The UN has expressed alarm at Australia’s proposal to dump 3m cubic metres of dredged material into the Great Barrier Reef world heritage site, saying the development could place the site on UNESCO’s list of shame.
The Australian and Queensland governments have granted approval for dumping as part of the expansion of the Abbot Point coal port, which lies on the fringes of the reef.
At the annual meeting of the UNESCO world heritage committee in Doha, delegates “noted with concern” the Abbot Point project. Australia was warned the reef could be added to the World Heritage in Danger list at the next meeting in 2015 if alternative development methods were not considered.
The committee said it “regrets the state party’s approval for dumping 3m cubic metres of dredge material inside the property prior to having undertaken a comprehensive assessment of alternative and potentially less impacting development and disposal options.”
Conservation groups have said the dumping could irreparably damage the coral. The reef survives on a delicate symbiosis between its plants and animals. Corals provide the skeleton on which the entire ecosystem is built. These interactions are already significantly threatened by the runoff of agricultural chemicals and destruction of increasingly fragile corals by cyclones. In three decades the coral cover on the reef has fallen by 50 per cent.
Australian efforts to improve the water quality on the reef were praised by UNESCO. A recent government study found efforts to improve water quality were working, leading the Australian and Queensland government to call for UNESCO to drop its consideration of the site as threatened.
But Australian promises that dredging effects would be offset by a 150 per cent overall improvement were called into question by delegates who said they had not seen a concrete proposal for how this would be achieved. Australia responded by saying the 150 per cent improvement was legally binding and would therefore be achieved, but failed to demonstrate how this would happen.
Questions were also raised over Australia’s decision to transfer oversight of environmental decisions from the federal government to the Queensland state government. The committee said the move was “premature, and should be postponed to allow further consideration” of the effect this might have on the management of the park. The World Heritage in Danger list is dominated by sites in countries torn apart by conflict. It is used to urge, assist and sometimes embarrass countries into protecting the properties they manage that are significant to all humankind. Icons of Syria, Congo, Iraq and Afghanistan make up one third of the 45 of the listed properties. If the reef were to be placed on the list it would join just a handful of sites from developed countries to be considered threatened.
“The world heritage committee has resisted intense pressure from the Australian and Queensland governments to water down its decision on the reef,” said WWF-Australia reef campaigner Richard Leck. “Instead, the committee has put Australia firmly on notice to take stronger action to protect the Great Barrier Reef.” Australia has promised to deliver a long-term plan for sustainable development before the committee next meets in 2015. The government says this will provide assurances to the committee that it is able to protect the reef.
The Queensland Environment Minister, Andrew Powell, was in Doha to make the Australian case to delegates. He said he felt “overwhelmingly positive, very appreciative that the committee has not listed the reef in danger and has deferred its consideration for another 12 months.” This would give the government enough time to deliver comprehensive plans for the ongoing care of the reef, he said.
Powell said the concerns over the approval of the dredging process being given before an offsetting plan had been created were unfounded.
“The approval was given on the basis that 150 per cent offsetting can be achieved. So the project cannot proceed unless they can demonstrate that they achieve that 150 per cent offset.”
— © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2014
