Extract from The Guardian
An analysis by environmental advocates claims the degradation of the
reef meets five out eight possible reasons for listing by the world
heritage committee
Degradation of the Great Barrier Reef
overwhelmingly meets the criteria for an “in danger” listing by Unesco,
according to a joint report by environmental lawyers from Australia and
the US.
The report challenges a draft UN ruling, ahead of a final decision by the world heritage committee in Germany this month, not to proceed with a listing that requires only one of eight criteria to be met.
The analysis, by lawyers from Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) and US-based Earthjustice, uses existing scientific reports to argue the reef meets five of those criteria used under world heritage guidelines.
They include two forms of “specific and proven imminent danger”:
It says the only criteria the reef clearly does not satisfy are threats by armed conflict or a change to its legal protective status.
EJA lawyer Ariane Wilkinson said an “in danger” listing in June or in 2017 if stronger action were not taken “remains a real possibility”.
“Six of eight possible red flags have been raised. Since when is two out of eight a good mark?”
Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner said: “If the World Heritage system is to have any value, it must address the most serious threats to the most iconic examples of world heritage.”
“If any site falls into this category, it is the threatened Great Barrier Reef, the largest coral reef on the planet and one of its richest and most complex ecosystems,” he said.
“The world heritage committee should step up to ensure that this unique and threatened part of humanity’s world heritage is not lost forever.”
The lawyers called on the committee to “significantly strengthen” its ruling and force Australia’s hand as custodians of the natural wonder including through a “world heritage in danger” listing.
Their report argues that the Australian government should be forced to improve its Reef 2050 conservation plan through “quantitative targets for ecosystem health” and annual checks on its progress.
The government has welcomed the draft ruling as an endorsement of its conservation efforts, particularly its targets to cut pollution of reef waters through run-off from grazing and cane farming.
The day after the draft decision on 31 May, the federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, cited water quality improvements when asked for examples of “real world achievements”.
The federal environment department on Thursday rejected any suggestion that Hunt knew the contents of a Queensland auditor general report casting doubt on the evidence of those improvements beforehand.
A department spokeswoman told Guardian Australia that the draft report was sent to bureaucrats on 28 May but the first Hunt was aware of its contents was when it was tabled in Queensland parliament on Wednesday.
Questioning by Greens senator Larissa Waters in Senate estimates last week revealed the Australian government in the lead up to the decision spent $140,000 on a reef tour for Unesco staff, delegates from world heritage member countries, ambassadors and technical advisers.
It also spent $88,000 on a reef trip for international journalists in March.
The government invited mining lobby group the Queensland resources council – but no conservation groups – to brief both delegations.
The report challenges a draft UN ruling, ahead of a final decision by the world heritage committee in Germany this month, not to proceed with a listing that requires only one of eight criteria to be met.
The analysis, by lawyers from Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) and US-based Earthjustice, uses existing scientific reports to argue the reef meets five of those criteria used under world heritage guidelines.
They include two forms of “specific and proven imminent danger”:
- A “serious decline in endangered species” including coral, dugongs, dolphins and sharks.
- “Human encroachment ... that threatens the integrity of the property”, including industrial port development, dredging and run-off.
- “Major threats through planned development projects”, including the expansion of Abbot point coal port.
- “A management plan that is lacking, inadequate or not fully implemented”, with Unesco itself calling for a concrete funding framework for Australia’s conservation plan this year and;
- “Threatening impacts of climate change” including ocean acidification and its effect on coral.
It says the only criteria the reef clearly does not satisfy are threats by armed conflict or a change to its legal protective status.
EJA lawyer Ariane Wilkinson said an “in danger” listing in June or in 2017 if stronger action were not taken “remains a real possibility”.
“Six of eight possible red flags have been raised. Since when is two out of eight a good mark?”
Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner said: “If the World Heritage system is to have any value, it must address the most serious threats to the most iconic examples of world heritage.”
“If any site falls into this category, it is the threatened Great Barrier Reef, the largest coral reef on the planet and one of its richest and most complex ecosystems,” he said.
“The world heritage committee should step up to ensure that this unique and threatened part of humanity’s world heritage is not lost forever.”
The lawyers called on the committee to “significantly strengthen” its ruling and force Australia’s hand as custodians of the natural wonder including through a “world heritage in danger” listing.
Their report argues that the Australian government should be forced to improve its Reef 2050 conservation plan through “quantitative targets for ecosystem health” and annual checks on its progress.
The government has welcomed the draft ruling as an endorsement of its conservation efforts, particularly its targets to cut pollution of reef waters through run-off from grazing and cane farming.
The day after the draft decision on 31 May, the federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, cited water quality improvements when asked for examples of “real world achievements”.
The federal environment department on Thursday rejected any suggestion that Hunt knew the contents of a Queensland auditor general report casting doubt on the evidence of those improvements beforehand.
A department spokeswoman told Guardian Australia that the draft report was sent to bureaucrats on 28 May but the first Hunt was aware of its contents was when it was tabled in Queensland parliament on Wednesday.
Questioning by Greens senator Larissa Waters in Senate estimates last week revealed the Australian government in the lead up to the decision spent $140,000 on a reef tour for Unesco staff, delegates from world heritage member countries, ambassadors and technical advisers.
It also spent $88,000 on a reef trip for international journalists in March.
The government invited mining lobby group the Queensland resources council – but no conservation groups – to brief both delegations.
No comments:
Post a Comment