M. Eric TOTAH
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
B.P. 120, COTONOU
ANNEX II
Statement by the representative of the Director-General of UNESCO
Mr H. Crespo-Toral, Assistant Director-General for Culture of UNESCO
(Paris, 12 July 1999)
Your Excellency, Ambassador Matsuura, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee,
Honourable Members of the Committee and Observers,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Colleagues,
It is an honour and a pleasure for me to represent the Director-General of UNESCO to welcome the Members and Observers of the extraordinary session of the Committee.
The necessity felt by the Committee at its twenty-second session to hold an extraordinary session, devoted exclusively to examine the case of Kakadu National Park in Australia, demonstrates the increasing complexity of the issues that the Committee is called upon to study.
The responsibilities vested in you are indeed enormous. This case, far from being a matter of importance only to Australia, is an issue of global concern. The World Heritage status of Kakadu National Park makes its protection not only a responsibility for Australia but also for the international community as a whole. The issue also challenges the fundamental tenets of the World Heritage Convention and more...
Heritage and development, sustainable use of natural resources, the role of tradition in modern society, cultural identity as a source of social cohesion, minority and majority cultural, social and economic values and rights, employment and economic opportunities. The case of Kakadu National Park represents the complexity and the multitude of factors that we must consider in the building of our future.
The Director-General has specifically asked me to convey to you his pleasure in learning of the professional and collegial manner in which the case was deliberated at the Bureau session last week. The process based on transparency and consultations in the fulfilment of the collective responsibility enunciated in the Convention is exemplary. It has established an important precedent for the future implementation of the Convention, and on behalf of the Director-General, I thank the Government of Australia and the other members of the Committee for your commitment to the Convention.
Allow me also, to express appreciation for my colleagues of the World Heritage Centre who have willingly and enthusiastically devoted their time and energy, far beyond the call of duty, in servicing the Committee for the noble cause of the World Heritage.
On behalf of the Director-General, I wish you the very best and the successful deliberation of your work.
ANNEX III
Letter from Mr Phillip Shirvington, Chief Executive of
Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, 12 July 1999
ANNEX IV
Presentation by Mr Roger Beale, Secretary, Department of Environment and Heritage, Australia
SLIDE 1: Australia’s World Heritage Record
- 13 properties (9 natural, 4 natural and cultural) - $50m+ pa
- An international and regional leader- Einstein Award, Picasso Gold Medal
We have been a strong supporter of the Convention for a quarter of a century. That is why we were particularly angered by some claims from NGO's that Australia has threatened to pull out of the Convention over this issue and by some advisers to the Convention that Australia true is "letting the side down". That is just not so. We make a major effort to protect our properties. We have special legislation, which we have just strengthened, and spend over $50m each year to protect and present these properties - we are spending more now than ever before on management and protection. We have been proud recipients of the Einstein Award for our management of the Great Barrier Reef and the Picasso Gold Medal for our program at Uluru.
SLIDE 2: Kakadu National Park
- Huge - 1 9,804 sq kms, but fewer than 2000 residents
- Three stages-1981,1987 & 1992
- Mining leases pre-date Park and World Heritage listing
Kakadu National Park is one of the jewels in our World Heritage crown. It is very big - it is bigger than quite a number of member countries and for that matter States of the USA. And it is sparsely populated. It is ironic, but it was the pre-existing mining leases, and the proposal to develop further uranium mining in the late 1970's that led to it being made a National Park and then listed for its World Heritage values. Its values are broad ranging - it has rock art sites and archaeological sites that date back perhaps 50,000 years, a high and intact level of biodiversity and a living culture that is unique. We are very, very proud of this property.
SLIDE 3
This shows a map of Kakadu superimposed on a map of Europe at the same scale It is roughly of the size of Wales, or Belgium or New Jersey. I will ask you to bear this in mind later, when we are talking about the threats to the Park It is important that we keep in mind the relative scale of the Park, the distribution of its values and the scale of the potential threats
SLIDE 4
After an extensive inquiry under Judge Fox, the go ahead was given for the commencement of uranium mining in the late 1970's. But this was on the basis of the creation of a National Park to protect the natural and cultural values of the area, and the establishment of a special body to monitor and research the effects of uranium mining in the area - the Supervising Scientist. The pre-existing mineral leases which are shown in this map in green in red were not included in the Park which is the blue shaded area.
SLIDE 5
The Park has been created in three stages - these are the first two - and progressively accepted for World Heritage listing, starting in 1981. Mining is not allowed in the Park itself. The leases were never included in the Park. The mining leases were always, and clearly, excluded from those world heritage nominations, and existing and possible future mining was clear.
SLIDE 6
This shows us the third stage of the Park. Stage 2 was listed under the Convention in 1987. By that stage the Park had encircled the pre-existing mining leases. In 1992 the whole Park was listed again . I repeat that the mining leases were not included in the listing and the Committee was advised of the prospect of mining at Jabiluka.
SLIDE 7
This shows the mining leases in more details. It also shows the Ranger Mine site which has operated since before the first inscription. It shows that it is more than twice the size of the village, the small town, the town of 1,400 people, the town of Jabiru.
SLIDE 8: Strong Science
- Uranium mining (Ranger Mine since 1979) pre-dated World Heritage listing
- Intense environmental and health regulation Independent Supervising Scientist
- 20 year research program - results published for international scrutiny
I explained to you that uranium mining pre-dated the listing of this property. In fact there had been mining in the area since the late 19th Century. Because the Australian government was well aware of the natural values of the area, and intensely sensitive of the difficult issues that mining raised for the local indigenous population (then around 70-140 people), it insisted on close environmental and health regulation and an extraordinarily stringent rehabilitation requirement. We now have over 20 years of expert, longitudinal research by the Supervising Scientist, using a broad variety of techniques to monitor the effects of uranium mining on ecology and the people. This research has always been open to public scrutiny, and local communities have been involved in it through advisory bodies. It has shown no ill effects from the mine.
SLIDE 9: Strong Science
- Biodiversity and ecological values protected by National Park Service
- Major programs for removing feral weeds and animals
- Land management mimics traditional Aboriginal practices
But our management of the Park hasn't simply been about ensuring there is no pollution. The ecological values are also very important. And they were under threat. When our portfolio became responsible for managing the Park, it was under extreme pressure from feral Asian water buffalo that had been introduced in the last century, from sylvannia molesta and mimosa pigra as well as other invasive species. The Park Service set about tackling these threats and reintroduced a fire regime which mimicked the traditional Aboriginal practices. Both these actions were critical to giving the ecosystems an opportunity to recover.
SLIDE 10: Scientific Results
- Park is in better shape than 20 years ago - buffalo, invasive weeds eradicated or controlled
- Supervising Scientist has found no impact on world heritage values by Ranger Uranium Mine
- Committee accepted integrity of world heritage values and approved listing in 1982, 1987 and 1991
We are proud of the Park. There is no doubt that it is in better shape than it was 20 years ago, and better shape than when it was first listed by the Committee. There has been no evidence of damage to its natural values, or health effects, from tightly supervised uranium mining on its borders. Indeed the Committee has commended Australia on its management in re-listing the Park in 1991 with that mine in operation.
SLIDE 11: Strong Cultural Protection
- Strict protection for archaeological and sacred sites
- Aboriginal owners control the Management Board for the Park
- But there are social problems -Kakadu Regional Social Impact Study
If we had only focussed on the natural values we would have missed the critical feature of this Park. It links a history of ecological development with one of human development over 50,000 years. Not only is there a treasure house of art and archaeology, but there are ongoing living traditions. Protecting physical sites is demanding - protecting culture could only be done through empowering the indigenous people of Kakadu. This was done through the grant of land rights and more particularly through joint management of the Park. The Aboriginal traditional owners have a two-thirds majority on the governing Board. But social conditions are not markedly better than for other remote Aboriginal communities – this is a matter we acknowledge and regret. In part it is due to population growth. To examine and propose solutions for these problems the Australian Government set up the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study in 1996.
SLIDE 12: Mining, tourism, and culture
- Mining outside the Park and tourism in the Park have brought money for Aboriginal communities
- Payments of $150m from mining alone·
The return of Aboriginal people to the region reflects the sense of empowerment they now had. But it is supported by the income that mining and tourism have brought. We can't avoid the fact that, as elsewhere in Australia and in other countries, money has enabled higher consumption of alcohol and western foods. This has taken its toll on health along with the pressure that population has put on housing and infrastructure. But the Australian experience is that these problems can only be tackled through genuine empowerment, with the choices and obligations that brings.
SLIDE 13: Jabiluka: a managed mine
- Initially agreed by traditional owners in 1982
- Traditional owners lobbied for go ahead in 1991
- Project revived in 1996
- Subject to 3 year public Environmental Impact Statement process
Because they owned the land, the approval of the traditional owners was necessary before any mining activity could take place on the Jabiluka lease. That approval was given in 1982 through a legally binding Agreement involving a stream of payments to the Traditional Owners with royalties to be paid when the mine started operations. The mine was then expected to start in 1984. When it failed to do so the national Government was requested to pay compensation to the owner. In l991 traditional owners asked their Parliamentary representatives to secure a go ahead for the project. It was revived in 1996 and a 3 year EIS process commenced. The legal agreement is still in place. The senior traditional owner now opposes the mine and contends the legitimacy of the Agreement.
SLIDE 14: Jabiluka: a managed mine
- Approved subject to meeting 90+ strict conditions
- Rigorous, ongoing monitoring by independent Supervising Scientist
- Supervision by Territory and National governments under legislation
- Area of disturbance approximately1.3 sq kms and 0.007% of size of Park
The Mine received key environmental clearances last year, but it has to meet over 90 plus strict conditions before it can proceed to the point of export of uranium. The mine proposal is far less environmentally intrusive one than the one that which was initially agreed in the 1980's. Rather than being open cut, ore will be extracted through a narrow shaft or decline. The total surface area of the mine is 1.3 sq km, or about .007% of the Park's area. It will be subject to the same expert and rigorous monitoring process as the Ranger mine which has operated successfully for 20 years. It is also worth bearing in mind that this mine has a much smaller footprint than the Ranger mine it will replace, the mine that has been acceptable to this Committee since 1981.
SLIDE 15
Both of these photos were taken from the same height. The existing mine - the one that was in operation on each of the occasions that the property was listed is on the left. Jabiluka is on the right. Jabiluka, the total area, is very significantly less, it is about perhaps a quarter of the area of the major retention pond tailings dam at Ranger. The huge pit at Ranger will be filled and re-profiled. The company is required to rehabilitate to a standard that will enable this whole area to be included in the Park.
SLIDE 16: Australian Government’s Position
- UNESCO Mission raises four sets of issues:
- pollution from mine
- effect on landscape of mine and town
- impact on cultural heritage
- social stresses
- Supervising Scientist has reported on pollution concerns
While the Mission made 16 recommendations, its principal conclusions can be grouped under these four headings. I won't talk about pollution from the mine. Dr Johnston, the Supervising Scientist, will do so. I would simply note that he and his team have scrutinised all the issues raised by the Mission and ICSU and concluded with a high degree of scientific certainty that there will be no damage to the World Heritage values of Kakadu if the mine proceeds. Let us first talk about the effect of the mine on landscape values.
SLIDE 17
We have all seen close up aerial photos of the mine and I am sure that we will see more today. I thought that the Committee might like to see a more typical view that a tourist would see from a helicopter. This is the mine site from the, above the, publicly accessible part of the park. The photo is taken from above the boundary with a standard lens. As you can see, the mine is not visible from ground level as it is behind a range of hills.
