All Industries' (which it harms, rather than boosts as you seem to have assumed), instead... and 'All Industries' is very bad for nations' economies.

REQUIRES member countries to introduce laws to ban looting, vandalism or deliberate damage to cultural and natural resources, especially those that are unique, significant, endemic, and/or endangered;

.

Maybe "to introduce and enforce laws [etc]"?

[Hirota]

thanks for the recommendations.

i've done a bit of editing for now, but will have to add some more later. i like your idea for restoring historical monuments and i was thinking of adding something regarding repatriation.

i didn't want to establish a particularly strict definition of a cultural or natural heritage site because i think there needs to be some fluidity to it. i could add maybe a bit about member nations having to justify their choices upon submission?

as far as aboriginal title a definition wouldn't hurt i suppose, but it's a fairly common idea, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title

Aboriginal title is a common law property interest in land. It has been recognised in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and increasingly in other common law countries as well, such as Malaysia and Nigeria[citation needed].

The requirements for establishing an aboriginal title to the land vary across countries, but generally speaking, the aboriginal claimant must establish (exclusive) aboriginal occupation from a long time ago, i.e. before the assertion of sovereignty, and continuity to the present day.

Aboriginal title can be extinguished by the Crown, but again, the requirement to do this varies by country. Some require the legislature to be explicit when it does this, others hold that extinguishment can be inferred from the government's treatment of the land...

I'd opt for indigenous as opposed to aboriginal, as it has a slightly clearer implication.

[Enn]

I'd opt for indigenous as opposed to aboriginal, as it has a slightly clearer implication.

OOC: It's commonly referred to as 'Native Title' in Australia, since Aboriginal is a specific term, and there can also refer to claims by Torres Strait Islanders (the other major indigenous people of Australia).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

REQUIRES member countries to introduce laws to ban looting, vandalism or deliberate damage to cultural and natural resources, especially those that are unique, significant, endemic, and/or endangered;

.

Maybe "to introduce and enforce laws [etc]"?

Kind of forgot that for some unknown reason. Sorry. Yes, do take those on board as well.

[1] member nations to acknowledge aboriginal title and land claims and establish an amicable dialogue with indigenous peoples within their borders;

I would in my opinion, replace "aboriginal" with "tribal".

[WallachIX]

I'd opt for indigenous as opposed to aboriginal, as it has a slightly clearer implication.

they're fairly synonymous, no? what would be an example of an aboriginal group that was not indigenous?

[WallachIX]

I would in my opinion, replace "aboriginal" with "tribal".

tribes are a specific social organisation that many indigenous groups do not fall within though.