home | news l

World Heritage Committee Rejects Australian Push To Water Down Heritage Protections

Media Release by Kelvin Thomson - Shadow Minister for Environment (Australia)

23 March 2003 - "I welcome the rejection by the World Heritage Committee of a push by the Australian Government to diminish the protection of World Heritage listed sites.

The Committee has just finished its 6th Extraordinary Session, having met in Paris this week. Australia had put to the Committee that World Heritage listed sites could not be added to the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the country in which the site was located – the "State Party".

I have been advised that the proposal by Australia did not succeed and so the current regulations will remain in force. That means, in a small number of cases where a government is unable to manage a World Heritage site in accordance with the World Heritage Convention, the international community, through the World Heritage Committee, is prepared to say so and call for remedial action.

I understand that in negotiations Australia was supported by the United Kingdom and also by the United States, which is not on the Committee but has observer status.

Countries which opposed a change to the current rules included India, France, Germany, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Thailand, Argentina and St Lucia.

These countries supported the Legal Review prepared by UNESCO and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which said the Australian proposal would significantly reduce the credibility and standing of the Convention.

Once again Australia's international reputation as a good environmental citizen has been damaged by the Howard Government.

Unfortunately the Liberal Party has no genuine commitment to World Heritage. It regularly opposed World Heritage listings, and it was its action in supporting the Jabiluka uranium mine inside the World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park which led to Kakadu being listed as "In Danger", prompting this inappropriate move.

Fortunately it has not succeeded.

Source: Australian Labor Party

Britain backs plan to weaken heritage sites

by Paul Brown
Environment correspondent

13 March 2003 - Plans supported by the British government would undermine protection for world heritage sites such as Stonehenge and the Giant's Causeway, according to the organisation that advises on their protection.

The IUCN, the international conservation union, which must be consulted before the designation of a world heritage site, says proposed rule changes undermine the convention that created such sites.

It is so alarmed about the consequences that it has written to all 175 member governments appealing for help before a special meeting to change the rules is held in Paris next week.

Among the changes the world heritage committee, which runs the world heritage scheme, will discuss are:

· Allowing states to veto any criticism of them for damaging or neglecting sites within their borders.

· Allowing states to prevent the creation of new sites in their borders if they stand in the way of development.

· Stopping the committee removing a world heritage site designation when it becomes so degraded as no longer to be worthy of inclusion.

In the appeal for help, the IUCN says allowing a country a veto would "erode the credibility and strength of the convention among ... concerned civil society interests. This change would reduce state parties' accountability to the world heritage committee and the international community".

Listing places as endangered "has been a very effective way to signal the serious threats to a property and mobilise national and international action to safeguard the property in question".

While the UK is keen on gaining more world heritage sites because they attract foreign tourists, critics say it wants to avoid criticism if it subsequently fails to look after them.

The rule change was originally proposed by Australia, which was stung by criticism for proposing to allow uranium mining in the Kakadu park, which is a world heritage site Australia has left the 21-country ruling committee that runs the convention but its plans have been taken up and backed by the UK.

The US, which is not on the committee, was irritated by a "danger list" designation for Yellowstone national park and the Everglades and is also lobbying for the rule changes.

The world heritage convention committee's membership changes regularly and, in the 30 years since the convention was first agreed, has designated 730 natural and cultural sites for special protection. There are 24 in the UK.

Adrian Phillips, vice chair of the IUCN's world commission on protected areas, said a strength of the convention was that the decision to designate sites or make comments about them was made independently of the government that controlled the territory of the world heritage site. This has been important in protecting sites when the committee has felt it necessary to list them as "in danger".

For some countries, for example the Philippines, which has world famous rice paddies at Luzon, north of Manila, an endangered listing was welcomed to attract foreign aid. However, many countries, including Australia, the US and Russia, resent the idea of international criticism and support a rule change, Mr Phillips said.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Culture said the current rules were legally "ambiguous" and practices might have to change. The UK was not advocating weakening the convention but had a different interpretation of the rules.

Source: The Guardian UK

Veto plan for World Heritage sites fuels fears of development

By Peter Munro

March 10 2003 - Large scale development could proceed unchecked in Australia's World Heritage sites, including the Kakadu National Park and the Blue Mountains, under changes to guidelines proposed by the Federal Government.

The changes, to be determined by an international committee in Paris next week, will give governments the power to veto global action to protect World Heritage sites.

Under the system now in use, the World Heritage Committee places threatened sites on an "in danger" list, which attracts international attention and triggers emergency conservation action.

But under the new , environmentalists say World Heritage sites will lose this guarantee of protection, allowing "back alley" tourism and mining activities such as the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu. The park narrowly avoided an "in danger" listing in 1999.

The head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Don Henry, said the veto power would give governments the opportunity to "mug World Heritage sites in the back alley".

"It can mean that something will be destroyed before our eyes," he said. "If you give countries the power of veto, that's really saying it's at risk only if the country agrees - and that's nonsense."

Environmental groups claim the Federal Government has been running a vigorous international campaign in favour of the veto power.

The 21-nation World Heritage Committee, of which Australia is not a member, is said to be equally split over the proposal.

The federal Environment Minister, David Kemp, said Australia had the support of Britain and the United States. "It is essential that sovereign governments have a say in listings," he said.

The Australian president of the World Conservation Union, Christine Milne, said the proposal would lead to large-scale development in Australia's 14 World Heritage sites. "If you take away that oversight capacity then I have no doubt tourism and mining interests in Australia will make a renewed push for more access to World Heritage areas," she said.

There are 33 natural and cultural heritage properties on the "in danger" list, including Yellowstone National Park in the US. The majority of those sites were listed at the request of their host governments to attract financial assistance from the World Heritage fund, made up of compulsory contributions by state parties.

A Department of Environment and Heritage spokesman, Kevin Keefe, said the veto power was consistent with the wording of the World Heritage convention. Nations unwilling or opposed to protecting their World Heritage would still be restrained by the power to strike entire sites from the World Heritage list, he said.

However, Australia's stance runs counter to legal advice from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, which last year found state party consent was not required in cases of urgent need.

Further information: jabiluka issues page - includes news index and external links

|| click to go to the top of this page