SLIDE 18
This photo is taken from the eastern tourist helicopter route. The mine is in the distance, top right. The next photograph is taken above the Oenpelli Road near the northern boundary of the lease/World Heritage boundary. Only about 10 percent of tourists take a helicopter ride. I was surprised that IUCN expressed, emphasized, such concern at the impact on aerial viewscapes when it has commented adversely in other parks on the use of helicopters in World Heritage Areas.
SLIDE 19: Australian Government’s Position
- Impact on World Heritage landscape:
- mine cannot be seen from publicly accessible World Heritage property
- can only be seen from the air at over 200m above Park boundary
- tiny footprint compared to huge property
- Jabiru township only 1400 people and mine's impact on town will be minimal
- More residents when last listed by Committee
We found the Mission's suggestion that the mine would put the landscape values of the Park at risk extraordinary. The mine simply cannot be seen from the publicly accessible parts of the Park as it lies behind significant sandstone bluffs. What precedent will it establish for assessing World Heritage properties if we accept that visual impact can be established by flying an aircraft near the boundaries of the property. A property in this case of 20,000 square kilometres. We found it very surprising that the small town of Jabiru, which had more residents the last time the property was listed by the Committee, is now seen as a threat to the Park's landscape values. Consider the size of this village, 1400 people, consider the size of the Park and think of other exemplary properties like the Canadian Rockies, and other major parks, which are listed for their landscape values but have residential populations and infrastructure far more significant than Jabiru
SLIDE 20: Australian Government’s Position
- Impact on cultural heritage
- archaeological sites on mining lease will be protected
- dust and vibration studies complete
- sacred sites identified in 1982 mining agreement and through the EIS process will be protected
- Current Traditional Owner is arguing that sacred sites are much larger
- not accepted by Northern Territory's independent Aboriginal sacred sites authority
- sacred sites application being considered under national legislation
- These sites are not on the World Heritage property
We have implemented the Mission report recommendations on dust and vibration studies. These show no significant risks from the mine. We have prepared and have had independently reviewed an interim Cultural Heritage Management Plan based on the extensive existing archaeological and anthropological data available. Sadly, and we regret this deeply, we have not been able to secure the co-operation of the Traditional Owners in developing the plan as recommended by the Mission Report but we hope, we hope that that soon can be remedied. The Traditional Owners sacred site application under the National legislation will receive a fair and open assessment. These sites however, are not on the World Heritage property. For this mine to cause the Park to be listed as in danger, it would have to be demonstrated that they would have a significant impact on the cultural values of the Park itself.
SLIDE 21: Australian Government’s Position
- real but being tackled
- new dialogue with Traditional Owners about park management concerns
- Problems are important but not unusual in indigenous communities
- Will not be helped by reducing income and employment through stopping mine or listing as in danger
· I have already pointed to the undoubted social stresses of the community about which we are distressed. We have accelerated the implementation of the recommendations of the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study .The Minister will deal with this at length. The problems of alcohol, health and overcrowding of housing and infrastructure are not unusual in indigenous centres - regretably they are all something we must all commit to addressing. But it is not a problem we can promise to fix overnight. It is not a problem strictly relevant to this Convention.
SLIDE 22: Australian Government’s Position
- Key points for Committee to note:
- actions under way on social and cultural issues
- sacred site application being assessed under domestic law
- comprehensive and expert review by Supervising Scientist and ICSU
These matters will be dealt with by the Minister and Dr Johnston I want simply to emphasise that the actions set out in Australia's Kakadu and in the package announced by the Minister on Friday are extraordinarily responsive to the Mission report and the views put to us by State Parties in consultations over the last several months. We have come a long way since Kyoto and even more in this last week with the announcement of the sequencing of mining operations.
SLIDE 23
Some members have expressed concern that the Australian proposal could imply that both mines could operate at less than full commercial scale but in combination produce more ore than current operations. This is not so. This graph shows Ranger ore production in red [dotted line] and Jabiluka in blue [solid line]. You will see that there is only a minor overlap in the mining of ore and during any brief period of overlap the total volume of ore mined will be dramatically lower than the current levels of production. Of course until Jabiluka reaches full production, the mill at Ranger will operate by exhausting the existing ore stockpile at Ranger.
SLIDE 24
Some Australian NGO's have been telling you that there is nothing new in the Australian proposal, that it is what the company had always proposed to do. This graph is taken from the Jabiluka Project main EIS report of 1997. The company's intention was to commence production at Jabiluka and rapidly build it up to blend with the Ranger ore and extend the life of that mine to 2020. The original proposal for Jabiluka is in blue [dotted line] and the revised proposal in red [solid line]. This is what it has changed to.
SLIDE 25: Australian Government’s Position
- Key issues for Committee:
- focus on mandate focus on World Heritage property
- maintain consistency consider scale of any threats
- consider State Party opposes listing in danger
As you listen to the Minister and then discuss this thorny problem we would ask that you consider these issues. That you focus on the World Heritage mandate, that you focus on the property. That you focus on consistency through time and across different properties in decisions by this body. That you consider the scale of any threats to values against the scale of the property. And finally that you bear in mind that this State Party has provided you with much information, a proposed plan for managing any threats, that it has the legal, financial and technical capacity to carry out its proposals and that it opposes any suggestion that the Park should be placed on the World Heritage In Danger List.
ANNEX V
Statement by Ms Yvonne Margarula, Chairperson, Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, Northern Territory, Australia
I would like to thank you Mr Chairperson for giving me this opportunity to speak to you all today.
The main thing that I can tell you about is the sacred sites in my country.
We Aboriginal people do not invent stories about our culture and our sacred sites. Our law is true.
Very often non-Aboriginal people, or European people, they doubt the truth of our culture.
Some of the sacred sites in our country are safe to approach and enter, others are extremely dangerous.
The sacred site in question today belongs to the Mirrar clan, my clan. There are many of us but we are not the only Aboriginal people who understand and recognize that sacred site. Every Aboriginal group and clan have their own sacred sites.
And so when we talk about our sacred sites it is a very intense and important topic and so we must speak with the truth when we talk about these things.
There were people from this organisation who came to my country and we showed them details about our culture and we were thankful for that.
We have had discussions with Senator Hill and maybe he will listen to our concerns.
We however, have no assurances that we can trust what we are told. We still don’t know what to believe and we have heard about his two year pause. We really don’t know what difference this will make to us.
Some of the information presented today casts aspersions on our traditional beliefs about the location of sacred sites. We feel that still we are not believed and trusted about these issues.
The label in-Danger is an appropriate way to describe the situation we find ourselves in. This is a dangerous issue for us.
And, so that is what I would wish to see placed is this description.
That is all I have to say. I thank you all very much.
ANNEX VI
Joint ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN statement read by Dr Patrick Dugan, IUCN
Mr Chairman,
ICCROM, ICOMOS AND IUCN all thank you and the members of the Committee for the opportunity to summarise our concerns over ascertained and potential dangers posed to Kakadu National Park by the Jabiluka mine. I might add that we do so in all humility having listened to the Traditional Owner.
Mr Chairman, we are of course aware of the political dimensions of this issue. However, these factors lie outside of our mandate and competence. They do underline, however, that when issues have such a sharp political dimension, it is tremendously important to be objective and to ensure that the provisions and the standards of the Convention are closely adhered to, in order Mr Chairman that procedural fairness and the expectations of the Contracting Parties, and the peoples they represent, may be achieved. As Advisory Bodies we see our role as being one of providing objective advice, and to continue to do so even in the face of the pressures that surround this and other high profile cases. We offer this advice to you, the Committee for you to use as you see appropriate.
In light of this mandate the three Advisory Bodies believe it is also important to highlight the Committee’s own guidelines for inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the List of World Heritage in Danger, guidelines that we have followed in providing our advice to the Committee. Specifically Mr Chairman:
- Cultural properties are held to face an Ascertained Danger when the property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger, such as …. Important loss of cultural significance.
- Cultural properties are also held to face potential danger when the property is faced with threats which could have deleterious effect on its inherent characteristics.
- Natural properties are held to face an ascertained danger when the property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger, such as … severe deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property, as by human settlement, ….. Industrial and agricultural development … major public works, mining etc.
- Natural properties are held to face potential danger when the property is faced with major threats which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats include … planned development projects within the property or so situated that the impacts threaten the property.
Mr Chairman, we reiterate that the World Heritage Mission to Kakadu believed these guidelines to have been met and noted "severe ascertained and potential dangers to the cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park posed primarily by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka". The Mission therefore recommended: "that the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka should not proceed."
Again Mr Chairman, at its 22nd Session in Kyoto in November 1998, this Committee "recognised the report of the mission to Kakadu National Park as being both thorough and credible".
In reviewing the response of the Australian Government concerning the mitigation of threats posing ascertained and potential dangers to Kakadu National Park by the Jabiluka mine, we have sought to assess whether this response removes the concerns identified by the Mission and confirmed by the Committee relating to the ascertained and potential dangers to the site.
The concerns expressed by the Mission and recognised by the Committee focused upon three principal issues. These can be summarised as concerns over:
- scientific uncertainties and the application of the Precautionary Principle (Recommendation 2);
- visual encroachment on the integrity of Kakadu National Park (Recommendation 3);
- a series of threats to the cultural values of the Park (Recommendations 4,5,6,7 and 8).
ICOMOS and ICCROM will be focusing on the threats to the cultural values. IUCN will therefore address the concerns for the natural values.
1. Scientific Uncertainties and the Precautionary Principle.
IUCN welcomes the report of the Australian Supervising Scientist Group which we believe responds to a number of the concerns identified by the World Heritage Mission. We also welcome the independent review by ICSU, the ongoing dialogue with the Supervising Scientist Group, and the commitment of the Australian Government to implement fully the ICSU recommendations and incorporate these into the design of the Jabiluka mine.
We regret however to note that we remain concerned that the report of the Supervising Scientist Group and the ICSU review, both confirm the existence of uncertainties despite the extensive process of EIA, including the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Public Environmental Review (PER), that has been pursued in approving the Jabiluka mine project and allowing excavation of the mine decline to proceed over the course of the past year. Specifically the review of areas of scientific uncertainty by the Supervising Scientist has both identified "areas for improvement in the hydrological model" and highlighted issues that need to be addressed in the "detailed design" of the water management system for Jabiluka. In other words, weaknesses in the mine design were recognised only following international review by the World Heritage Mission, and the final design of the mine and the detailed chronology of its development, is not yet available, including details for issues of major concern, notably the water retention system and the disposal of tailings. Mr Chairman, while it may be argued that his level of uncertainty is normal in mine design, it is IUCN's view that it is of serious concern for a mine that is physically located within the boundaries of a World Heritage site. We therefore believe that the potential threat to the natural values of Kakadu as identified by the World Heritage Mission remains. We do not believe that the recently proposed sequential development of Ranger and Jabiluka removes this threat.
2. Visual Encroachment.
In its response to the World Heritage Mission, the Government of Australia has expressed its view that the evidence did not substantiate the "case for visual encroachment as a significant issue or as a threat". Having considered the arguments given for this response IUCN has reaffirmed its support for the view of the World Heritage Mission that the Jabiluka mine constitutes an ascertained threat to the natural values of Kakadu. We do so while recognising that the Jabiluka lease is equivalent to less than 1% of the Park, and that it is not legally part of the Park. However the lease does lie within the boundaries of the Park. We also do not believe that this is an issue of percentages. To take an analogy, the human heart represents only a few percent of our total body weight, but where would we be without one. Jabiluka lies in a uniquely important part of Kakadu’s landscape, in the middle of the small part of the Park that lies between the escarpment and the floodplain of the Magela River. We believe this to be a place of special visual value, whose significance far outweighs its size. We recognise however that it is the Committee who will have to assess whether locating an industrial development within a critical part of Kakadu represents an acceptable visual intrusion within the boundaries of a World Heritage site that is justly recognised internationally for its landscape values.
Mr Chairman, these concerns have been strengthened by the report of the Supervising Scientist that recommends increasing the capacity of the retention pond at Jabiluka, an increase that has been estimated as being of the order of 50%. Similarly the 20km road has not yet been constructed, but will be if the project proceeds. Both would aggravate the visual encroachment which we consider to already be severe.
Mr Chairman, we would like to close by noting the concern that the Jabiluka lease existed when Stage III of Kakadu was listed as a World Heritage property. At that time however, existing Government policy, what is known as the three mines policy, precluded mining at Jabiluka. The current situation has arisen through a change in Government policy, a situation that we believe argues in favour of robust long-term solution to the threats Kakadu is facing. Mr Chairman thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation and I now hand over to ICOMOS.
ANNEX VII
Statement read by Mr Jean-Louis Luxen, Secretary-General, ICOMOS
Monsieur le Président.
Lors de la réunion du Bureau en solidarité avec les deux autres organismes consultatifs j’ai eu l’occasion de présenter la position de l’ICOMOS. Ce texte est repris en ANNEX III CONF205/INF 4.
Je souhaiterais, Monsieur le Président faire une intervention en deux parties. Tout d’abord résumer dans les grandes lignes l’intervention que nous avions faîtes au Bureau. Et je souhaiterais dans une seconde partie, pouvoir formuler un certain nombre de propositions qui tiennent compte de l’intervention que nous venons d’entendre et des initiatives dont ont fait état les autorités de l’Australie.
Nous avons reçu le rapport Australia Kakadu établi par les autorités australiennes, dans un remarquable effort d’information et de complément d’indication comme il leur avait été demandé. Ce rapport a été soumis à un certain nombre d’experts ou de collègues, a fait l’objet d’appréciations parfois nuancées tenant compte des différences dans la connaissance et d’appréciation concrète de la situation. Et je dois vous dire Monsieur le Président avec une convergence dans les conclusions pour dire que pour l’essentiel, les graves préoccupations qui avaient été exprimées à Kyoto sur base du rapport de mission in UNESCO de 1998, que ces préoccupations nous paraissent rester tout à fait pertinentes, qui correspondent d’ailleurs aux prises de position que nous avions eues à Kyoto.
Nous nous rallions par conséquent avec la proposition de nos collègues des deux autres organes consultatifs, pour considérer que le site devrait être mis sur la liste du patrimoine en Danger pour trois raisons principales :
La première consiste dans l’impact physique et symbolique de l’exploitation minière, tenant compte du fait que le site du patrimoine mondial renferme des lieux sacrés et que nul ne consteste l’importance spirituelle par exemple du site du Boiwek-Almudj et des pistes du Dreaming.
La seconde raison est que même s’il s’agit d’une enclave minière, nous croyons que les valeurs culturelles du site inscrit débordent les frontières du site et font partie d’un réseaux beaucoup plus étendu, en particulier si l’on tient compte de la signification des sentiers du Dreaming.
Et enfin troisièmement nous avons pris en compte les droits des propriétaires traditionnels, pour considérer que la légitimité de leur relation particulière avec leur terre devait être mieux reconnue. Je crois d’ailleurs que pour le font de ces matières je n’ai pas entendu d’opinion contraire de la part des autorités de l’Australie.
Il nous est apparu, c’est le dernier point dont nous faisions état dans la communication devant le Bureau, qu’un des problèmes majeur qui avait déjà été souligné par le rapport de la mission UNESCO, était le rétablissement d’un dialogue et d’une communication par les parties concernées. Et à ce sujet comme le rapport du Bureau, on ne peut que regretter que les travaux n’aient pas été interrompus après la réunion de Kyoto, malgré l’appel par consensus dans l’ensemble du Comité du patrimoine mondial. Il nous paraît que la poursuite des travaux assurément n’a pas permis le rétablissement de ce dialogue et de cette relation de confiance.
Où en sommes-nous aujourd’hui Monsieur le Président ?
Je voudrais dire tout d’abord qu’il faut tenir compte de l’intervention des autorités australiennes, notamment parce que nous reconnaissions tous, et en particulier l’ICOMOS, l’implication exemplaire de l’Australie dans la mise en oeuvre de la Convention du patrimoine mondial depuis ses tous débuts. Il y a là une attitude à bien des égards exemplaires de la part d’un Etat partie, mais précisément aussi Monsieur le Président, quand un Etat prend une telle avancée et prend tant d’initiatives il doit comprendre qu’aux yeux de la Communauté internationale, il se donne aussi une responsabilité singulière dans la manière dont il répond aux interpellations du Comité du patrimoine mondial. Il nous semble si nous voyons les choses en terme positif et très largement dans les perspectives proposées par le rapport du Bureau, qu’il y ait d’abord un geste de la part des autorités australiennes qui permette de rétablir le dialogue, la confiance et la communication. Peut-être surtout au niveau local, mais peut-être aussi au plan international.
Ce dialogue est essentiel si nous voulons comme le proposait déjà le rapport de l’UNESCO, et comme le propose le Bureau procéder à un exercice qui nous paraît fondamental qui est l’établissement d’une carte culturelle des sites sacrés et des sites d’importance en terme de valeur intangible, dans le site du patrimoine mondial, ou dans l’enclave ou dans l’environnement. C’est un exercice difficile auquel on ne peut procéder qu’en dialogue avec les personnes concernées, puisqu’il s’agit de trouver une formule pour que soient identifiés en quelque sorte les supports matériels à des traditions culturelles vivantes. C’était d’ailleurs la recommandation 8 du rapport de l’UNESCO. Il nous paraît que cette carte culturelle est essentielle, et il nous semble aussi qu’elle ne peut être établie que si un dialogue s’instaure avec les propriétaires traditionnels.
Autre point important, qui est indiqué déjà dans le rapport du Bureau, c’est la nécessité d’établir un plan de gestion aussi complet que possible. C’est la responsabilité de l’Etat-partie, clairement. Mais, je crois qu’un consensus est là pour dire que un tel plan de gestion ne peut être établi que s’il est conçu et mis en oeuvre en relation avec les populations locales, les populations indigènes. Il y a un certain nombre d’études d’incidence auquel il faut procéder, pour que l’on cerne beaucoup mieux les concepts, et les valeurs intangibles dont il est fait état. A cet égard avec modestie Monsieur le Président, nous pouvons faire offre de service, si d’une manière ou d’une autre les autorités australiennes croient qu’à travers le comité national australien, à travers des experts que l’on désigne, ou par une instance de l’ICOMOS international, nous pouvons contribuer à l’établissement de ce plan de gestion.
Nous sommes en présence Monsieur le Président, et c’est notre conviction, de valeurs intangibles très fragiles. Et à cet égard il y a deux nécessités, tout d’abord pour tous, pour la communauté scientifique aussi, nécessité d’approfondir et d’examiner la situation dans une approche scientifique transparente :
Il n’apparaît pas toujours clairement aux yeux de tous comment se traduit concrètement l’expérience des sites sacrés, dont nous a fait état tout à l’heure avec beaucoup d’éloquence la représentante du peuple Mirrar.
Et il y a une seconde nécessité me semble-t-il aussi, qui est d’affiner en terme juridique et en terme opérationnel ces notions de sites sacrés de manière à pouvoir les prendre en compte réellement dans la mise en oeuvre d’une convention, sachant qu’il s’agit là de valeurs intangibles.
A cet égard, Monsieur le Président lorsqu’on écoute attentivement l’intervention des honorables représentant du gouvernement australien, il semble qu’une perspective se dessine dans l’engagement de ne pas procéder de manière concomitante à l’exploitation commerciale des deux sites miniers. Peut-être faudrait-il encore une plus grande clarté puisque dans le document que ERA, qui est l’Energy Resource Australia vient de nous distribuer en début de séance, on nous signale quand même que certaines opérations de prélèvement de minerais doivent pouvoir se faire à partir de 2001. Il nous semble un peu qu’en matière d’exploitation minière c’est un peu tout ou rien qui se présente si l’on veut rétablir le climat de confiance. Et je me demande s’il n’y a pas là dans la démarche déjà largement entamée par les autorités australiennes un pas supplémentaire qui pourrait consister dans l’établissement d’un moratoire permettant précisément de renouer le dialogue.
Enfin, Monsieur le Président, nous croyons que d’une crise peut sortir une avancée, et que dans les travaux dans l’histoire du Comité du patrimoine mondial, peut-être que la possibilité s’offre à l’Australie qui a déjà beaucoup contribué à cette convention, qu’elle s’offre à l’Australie de mettre mieux en lumière des préoccupations très actuelles dans nos travaux. Je veux dire d’une part la reconnaissance des droits culturels des communautés indigènes, et d’autre part le respect des valeurs intangibles du patrimoine culturel et naturel. Ca ce sont nos convictions Monsieur le Président, maintenant nous sommes un organe consultatif et nous avons dit notre conviction, il appartient nous le savons au Comité de prendre les mesures qui à ses yeux sont les plus efficaces pour dépasser le blocage actuel, et assurer la crédibilité de la Convention. Je vous remercie.
ANNEX VIII
Statement read by Mr Herb Stovel, ICCROM
Mr Chairman, as we noted last week in our presentation to the Bureau, ICCROM has thus far focussed its attention, in reviewing the various claims made in relation to Kakadu, on the integrity of process and the necessary elements for objective analysis of the issues involved. ICCROM recognises that objectivity in assessing cultural values and the impact of proposed actions on these values involves close attention to those for whom the values hold most meaning. In this context, the Preamble to the World Heritage Committee's 1998 mission report emphasised the fundamental importance of "ensuring thorough and continuing participation, negotiation and communication with Aboriginal traditional owners in the conservation of the outstanding universal values of Kakadu for future generations."
The Mirrar people are legally the undisputed traditional owners and custodians of the Jabiluka area and hence are the undisputed spokespeople for the outstanding universal cultural associations cited under criterion (vi) of the Operational Guidelines. In this, the Mirrar share with the Australian Government the weight of responsibility for the conservation of the cultural values in this part of Kakadu, and we acknowledge their efforts to be present today to assist the Committee in its deliberations.
Australia 's Kakadu, the Australian Government report of April 15, 1999, does not attempt to claim that the Government has fulfilled the World Heritage Committee mission's above request for ensuring thorough and continuing dialogue with the traditional owners. Yet, as we have heard this morning, the Mirrar, as traditional owners, continue to voice their strong belief that the cultural values of Kakadu are threatened by site works at Jabiluka.
We cannot dismiss these voices as coming from a negligibly small group of indigenous owners. The Mirrar, through the oral transmission of their traditions, beliefs and values, bear witness to a rare strand of human memory, unbroken for some 50,000 years. Indeed, as the Australian continent is home to the longest continuing human cultures on this planet, we believe that the Committee holds a special responsibility to protect the vulnerable link between the Mirrar people and the land which has nourished them physically and spiritually for so long. ICCROM would like to emphasise the fragility of these links; where cultural values are transmitted orally, the survival of language is perhaps the key indicator of cultural health. 64% of the indigenous languages spoken at the time of European contact are now extinct, and only 8% - for the most part in Northern Australia – can be described as "strong". The claim of the Mirrar people, that the current site operations, particularly in the sacred Boyweg-Almudj area, are destroying the very fabric of their culture, deserves the most serious attention of this Committee.
ICCROM is of the opinion accordingly, that the outstanding cultural values of Kakadu National Park are, at this moment in time, in danger from ascertained and potential threats and that the site should be inscribed on the World Heritage List in Danger.
Concerning the material evidence of impacts of the mining operations on tangible forms of cultural expression - on the rock art and archaeological sites on the Mirrar lands - the dust and vibration studies made available to ICCROM last Thursday do not discount the impact of these threats. Accordingly, in the terms of the Convention, ICCROM must state that the existence of these potential threats provides additional justification for inscription of Kakadu on the World Heritage List in Danger.
During its presentation to the Bureau last week, ICCROM concluded by noting its discomfort with the heavily polarised nature of this debate. ICCROM stated that should this debate end without reconciliation, the real loser would be the World Heritage Convention and its moral power, as a unifying force for humanity. ICCROM further noted that inscription of the property on the World Heritage List in Danger should be accompanied by strenuous efforts to support dialogue between the Government of Australia, the Mirrar people and other key stakeholders, in order to foster approaches to site use which could meet their respective interests. ICCROM therefore welcomes the dialogue which was began last week by the Australian government with the Mirrar people and would be pleased to offer our support to all efforts to ensure these negotiations continue in good faith, and to ensure implementation of negotiated outcomes. ICCROM further believes that appropriate solutions must be based on clear technical information on matters such as the true nature of the sequential mining proposed by the Government of Australia, the location of milling for ore from Jabiluka. and the provision of detailed site development and rehabilitation plans.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman - and speaking now on behalf of the three Advisory bodies together (ICOMOS, ICCROM, IUCN) - we would like to signal together our pleasure that a dialogue between the Australian Government and the Mirrar People has began. The Advisory Bodies would like to further note that we would be pleased to continue to assist the Committee in its work to ensure that the threats facing Kakadu are addressed both now as negotiations continue, and in the long term.
However, in the light of our opinion that the response of the Australian Government to the issues raised by the Committee last December has not removed the threats posing ascertained and potential dangers to Kakadu National Park, and in view of the recognition by the Bureau in its report of last Friday that the threats and uncertainties we have identified remain present, we believe that the conditions continue to exist for inscribing Kakadu on the World Heritage List in Danger and that the Committee, if it is to be consistent with its use of the criteria for such inscription in the past, should inscribe Kakadu on the World Heritage List in Danger immediately.
We further believe that failure to do so after such an extensive process of analysis and review may undermine the high standards of integrity and accountability for which the World Heritage Convention has until now enjoyed such high international respect and support.
We ask, Mr. Chairman, that our comments be included in the record of this meeting.
ANNEX IX
Presentation by Dr Arthur Johnston, Australian Supervising Scientist
SLIDE 1 INTRODUCTION
Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee on the Supervising Scientist's report to the World Heritage Committee on the Jabiluka Project. The report itself is a substantial document and I will only be able to summarise the main points in the short time available to me. In addition, I will be addressing the Committee again on our response to the review of the Report that was carried out by the ICSU independent scientific panel and it is my judgement that members of the Committee will wish to be fully briefed on that response. I will, therefore, try and be particularly brief in my summary of the original report.
SLIDE 2 THE REPORT
The Report is in fact made up of six separate reports. Five of these relate to the future Jabiluka project. These are the Main Report of the Supervising Scientist which addresses all of the issues raised by the World Heritage Committee and draws upon information contained within the four consultancy reports on:
- Hydrological modelling, and
These four reports were provided by experts in these respective fields within Australia. The sixth report, while not specifically on Jabiluka, is very important. It provides an assessment by the Supervising Scientist of the extent to which the environment near the Ranger mine has been protected throughout the past 18 years. This assessment is based upon the research of the Supervising Scientist over the past 21 years and upon the monitoring programs carried out by the mining company. No adverse impact on the environment has occurred during the operation of the Ranger mine.
SLIDE 3 THE ISSUES
The principal issues addressed in the report are those identified by the World Heritage Committee. These are:
- Storage of uranium ore on the surface
- Long-term storage of the mine tailings
I will briefly summarise the conclusions on each of these issues
SLIDE 4 HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING
It was found that, while there were reservations about the methods used by ERA, the value derived for the I in 10,000 annual rainfall was correct. Our conclusions on evaporation from open ponds were that all of the proposals made by the Australian scientists who criticised the EIS had already been taken into account by ERA in the design of the water management system for Jabiluka. However it was also concluded that the so called "inverse relationship`' between rainfall and evaporation should be included in future water management modelling. For evaporation in the ventilation shafts' our conclusion was that the ERA design engineers intended to provide the necessary energy by the use of humidifiers but. in our view, this would prove to be very expensive and that an increase in the pond area from 9ha to about 13ha would be required. Given our experience at Ranger, this increase is not expected to give rise to adverse environmental effects.
SLIDE 5 PREDICTION AND IMPACT OF SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS
We agreed with Professor Wasson and his colleagues that climate in the region has been very different in the past 10,000 years from that at present and that it would very probably be very different in the next 10,000 years. However, we concluded that their concerns were unjustified because there will not be any tailings repositories or retention ponds on the surface following rehabilitation in about 30 years time. Our analysis of Probable Maximum Precipitation events indicates that bounds around the perimeter of the mine site would need to be increased slightly but this is a fairly trivial exercise. The detailed analysis of possible climate change in the region of Jabiluka indicates that, while some change is likely, it is not necessary to alter the water management system design at this stage to take climate change into account. Rather, the situation will need to be kept under assessment and changes made at some future stage if required.
SLIDE 6 STORAGE OF URANIUM ON THE SURFACE
A very extensive analysis is presented in the report on the design of the water storage pond at Jabiluka to ensure that, except under very extreme circumstances, all water that runs off the mine site or seeps into the mine throughout the life of the mine, is collected in and is retained by the pond. That is, the Jabiluka mine is designed to ensure that there is total containment of all water and none is released to the wetlands of Kakadu National Park. I will not present the details of this design. Rather, I will concentrate here on evaluation of the risks involved for the wetlands if an extreme event occurs and some water is released into the Park. The results presented refer to the actual design proposed by ERA. Such a release could take place if a very unusual wet season occurred, or a sequence of wet seasons, such as one would only expect once in 1000 years. Other possibilities include events, such as a severe earthquake, which lead to the failure of the pond embankment and the subsequent flow of water from the pond to the wetlands.
SLIDE 7 EXCEEDING POND CAPACITY
This graph shows the probability of radiation exposure of people living downstream from the mine, and consuming foods collected from the wetlands, if the capacity of the pond is exceeded. The highest radiation exposure estimated, with a probability of occurrence of about I in 100,000, is about 25 microSievert. This dose, which would only occur once in 30 years, is a factor of 40 lower than the dose permitted for members of the public every year from the operation of a mine or any other radiation related utility. It is about a factor of 100 lower than each of us receives every year of our lives from natural radiation exposure. The conclusion reached is that the risk to people is extremely small. Similar analyses show that the risk to the animals and plants of the wetlands of Kakadu National Park is very small.
SLIDE 8 EARTHQUAKE - PROTECTION OF PEOPLE
This graph shows the probability of radiation exposure of people living downstream from the mine in the event of an extreme earthquake. The highest radiation exposure calculated is less than one tenth of the public dose limit but its probability of occurrence is extremely small, around I in 100 MILLION. Once again, there is no significant risk that people would be adversely affected even if an earthquake destroyed the retention pond.
SLIDE 9 EARTHQUAKE - PROTECTION OF ECOSYSTEMS
This graph shows the probability that aquatic animals living in the waters of the Magela floodplain could be adversely affected if an earthquake occurred and destroyed the pond embankment. Two sets of data are presented. The outer curve is the area of the floodplain beyond which no adverse effects would be expected to occur. The inner curve is the area of the floodplain inside of which the toxicology data imply that adverse effects would occur. Between the curves, there are likely to be some effects on some species, for example invertebrates. In interpreting these data, it should be remembered that the area of the floodplain is greater than 150 square kilometres. Thus, there is an extremely small probability7 about I in 100 MILLION, that a small area of the floodplain, about 1%, would exibit definite effects on some species of invertebrates. At this level of probability, effects could even persist out to 10% of the floodplain. At more realistic probabilities, say I in 10,000, definite effects would only be expected within a very small area, about 0.5 square kilometres and some effects could persist out to several square kilometres. It is important to note, however, that these effects, if they occur, would be transitory. The uranium in the water would be diluted by the next years wet season and would be washed out to sea. The ecosystem would then fully recover and there would not be any permanent damage.
SLIDE 10 LONG TERM STORAGE OF MILL TAILINGS
Many of the concerns that people have about uranium mining at Jabiluka relate to the long-term storage of tailings and the possible dispersal of the tailings or their constituents from the mine site.
The issues can be divided into :
- Effects arising from the physical dispersal of the solid tailings, and
- Effects arising from dispersal of the chemical constituents, particularly the radionuclides, in groundwater.
The project approved by the Government at Jabiluka was one in which 100% of the tailings will be returned underground to the mine void or to specially excavated silos. Because of this requirement, the tailings will be covered by at least 100 metres of sandstone or schist and sandstone. It would take about 200 Million years to erode this rock cover so there is no risk to the wetlands of Kakadu from the physical dispersion of the tailings. In our report, we presented a detailed analysis of dispersal of contaminants h~ groundwater and I can briefly show the principal results obtained.
SLIDE 11 DISPERSAL OF CONTAMINANTS EAST OF THE REPOSITORIES
The principal constituents of concern are Sulphate, Uranium and Radium. This graph shows the probable movement of these chemicals in groundwater in an easterly direction from the mine. For sulphate, the time scale is 200 years while for the radionuclides the time is 1000 years. It can be seen that sulphate would be expected to move out from the mine deep underground by less than 100 metres. Uranium would move only 30 metres and radium about 10 metres. Beyond these distances, concentrations would be below naturally occurring concentrations.
SLIDE 12 DISPERSAL OF CONTAMINANTS WEST OF THE REPOSITORIES
West of the mine towards the Magela floodplain, the permeability of the aquifer is higher and the contaminants would move more rapidly. Sulphate is estimated to move up to 500 metres, while for uranium and radium the distance is about 150 metres and 50 metres. It must be emphasised, however, that only a very small fraction of the groundwater is expected to move towards the surface. Most of the movement will be far below the floodplain and the contaminants will move out to sea in the very long-term. In addition, the concentrations of these constituents in the acid sulphate soils of the floodplain are naturally high and the effect on these natural concentrations will be very low. We have concluded, therefore, that dispersal of contaminants in groundwater does not pose a long-term threat to the wetlands of Kakadu.
SLIDE 13 CONCLUSIONS
We concluded that
- The natural values of Kakadu National Park are not threatened by the Jabiluka development.
- The degree of scientific certainty that applies to this assessment is very high.
- There is no justification for a decision of the World Heritage Committee that the natural World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park are in Danger.
ANNEX X
Presentation by Professor Brian Wilkinson, leader of the
Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU
Some parts of today's presentation were made last Wednesday, but I understand that there are some members present today who were not here on Wednesday. So it may be helpful to them if I repeat the background to the Independent Scientific Panel. I think that it is important that the meeting understands the structure of the panel and our brief.
There were four members of the Independent Scientific Panel, which was established by ICSU:
Dr John Rodda - President of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences and formerly Director of Water Resources at the World Meteorological Organisation;
Professor Gene Likens -Director of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in New York;
Professor Jane Plant - Assistant Director, British Geological Survey: and myself
Professor Brian Wilkinson - Professor at the University of Reading and formerly Director of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. The Panel members were selected by ICSU and I was asked by ICSU, with the agreement of the Panel, to act as Team Leader.
The Panel's work began on 22 April 1999 as soon as the first documentation became available, and our report was submitted on 14 May 1999 against a deadline of 15 May 1999. Our brief was to make a scientific review of the report – "Assessment of the Jabiluka Project" (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3C) from The Australian Supervising Scientist. We have just had a presentation from Dr Johnston, The Supervising Scientist. We also saw a number of other supporting documents - but in the time available there was a limitation on the information that was readily available. I regret that our insights may have been restricted by not having visited Jabiluka or the Kakadu World Heritage Site.
Panel members’ comments were consolidated into the first draft. All Panel members approved our Final Report prior to its transmission to ICSU and UNESCO. Other than the presentation of its report to the Bureau, which I make today, the Panel has discharged its remit to ICSU on the delivery of its report on 14 May 1999.
However, during June Dr Arthur Johnston, the Supervising Scientist, contacted me to say he would like some clarification on the Recommendations in the Independent Science Panel Report. I obtained agreement from the Panel members and from ICSU and UNESCO to hold a telephone conversation and this took place on 3 June 1999 with a subsequent approved conversation on 11 June 1999. There are agreed notes of these conversations available.
Towards the end of June I received a 62 page report giving the response of The Supervising Scientist to the Independent Scientific Panel Review. I forwarded this document to my fellow Panel members but they have had no time to make a formal assessment of this and furthermore believe such a consideration is outside their original brief from ICSU. I understand that this response document has been made available to the Bureau and that Dr Johnston will perhaps speak to it later this morning and I look forward to that.
I intervened earlier this morning to say that I was very surprised to see reference in the Rapporteur’s note of the twenty-third session of the Bureau WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.4. There was reference in three places where it states that a dialogue had started between the Australian Supervising Scientist and the Independent Science Panel to resolve some of the outstanding issues and that this has began to show some progress on questions relating to the scientific issues. May I say Sir that ICSU protests strongly against this. This simply is not the case.
The telephone conversations were concerned with the Supervising Scientist seeking insights into our Recommendations. A full scientific dialogue has not started. That is not to say that a dialogue is not necessary. It may be but it simply has not taken place. ICSU would wish to see the record amended and as you suggest Sir, we will provide an appropriate set of words.
Turning to the Independent Science Panel's Report - we considered that we could conveniently divide the work into four activity areas as follows:
- Hydrological modelling and the assessment of the retention pond design capacity
- Risk assessment for the ERA proposal
- Long-term storage of the mine tailings
- General environmental protection issues
However, there is strong interaction between these various areas and the Panel took these interactions into account in making its 17 Recommendations, which are given at the end of the Panel's Report. If I can now take each of these areas in turn and give a very brief overview of what the Panel considered to be the important scientific issues:
1. Hydrological modelling and Assessment of Retention Pond Design Capacity
The design of the retention ponds at Jabiluka is crucially dependent on the records of rainfall and evaporation. It is fortunate that such a good 88 year rainfall record exists at Oenpelli and that there is good correlation with the shorter Jabiru record. However, it is recognized that rain gauges often under record and the Panel considered it would be prudent to increase rainfall data by 5% and to rerun the water balance calculations.
The rainfall records have been extended using synthetic data generation techniques. A study of evaporation based on evaporation pan records was also made and we consider that suitable rainfall and evaporation sequences have now been established for use in retention pond and water balance design. The rainfall and evaporation data were used in a run-off model and using a Monte Carlo approach, an acceptable method has been developed for determining the design pond capacity against extreme weather events. It would, however, have been valuable to have seen such calculations undertaken for Ranger and compared with Ranger's operational performance.
The Supervising Scientist’s Report did not give a clear picture of the water balance between the various flows on the proposed Jabiluka Mine. We considered that this information is needed if a proper assessment is to be made. So while we considered that a suitable design approach has been developed, we have not seen a final design for the water management system and this is a cause for concern to the panel and has of course restricted our assessment.
The assumption in the rainfall analysis is one of stationarity i.e. the climate over the next 30 years will be the same as that represented by the past 88 years of record. However, I think that all of us in this room are conscious of climate change issues. The appendix by Jones et al in the Supervising Scientist’s Report analyses the climate change issue in what we considered to be a very comprehensive way, nevertheless this is an area of considerable uncertainty among the international scientific community. We believe that it was somewhat dismissed in the Supervising Scientist's Report but the Panel considers that it must be kept under constant review, and if the mine proceeds new works may need to be introduced and operational methods may need to be modified as new information becomes available. We would ask, is there an appropriate mechanism to enable such modifications, if required, to be made during the life of the mine can be instituted?
2. Risk Assessment for the ERA Proposal.
To protect the environment against pollutants a policy of containment of mill and ore stockpile water in retention ponds is proposed. The Panel are in full agreement with this approach but there could be an impact on the aquatic ecosystem due to changes in the water balance which would result. This Section of the Supervising Scientist's Report also focussed on the concentration of contaminants in the ponds and the prospect of pond failure which would release water into the environment.
We noted that the principle source of contaminants entering the ponds would be from the ore stockpile. We were uncertain as to whether any allowance had been made for the effects that evaporation may have in concentrating the contaminants in the ponds. We saw no reference to this potential issue. On occasion the ponds may go dry but there was little reference to dust blow from the ponds from rock piles or elsewhere on the mine site.
The Ranger model for radiation exposure to members of the public had been applied to Jabiluka. We seek evidence that this transfer from one site to the other is appropriate. It is also important to include chemical toxicity in such models.
In the event of the water in the ponds escaping, an assessment was made in the Supervising Scientist’s Report of the impact on the aquatic ecosystem. This appeared to he based on the use of "surrogate species " for the whole aquatic ecosystem. We would seek justification that single species act as adequate indicators in this way.
3. Long Term Storage of Tailings.
The proposal to return the tailings to the mine void or into silos 100 metres below surface will remove a major source of potential environmental contamination in the short to medium term.
The question is - how far will the contaminants move in the longer term as a result of groundwater transport? A number of mathematical models to predict the spread of uranium, radium and sulphate were described in the Supervising Scientist’s Report.
This modelling approach was welcomed by the Panel and is appropriate providing the relevant hydrological and geochemical parameters are used. However, we had reservations in that:
- the modelling, as described, was not set within the overall groundwater flow pattern;
- no isotope measurements were quoted which may have enabled the age of the sub-surface water to be established;
- there is some uncertainty as to the permeability parameters used in the models;
- there is some uncertainty on the stability of the tailing/cement mix and the geochemical interactions between the potential pollutants and the rock.
And there are other concerns. We understand that additional testing is being undertaken and new information is being obtained and this must be used in additional three dimensional groundwater models involving rock/contaminant interaction and set in an overall groundwater flow context. Until such work is complete it is difficult to assess whether there is a long term problem arising from the sub-surface storage of tailings or not.
4. General Environmental Protection Issues
We noted the prospect of the mine life being extended from 30 years to 40, 50 or even 60 years. No consideration appeared to have been given as to how an extended mine life would change the impacts on the environment.
The Panel considers that such assessments should be made now and should not be delayed. For example if the life of the mine is extended will future tailings be disposed of sub-surface or not?
The mining and the silo work will lead to sandstone rock piles. Sediment from these could have a major impact on the aquatic ecosystem but there was little or no information on this. There are a series of related questions - Where will this rock be placed, what land form will it have; how will it be rehabilitated?
In relation to the total landscape or catchment analysis for Jabiluka mine - this appeared to have been somewhat dismissed in the Supervising Scientist’s Report. The Panel considered that such an analysis to be critical and necessary.
The Panel considered it also necessary that a firm and binding commitment to long term possibly 100 year monitoring of surface, groundwater and the ecosystem on the Jabiluka site in relation to Kakadu National Park was necessary. It was also necessary to establish this binding commitment to reparation in the event of unforeseen impacts from mining activity.
The conclusions in our Report and the 17 Recommendations can be placed in four broad categories as follows:
First category - some of the analyses in the Supervising Scientist’s Report do lead to the assessment of impacts of the proposed Jabiluka mining operation being made with a higher degree of certainty than formerly (e.g. method for hydrological analysis);
Secondly - there are some recommendations that we suggest should be followed out of prudence (e.g. 5% increase in rainfall data and others);
Thirdly - there are some areas in the Supervising Scientist Report where we were unable to make a judgement on ascertainable or potential impacts due to the lack of information or data;
Fourthly - there were some elements dealt with in what we considered to be an unsatisfactory way in the Supervising Scientist’s Report, and there were some important issues that were missing. Nine of our Recommendations fall in this latter category. It may well be that some of our concerns are addressed, by the Supervising Scientist's response to the Independent Science Panel Report - but this response of course would require detailed consideration by the Panel and as such it lies outside our brief at the present time.
Overall, our assessment of the ascertainable or potential risks were made more difficult by the fact that the design of the mine is still evolving. There are still, therefore, uncertainties e.g. how large will the footprint of the retention ponds and other works be? etc.
Because of these uncertainties with respect to the final design there is a theme running through the Supervising Scientist’s Report of "trust us" and we will ensure that the final works fully meet the environmental requirements. It has been suggested this morning that perhaps this approach is based on the Supervising Scientist’s l8 years of operational experience at Ranger.
However, Kakadu is such a rich and important site in terms of World Heritage values that we believe that such assurances should be accompanied by firm and binding commitments, not just on the present administration but also on those in the future. These are particularly important for both short and long term monitoring and reparation in the event of this monitoring exposing some presently unforeseen event or threat. The Panel considers that there remain many areas of scientific uncertainty in relation to quantifying potential impacts.
If I may Sir, finally have the overhead. The overhead shows that the Panel identified 17 scientific factors that still need to be resolved. 13 out of these 17 recommendations are fundamental to resolving the scientific issues and therefore require discussion and a proper response from the Supervising Scientist.
Thank you very much Sir.
ANNEX XI
Response by Dr Arthur Johnston, the Australian Supervising Scientist, to the ICSU review of scientific issues
THE JABILUKA PROJECT
KEY ISSUES
- · RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE ERA PROPOSAL
- · LONG-TERM STORAGE OF TAILINGS
- · GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING
RECOMMENDATION 1
Increase rainfall by 5%
- · Bureau of Meteorology advises this is not standard practice in Australia
- · Note the conservatism in other areas of hydrological modelling
- · Accept the recommendation
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING
RECOMMENDATION 2
Rainfall and evaporation measurements should commence at JABILUKA
- · ERA commenced these measurements in 1996 (rainfall) and 1998 (evaporation)
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING
RECOMMENDATION 3
Climate change to be reviewed throughout the project
- · The Mine Site Technical Committee will review all water management issues throughout the life of the project
- ERA will be required to provide additional storage if necessary
- · This occurred at Ranger in 1986
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING
RECOMMENDATION 4
Runoff coefficients to be validated at Ranger
- Extensive hydrological modelling has been carried out at Ranger
- The runoff coefficients used were derived from the Ranger modelling
HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING
RECOMMENDATION 5
Assurances should be given on mill water requirements etc
Information should be supplied
- All information has been supplied
- · Water consumption estimates are all based on experience at Ranger
- · Estimates of groundwater ingress being revised based on decline observations
RISK ASSESSMENT
RECOMMENDATION 6
Radiation exposure to be specific to Jabiluka
- · Model specific to Jabiluka now developed
- · Results are similar to those in the Report
- · Effects of chemical toxicity are negligible
RISK ASSESSMENT
RECOMMENDATION 7
Biological recycling to be investigated
- · Biotic and abiotic recycling was investigated for Ranger; chemical toxicity dominant risk
- · For Jabiluka, total Uranium released in an extreme event would be small compared to the uranium recycled naturally in the vegetation on the Magela floodplain
- · Uranium in sediment will be 1000 times lower than toxic concentrations
RISK ASSESSMENT
RECOMMENDATION 8
Retention pond to be partitioned
- · This repeats a recommendation of the Supervising Scientist
- · The pond will be partitioned
STORAGE OF TAILINGS
RECOMMENDATION 9
Flow rates and permeabilities to be confirmed by dating etc
- · Groundwater near Jabiluka is very old; dated at 4000 - 5000 years by 14C
- · Water flow into the decline low compared to predictions; applies to both sandstone and schist
- · Bores above the decline show no response to construction of the decline
- · The unconformity between the schist and sandstone is dry
These observations confirm that the permeabilities used were reasonable and conservative
STORAGE OF TAILINGS
RECOMMENDATION 10
Present results as cumulative probability plots
- · Cumulative probability plots have been included in the Supervising Scientist's response
STORAGE OF TAILINGS
RECOMMENDATION 11
Geochemical resaorch results to be included in three dimensional groundwater modelling
- · ERA is currently conducting the recommended geochemical research
- · 3-D modelling, including the results of the geochemical research, is a requirement on ERA prior to final approval
STORAGE OF TAILINGS
RECOMMENDATION 12
Extend groundwater modelling to 10,000 years
- · 10,000 year results presented in Supervising Scientist's response
- · Under worst case assumptions,
- uranium into floodplain each year is a very small fraction of that recycled naturally
- sulphate remains below natural concentrations
GENERAL ISSUES
RECOMMENDATION 13
Waste rock erosion to be assessed
- · Previously assessed by the Supervising Scientist
- · With no controls, sediment load in Swift Creek would increase by 40%
- · Progressive revegetation will reduce erosion by more than a factor of ten. The impact on Swift Creek will be negligible
GENERAL ISSUES
RECOMMENDATION 14
Extend risk assessment to 60 years
- · Assessed in the Supervising Scientist's response
- · No significant change in risk estimates for the ERA proposal
GENERAL ISSUES
RECOMMENDATION 15
Landscape scale ecological risk assessment to be carried out
- · Landscape scale ecological hazard analysis carried out in response
- · Concluded that only significant hazard is erosion of the waste rock dump
- · This issue already assessed by Supervising Scientist; the risk is small
GENERAL ISSUES
RECOMMENDATION 16
Assurance sought on adequate rehabilitation fund
- · Approval of the Jabiluka Project requires a Bank Guarantee to cover government estimated cost of rehabilitation
- · This ensures that the full cost of rehabilitation will be covered even if ERA becomes bankrupt at any time
GENERAL ISSUES
RECOMMENDATION 17
Commitment to long-term monitoring needed
- · Government approval contains a provision for long-term monitoring
- · Monitoring program will be reviewed regularly
SUPERVISING SCIENTIST'S CONCLUSIONS
- · All ICSU recommendations have been or are being implemented
- · The natural values of Kakadu National Park are not threatened by the Jabiluka project
ANNEX XII
Statement by Thailand
Mr Chairman,
Permit me to refer to my intervention at the Kyoto Committee meeting last December. Although I raised a number of points, the thrust of intervention was to seek the opportunity for the Government of Australia to provide their side of information so that the Committee is in a position to make an informed decision. I did this in conformity with the legal maxim, audi alteram partem, that no one shall be condemned unheard, which is one of the principles of natural justice.
Now at this extraordinary session of the Committee, we have at our disposal relevant documents from both sides as well as the Review of an Independent Scientific Panel of the scientific issues associated with the proposed mining of uranium at Jabiluka. We are at this session in a position to understand the overall situations and address this issue objectively, provided that we distance ourselves from the emotional aspects surrounding the issue.
I shall recapitulate the following points:
1. Jabiluka, Ranger, and Koongarra are not and have never been part of Kakadu World Heritage area, although they are enclosed within the World Heritage site. For the reason of the predated three mining leases, these three enclaves are not included in the three-stage nomination and inscription of Kakadu as World Heritage property. Nevertheless, if mining in any of these enclaves affects the integrity of the World Heritage property, relevant provisions of the World Heritage Convention and roles of the Operational Guidelines must be applied for the protection and conservation of the World Heritage property.
2. Mining at Ranger has been in continuous operation for two decades with no reported adverse effects causing deterioration of the values of the surrounding World Heritage site. Presumably, the protection regime put in place at Ranger works effectively.
3. In comparison with the Ranger open-cut mine, the Jabiluka project entails an underground mine and ten times smaller and the Ranger mine. The Report of the Supervising Scientist examined all technical and scientific aspects of the Jabiluka mine proposal and concluded that the natural values of Kakadu are not under threat from the Jabiluka mine development. The review of this Report by an Independent Science Panel established by the International Council of Science (ICSU) did not affirm the existence of severe ascertained dangers to the Kakadu World Heritage values, although the panel considered that there remained additional measurements and analytical activities that should be undertaken. The Australian Minister of Environment and Heritage, has accepted in full all of the recommendations made by the Australian and Supervising Scientist as well as those of ICSU for implementation and incorporation into the design of the Jabiluka mine project. Thus the enhanced environmental protection regime governing Jabiluka mine and the Kakadu World Heritage property is ensured.
4. Concerning the socio-cultural and economic conditions of the Aboriginal communities living in Kakadu as well as the cultura1 values of the World Heritage site, the Australian Minister of Environment and Heritage has indicated in his letter of 8 July 1999 to the Chair that his Government has developed a series of additional measures to deal with the issues of concern. The initiatives include the implementation of the Kakadu Regional Impact Study; Cultural Heritage Management Plan; cultural landscape nomination; economic benefits flowing from sequential mining development; and transfer of management responsibilities to traditional owners. It should be noted that some of these issues are domestic matters and some are matters under other international instruments, and are therefore outside the scope of the World Heritage Convention.
In consideration of the points as stated in 3 and 4, and in terms of impartiality and objectivity, there seems to be no valid ground for including Kakadu in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Be that as it may, it is conceivable that one may still argue for inscribing Kakadu on the List of World Heritage in Danger except on the condition that Australia discontinues the Jabiluka mine project. Such an attitude and conditionality amount to taking it for granted that the measure of entering a World Heritage property on the List of World Heritage in Danger is a punishment. This is contrary to the spirit and the provisions of the Convention and the Operational Guidelines requiring a programme of corrective measures to be implemented for the conservation and rehabilitation of World Heritage property entered on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Mr Chairman, I shall conclude by clarifying one crucial legal point involved in the context of what I have stated. I hold the view, as also stated in the Committee session in Kyoto, that the World Heritage Committee has the authority under the Convention (Article 11, paragraph 4, the last provision) to make a new entry in the List of World Heritage in Danger at any time, in case of urgent need, without the consent of the State Party concerned. The focal point of significance of this provision lies in the phrase "in case of urgent need". This means that even if the World Heritage values of Kakadu are not in danger at this moment of time from ascertained or potential threats and thus not on the List of World Heritage in Danger, but at any time in the future if the mining activities at Jabiluka happen to cause damage to the values of Kakadu, this constitutes the case of urgent need. Thus the World Heritage Committee has the authority to inscribe Kakadu on the World Heritage List in Danger without the consent of Australia. However, if the Jabiluka mine project is considered a potential danger but has not yet actually caused a damage to the value of Kakadu, this is not a case of urgent need. For this reason Kakadu can not be included in the World Heritage List without the consent of Australia.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
ANNEX XIII
Statement by Japan
- The Delegation of Japan has listened with extremely good care and interest to the interventions by the various consultative bodies as well as the scientists both from Australia and ICSU. Certainly the points made by these previous speakers included reference to uncertainties still remaining, about scientific aspects. As well they included very serious concern about the negative impact upon the living culture of Aboriginal traditional owners or Aboriginal community that are quite relevant.
- I recall that the general atmosphere in Kyoto was very much, more or less, a consensus atmosphere, very much inclined to take immediate action to inscribe this property upon the Danger List in the light of concerns that I just mentioned a few minutes ago. Although these concerns are still remaining I agree. However the Delegation of Japan is very much interested in the developments made during the last six months, particularly during last week. These developments are quoted in the decision by the Bureau. Maybe some part of the scientific part of the Bureau decision needs to be reconsidered on the basis of the intervention by Professor Wilkinson. Nevertheless there are a number of developments as stated in the Bureau decision:
- The first one is the announcement by the Australian Government to cancel the planned parallel commercial scale mining by postponing the commercial full scale mining at Jabiluka to year 2009. I think that this avoidance of parallel commercial mining may deserve some of important issues even not if satisfactory but that gives answer to this. Of course this is not a perfect and 100% satisfactory answer. Nevertheless the Japanese Delegation note with great interest that this is a good step for correcting the negative impact;
- Secondly, the Japanese Delegation note with pleasure that some even preliminary, but some start of dialogue has just started last week. To my knowledge around three rounds of talks between the Australian Delegation, particularly Senator Hill, and Aboriginal traditional owners took place. This was also referred to by Madame Yvonne at the outset of this morning’s session. The Japanese Delegation attaches particular importance to this process of trust and confidence building process which lacked to this date in dealing with this important subject.
- Thirdly about scientific aspects. I understand very well from the intervention by Professor Wilkinson a genuine dialogue between the Australian Supervising Scientist and ICSU’s Independent Scientific Panel did not yet start. He is proposing such a dialogue in the second phase in the year 2000. But nevertheless over six months I noticed that tremendous work was made by the Australian Supervising Scientist in the form of certain preparations. Also very good work even under the time constraint by ICSU’s independent panel. Under the current circumstances, as stated repeated by Professor Wilkinson there is still not sufficient availability of data, and the exchange of comments or proposals or recommendations are in a preliminary stage. But such an international exercise in scientific deliberations over the last six months has resulted in many outputs and observations presented to this Committee.
- The view of the Japanese Delegation is that:
a) it is the time for this Committee to encourage this development (see a) to c) above) to be pursued with sincerity from parties concerned.
b) We need some time more to watch closely the further developments to be made in the coming months before taking any decision.
c) As a reminder, the World Heritage Committee has the prerogative to inscribe a property on the Danger list at any moment. And if as the Thai Delegate mentioned, if further developments are not satisfactory ones or if pursuit of such development were not implemented then this Committee can recourse to the exercise of this prerogative.
- The work of the World Heritage Committee is not to hunt properties one by one for mechanical inscription of a property upon the in Danger List. Instead our task is to seek with full sincerity and with full efforts corrective measures. Listing on the in Danger List and deletion from the World Heritage List are to the end and will be the last resort for this Committee. Again for our work in the coming months, or coming years, the distinguished observer of ICOMOS made quite useful recommendations and suggestions - such as for this Committee to announce a more clear message to respect the value of living culture or to recommend the Australian Government to have a better established framework of a dialogue with Aboriginal traditional owners.
In conclusion, the Japanese Delegation is of the view that it is not the time for this Committee to take immediate action to inscribe this property on the Danger List. Instead the task before this Committee is to recommend various actions to be pursued by the Australian Government and recommend other organisations such as ISP of ICSU as well as the Australian Supervising Scientist to pursue their work. In this respect the proposal made by Professor Wilkinson on behalf of the ICSU experts is quite a useful and interesting one in pursuing this scientific work on the basis of three phases in the years coming.
ANNEX XIV
Statement by France
Je vous remercie Monsieur le Président.
Je crois que notre Comité avait pris une bonne décision à Kyoto en repoussant de six mois le moment où nous devions décider définitivement sur cette affaire. A la fois parce qu’il me semble que ces six mois ont été mis à profit pour recueillir une masse d’information considérable qui éclaire très utilement le Comité, et d’autre part parce je crois que l’esprit un peu trop conflictuel qui régnait à Kyoto a fait place ici à une volonté manifeste de trouver un terrain de dialogue beaucoup plus constructif.
Alors, je crois que nous devons tous, tout le monde du Comité remercier très vivement tous ceux qui ont travaillé pendant ces quelques mois et pendant des délais assez brefs, précisément pour mieux informer le Comité. Je voudrais saluer tout particulièrement le travail de grande qualité fournis par les organes consultatifs. Parce que même si je ne partage pas intégralement leurs conclusions, je considère qu’ils ont soulevé toute une série de points de première importance, et souvent des points doctrinaux, qui mérite une réflexion approfondie, et j’y reviendrai tout à l’heure. Bien entendu, je remercie aussi l’Etat-partie pour s’être engagé dans cette forme de dialogue constructif avec le Comité, conformément à l’esprit de confiance qui doit régner entre nous. Je regretterais simplement qu’il n’ait pas été répondu à l’appel que notre Comité avait lancé à Kyoto à suspendre les travaux jusqu’à la présente session.
Néanmoins, je crois que c’est ainsi que nous devons procéder avec sérieux, sérénité, sans nous laisser influencer par des pressions extérieures, en évitant tout risque de politisation abusive. Il nous appartient de prendre aujourd’hui une décision, une vraie décision, une décision qui ne soit ni cosmétique, ni dilatoire. Il faut qu’elle soit claire et basée sur des engagements contraignants.
Qu’est-ce que c’est qu’une bonne décision ? C’est simple; c’est évidemment celle qui renforce le plus efficacement la protection de Kakadu. La France souhaite que le Comité parvienne à cette décision par la voie du consensus. Bien sûr il n’y a de consensus possible que si la crédibilité, l’autorité de notre Comité, et les principes de la Convention sont intégralement préservés. Tout ce qui tendrait à les affaiblir n’aurait pas notre consentement. Mais d’un autre côté nous devons également prendre en compte, les explications, les initiatives, les propositions qui ont été formulées par l’Etat-partie, et prendre en compte aussi les difficultés qu’il rencontre dans la gestion du bien, car nous ne sommes pas un tribunal ou une cour de justice.
Notre objectif c’est d’aider l’Etat-partie à faire face aux problèmes qu’il rencontre dans le stricte respect de ses obligations. Evidemment, en contrepartie le Comité attend des autorités australiennes qu’elles fassent tout ce qui relève de leur compétence pour favoriser cette solution. J’ai l’impression que nous avons bien progresser et que les discussions qui ont eu lieu au Bureau la semaine dernière et encore aujourd’hui dessinent les bases d’un consensus conforme aux principes que je viens de rappeler. Les autorités australiennes ont incontestablement fait un mouvement en direction des recommandations émises à Kyoto, et manifestées par plusieurs gestes, leur bonne volonté.
Si je comprends bien le sens de leur proposition, l’Australie s’engage à différer l’exploitation de la mine de Jabiluka et à mettre à profit la pause ainsi ménagée, pour d’une part, résoudre les questions scientifiques en suspend, et nous avons vu qu’elles sont nombreuses et complexes, et d’autre part, régler le contentieux actuel avec les communautés aborigènes. Et de ce point de vue j’ai entendu dire que le dialogue avait été repris avec la communauté Mirrar, et je m’en réjoui et je suis heureux que le Comité ait entendu Madame la représentante de cette communauté. Ce qui est tout à fait d’ailleurs dans ses attributions, parce que je crois qu’il doit veiller lorsque le dialogue est interrompu à essayer de le renouer entre les parties. Je crois que l’économie générale d’une solution de ce type pourrait convenir à la France dès lors bien entendu qu’elle est assise sur, encore une fois, des engagements fermes, précis, vérifiables, assortis le cas échéant d’un calendrier.
Il y a quelques questions qui méritent à mon avis encore d’être éclairées pour être bien sûr de quoi l’on parle. En particulier, le Sénateur Hill a dit tout à l’heure qu’il y aurait une petite phase de chevauchement mais pas d’exploitation commerciale pleine et entière entre Jabiluka et Ranger. J’aimerais en savoir un petit peu plus sur ce qu’est cette phase de chevauchement, et en particulier à quoi répond l’exploitation de mille tonnes annuelle qui est prévue à partir de 2001 :
- Est-ce que c’est une exploitation de caractère commerciale ?
- Est-ce que c’est une exploitation destinée à faire des tests ?
- Je ne suis pas spécialiste évidemment, mais je crois qu’il est bon que l’on ait les idées très claires sur ce à quoi l’on veut aboutir. Je voudrais également être sûr d’avoir bien compris qu’il s’agit de renoncer à toute forme d’exploitation avant 2001, c’est à dire de ne passer à une forme d’exploitation que lorsque les principaux problèmes de nature à la fois scientifique et culturelle auront été résolus.
- Est-ce que ça signifie qu’avant le passage de cette phase de 2001, le Comité sera chargé de vérifier que ces conditions ont bien été remplies ?
Je crois qu’il s’agit là de précisions qui visent encore une fois à faire en sorte qu’il n’y ait pas de malentendu, pas d’ambiguïté, et qu’on ne se retrouve pas comme nous l’avons été depuis quelques temps dans des débats inextricables. Je pense d’ailleurs qu’un certain nombre de propositions qui ont été faîtes de façon très opportune par ICOMOS sur la mise en place d’un plan de management, sur la nécessité de faire une cartographie des sites culturels, sont également un élément très important pour aller dans le sens de la confiance retrouvée, je dirais que la confiance n’a jamais manqué, mais il est vrai qu’il est bon à certains moments de la renforcer. Je voudrais également que nous méditions la leçon de Kakadu. Au-delà de Kakadu il me semble que nous devrions prendre un peu de recul pour éviter la répétition de semblables affaires.
Premièrement, certains l’ont dit avant moi, il ne faut pas que la décision que nous prendrons donne l’impression, ou soit interprétée comme une forme de renoncement de la part de notre Comité à sa prérogative d’inscrire un site sur la Liste en péril. Et je crois qu’il faut dire à ceux qui invoquent l’inscription comme une sanction, ou à ceux qui la redoutent comme une marque d’infamie qu’ils commettent une erreur d’appréciation, ce n’est pas ça l’esprit du patrimoine en péril.
Il serait important que notre Comité le rappelle assez fortement. Je crois que nous devons être désormais très vigilants lorsque nous inscrivons un bien pour définir les règles que nous établissons et les obligations que souscrit l’Etat intéressé, afin d’assurer dans la durée la cohérence juridique de nos décisions. Et sur ce point, je me réfère à ce qu’à dit excellemment le distingué délégué de la Thaïlande, qui en ces matières est orfèvre. Je crois en effet que lors des sessions qui ont conduit à l’inscription du site, un certain nombre de choses n’ont pas été suffisamment clarifiées, sans doute. Et c’est pourquoi, on a à discuter aujourd’hui de problèmes relatifs au statut, au régime juridique des enclaves ou à la possibilité ou non d’exercer une activité minière.
Troisièmement, nous devons également réfléchir à ce qui est une contradiction croissante entre la stabilité des normes juridiques de la Convention, et l’évolution des sensibilités ou de la conception même du patrimoine. L’affaire de Kakadu en est une illustration exemplaire, on soulève aujourd’hui toute une série de questions qui sont certainement pertinentes, relatives par exemple à la localisation des sites sacrés, ou à la validité du consentement donné par les propriétaires traditionnels, mais qui avait été passées sous silence en 1981, 1987, et 1992. D’ailleurs, et je le dis sans esprit polémique dans cette affaire, tout le monde a changé de position depuis le moment de l’inscription : l’Etat-partie, les organes consultatifs, et peut-être pas notre Comité, je l’espère en tout cas.
Donc, il ne faut pas que la mise en oeuvre de la Convention soit tributaire des changements de politique, de doctrine ou d’intérêt des uns et des autres. Parce qu’on risquerait par ce biais de rentrer dans une logique de rétroactivité qui selon moi risquerait d’altérer la sécurité juridique que les dispositions de la Convention confèrent aux Etats détenteurs de biens inscrits. Mais chers collègues je vous fais parts de ces remarques qui sont un peu extérieurs à la décision que nous allons prendre, mais je crois que c’est aussi une façon de faire un bon usage du problème compliqué qui nous est posé aujourd’hui. En tout cas et en conclusion, je rappelle que la France considère que les bases pour arriver à un consensus nous paraissent largement établies sous réserve encore une fois que soient précisés un certain nombre d’engagements, et en tout cas la France, pour sa part, soutiendra toute solution allant dans ce sens. Je vous remercie.
ANNEX XV
Statement by Canada
The issues of Kakadu National Park are very complex, involving a broad array of natural and cultural heritage matters. They have really presented, I think a challenge to States Parties as individual members, because we each have in our own countries different but similar situations, and to the Committee as a whole, to the Advisory Bodies and ultimately to the effectiveness of the Convention itself. Canada wishes to express its appreciation to all those who have contributed to improving our understanding of these complex matters. I would particularly like to signal the tremendous amount of work done by the Government of Australia to meet the requests of the Committee from its Kyoto meeting, the World Heritage Centre, the scientific advisory bodies, the Independent Scientific Panel, the Bureau discussions last week, today’s intervention from the Mirrar people and a letter that we have received today from the mining company itself.
Canada wanted to recall that in 1972, the World Heritage Convention was negotiated among State Parties as an instrument of international co-operation, to protect heritage sites of outstanding universal value. It is a carefully crafted document that strikes a balance between the sovereignty of State Parties (art. 6) and their duty to co-operate internationally, and I draw your attention particularly to Article 6 which I regard to be a key article of the Convention. The Convention focuses not on sanctions, as other Delegates have pointed out, but on means to share expertise, to offer technical support and encourage constructive dialogue. As some have said, the Convention is not a tribunal, but an instrument of co-operation. It works through encouraging dialogue and identifying measures to improve the protection of World Heritage sites as the delegate of France just mentioned.
In that context, Canada appreciates the serious efforts that Australia has made to respond to the issues raised by the Committee about Kakadu National Park at Kyoto. As many here know, Australia has a track record of strong participation in the work of the Convention. And in addition to the presentation of this morning, I would note the strong participation of the head of Delegation over a number of years on the work of the Consultative Body, to improve the Operational Guidelines, ensure financial probity through the financial audit and to improve the management of the World Heritage Centre through the Management Audit.
In the case of Kakadu I think Australia has listened to the concerns raised by the World Heritage Committee and has responded with many measures that they have proposed in document CONF 205/INF. 3G, called ²
Protecting Kakadu National Park²
. I have also noted the positive commitments of the mining company in their letter of this morning and the Ministers additional remarks that he made today.
In reviewing the Bureau recommendation of last week, which clearly offers a basis for moving forward in this matter, Canada wishes to make the following two specific suggestions:
- On the matter of science, we agree that there were scientific uncertainties before this session in Paris and probably continue to be some but we are very satisfied with the Australian Governments commitment, contained in WHC-99/CONF.205/INF 3G, to implement fully all the recommendations made by the Supervising Scientist and the international Independent Scientific Panel. Therefore, like Thailand, Canada considers that articles 1(c), 2 (c) and 6 of the Bureau recommendation require some reworking and possible deletion of parts of them.
- Our second specific comment about the Bureau recommendation is with regard to the Cultural Heritage Management Plan. We believe, and we agree with the Government of Australia, that article 4 of the Bureau recommendation should be simplified. Australia has a clear legal framework and well established processes to develop a Cultural Heritage Plan. In addition, we do take note and welcome the Australian Government’s recognition of the primordial participation of the Aboriginal people in general, and the Mirrar people in particular, in the development of this plan and also to establish a Reference Group to include key stakeholders and ICOMOS. The Government might wish to add ICCROM to that list, as the other advisory body in the cultural area, to this Reference Group.
Additional matters that the Committee might wish to follow over time are found in WHC-99/CONF.205/3G. I would think that the ones the Committee would particularly want to follow would be the Government¢
s offer to reduce by half the size of the Jabiru town site, also some of the initiatives that have been set forth to address social and cultural concerns of the Mirrar people and the offer to produce a monitoring report for 31 October 1999 and thereafter annual monitoring reports. These are key indicators that the Committee may wish to be informed about as the situation progresses.
Finally, and most importantly, we come to the needs and concerns of the traditional owners, the Mirrar people as expressed by Yvonne Margarula the Senior traditional owner, and her representatives over the last week. Like Japan we support the Bureau observation (2b) as Japan, and appreciate the efforts of the Mirrar and the Government to have taken the opportunity of this Paris meeting to open a new dialogue. Particularly important is the commitment of the Australian and Northern Territory governments to ensure that a significant pause is provided, so that there is an opportunity for building trust and confidence. From our experience in Canada, discussions between governments and aboriginal peoples require a lot of time, if they are to be meaningful. The commitment of the Government and ERA to work with the Mirrar people to establish a full dialogue and to involve them in seeking solutions to significant cultural and social matters offers a constructive way forward. The Committee will want to follow, with diligence, the developments of this dialogue.
Canada is reminded of the manner in which serious threats to the Galapagos Islands have been addressed through dialogue and discussion between that State Party and the World Heritage Committee over the last few years. Indeed, the Minister of Environment for Ecuador gave it such priority that he personally came to the World Heritage Committee meeting in Merida, Mexico (as the Minister has come here today and this week) and undertook measures to address threats to the site. We have since seen a dramatic turnaround at the Galapagos World Heritage site. This was a clear demonstration of the strength and effectiveness of the Convention.
As for Kakadu World Heritage site, Canada respects the views of the Mirrar people and like France, Canada appreciates the rigor of the advice of the Advisory Bodies and the Independent Scientific Panel. Nonetheless, Canada believes that the commitment of the Government of Australia and the mining company are such that an appropriate response, already expressed by Japan, Thailand and France at this meeting of the World Heritage Committee, is to support constructive steps towards protection of Kakadu World Heritage site. Australia has clearly indicated that it will report on the situation at the December meeting in Morocco and in subsequent years.
In closing, I would like to share my delegations view that, despite the difficulties and challenges we are encountering here, the constructive dialogue and progress made at this meeting are proof of the strength and viability of the World Heritage Convention.
ANNEX XVI
Statement by the United States of America
Thank you Mr Chairman,
The United States agrees with the eloquent statements made by our distinguished delegates from Japan, France and Canada.
The United States has listened very carefully, reviewed all of the material and we acknowledge that while inscription on the List in Danger may be appropriate under paragraphs 82 and 83 of section III of the Operational Guidelines, the United States feels that in recognizing the importance of maintaining the credibility and spirit of the Convention, and out of respect for Australia's sovereignty, that the concerns raised here today can be addressed adequately without placing Kakadu on the List in Danger.
Rather, paragraph 86 provides a mechanism for the development of consensus program for corrective measures established by working with Australia. After all, the purpose of this Convention is to protect World Heritage Sites in the most effective way possible.
The United States would also like to thank the Australian Delegation - not just for their hard work in the past six months since Kyoto, but for their outstanding efforts this week. They have conducted themselves in a manner that should be respected, admired and appreciated by all of us Committee members.
I also must give credit to the Bureau and other Committee members for the thoughtful manner in which they have approached this difficult task.
Lastly, I'd like to strongly echo the distinguished Delegate of Canada’s excellent characterisation and recognition of the importance of the Government Australia and the Mirrar taking the opportunity to open what we all hope will be a fruitful and continuing dialogue.
Thank you.
ANNEX XVII
Statement by Zimbabwe
Mr Chairman,
Zimbabwe wants to add its voice to the call for an amicable resolution of the Kakadu issue as indicated by Japan. It was with great pain that Zimbabwe decided to back the decision to put Kakadu on the World Heritage Properties in Danger. It would even be more painful today to see that wonderful site inscribed on that List. We subscribe to the view that it may not be necessary to arrive at that conclusion and therefore we strongly advocate for a way that will avoid such a scenario while at the same time satisfying the legitimate concerns expressed by the World Heritage Committee in Kyoto.
Zimbabwe, and this has been underlined already, sees this as a test case. The World Heritage Convention stands on two feet: one political because States Parties are political organs and the other professional because the natural and cultural heritage at stake requires an incisive and calculated approach. All along, Zimbabwe has underplayed the political foot, and thereby entrusting its fate in the hands of experts who are in the natural and cultural heritage field. We strongly believe that this should be the case. I wish to give credit to the Advisory Bodies on their well done and convincing evaluation.
The Kakadu issue poses for us great challenges as has been alluded to by the Mirrar representative this morning. To what extent is it political and to what extent a purely cultural heritage issue?
We face in our case the Victoria Falls problem which was on the agenda in Kyoto and which was also discussed by the Bureau a few days ago. Kakadu will provide points on how best we should be able to resolve our issue.
We also have the Khami Ruins, which the World Heritage Committee generously provided funding for because it was deteriorating and the World Heritage Committee warned us of the dangers it was facing. Was it an act of bad faith we now ask when we accepted that listing? In essence, Mr Chairman we are now asking ourselves, is it humiliating to have a property on the Danger list or is it an honour so that one can be able to correct what needs to be corrected? We believe Kakadu has the ingredients for a possible answer. We are here not to look at Kakadu per se but we are looking at ourselves for solutions not just for but for the future. Let us not set a wrong precedent. As an African coming from a country which went through similar violations of its cultural values by European settlers I wish to appeal to the Australians to respect the values, the sacred values of the Mirrar people and to increase its dialogue with those people. We, Mr Chairman, also think that a possible solution lies in the ICSU three phase approach and we wish to emphasise that there should be a moratorium on the mining activities until the uncertainties that have been shown today are cleared and the Aboriginal concerns are also addressed in a more serious manner. I thank you.
ANNEX XVIII
Statement by Mexico
Thank you Mr Chairman.
Twenty-seven years ago the UNESCO Member States agreed to apply a co-operation scheme for the conservation of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Co-operation remains and must continue to be the main tool for the conservation of the World Heritage.
It is a therefore a matter of concern for my Delegation to note that for some sectors the co-operation approach implies that the in Danger List should be changed for a system to judge national policies and measures. We cannot agree on that intention.
Without going in to the specifics of the Kakadu case on behalf of my Delegation I would like to make the following remarks:
a) We express our appreciation for the intensive work that has been done by the Centre and its Advisory Bodies and for the efforts of the Australian Government to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
b) Each case should be considered on its own merit, therefore, the Kakadu case must not establish a precedent for the consideration of future cases.
c) In the absence of explicit changes in the objectives of the World Heritage Convention and appropriate amendments in its Operational Guidelines, there is not room for converting the List of sites in Danger as a political tool to punish States Parties for their actions.
d) The adoption and implementation of a programme of corrective actions as provided in Operational Guideline Paragraph 85 must remain as a responsibility of the State Party concerned. The actual Operational Guidelines of the Convention do not provide for the adoption of a prescriptive approach. Here again I would like to reiterate the Kakadu case cannot and must not imply a de facto change in the principles and criteria that we have agreed to co-operate in the conservation of World Heritage.
e) A programme of corrective actions can only be put in place in cases in which a property is inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger as stated in Paragraph 85 of the Operational Guidelines. In the absence of such a decision there is not room for a detailed and long term follow-up process.
f) Finally, for any case under consideration of this Committee it is essential that the full agreement and consent of the State concerned with the decision adopted by the Committee. This is essential to maintain the spirit of co-operation of the World Heritage Convention. Thank you.
ANNEX XIX
Statement by Cuba
Merci Monsieur le Président, je serai très brève. La ratification de notre critère avec la réunion du Bureau est aujourd’hui la même. Parce que je lis attentivement le document de l’évaluation scientifique supérieur. Quand on lit ce document, on est sûr qu’il y a des problèmes, qu’il y a des dangers à Kakadu. C’est pour ça que je suis d’accord avec les organismes scientifiques, comme ICOMOS , IUCN, et ICCROM que c’est notre organisation consultative, que nous devrons appuyer dans ce critère, car ils sont l’organisation qui a fait que la Convention s’est exprimée. C’est pour ça que je considère que nous, en tout cas, voterons pour le critère des organisations consultatives.
ANNEX XX
Statement by Niger
Merci Monsieur le Président.
Je vais essayer d’être très bref. Les orateurs qui m’ont précédé ont déjà dit l’essentiel de mes idées je voudrais insister sur quelques points tout simplement. Monsieur le Président, donc ma délégation a lu avec le plus grand intérêt les documents qui ont été soumis à notre appréciation, elle a également suivi les débats qui se sont tenus au sein du Bureau, mais également les débats qui se sont tenus ce matin ici même. De la lecture de ces documents et du suivi de ces discussions nous avons retenu un certain nombre de points, deux essentiellement.
Nous avons retenu que sur Kakadu, certaines inquiétudes sont prouvées, d’autres sont potentielles, existent sur l’environnement, d’autres aussi existent sur les valeurs culturelles auxquelles sont attachées les populations locales. Mais nous avons aussi retenu Monsieur le Président que le gouvernement australien a fourni beaucoup d’efforts pour remédier, en tout cas à certaines de ces incertitudes qui sont prouvées, et que le gouvernement australien est également disposé à aller de l’avant pour chercher une solution équitable à tous les problèmes qui se posent.
Donc cela dit Monsieur le Président, je voudrais insister sur deux petits points D’abord demander à ce que notre Comité fasse très attention, qu’il fasse attention pour servir la Convention. Il ne faudrait donc pas qu’on prenne des décisions précipitées, nous ne devons pas transformer, certains l’ont déjà dit avant moi, le Comité en tribunal. Nous ne devons pas juger les parties, surtout nous ne devons pas nous immiscer dans des relations intérieures, nous devons faire extrêmement attention, parce que le cas qui nous est soumis est très délicat.
Délicat pourquoi ? Pour plusieurs raisons, mais j’évoquerai un seul. C’est que, nous parlons aujourd’hui d’exploitation d’uranium sur un site du patrimoine mondial, nous devons faire attention parce qu’il y a beaucoup de pays qui nous observent là où nous sommes, des pays en voie de développement notamment qui comptent essentiellement sur leurs ressources naturelles pour assurer leur développement. Or malheureusement, comme vous le savez Monsieur le Président, les membres du Comité, beaucoup de ces ressources se trouvent sur des sites du patrimoine mondial, des ressources vont être découvertes sur des potentiels sites du patrimoine mondial, donc nous devons faire attention sur la décision que nous devons prendre, parce que de cette décision dépendra la réaction future de ces pays qui nous observent.
Nous devons également faire attention, parce qu’il ne faudrait pas que la décision que nous allons prendre constitue une sanction ou paraîtrait comme une sanction, certains ont dit que ça peut paraître comme une sanction, d’autres ont dit non. Mais c’est vrai, nous au Niger nous avons un site qui est inscrit sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial qui est en péril actuellement le site de la réserve de l’Air et du Ténéré. Ça n’a pas été considéré comme une humiliation pour nous, nous avons accepté, nous savons pourquoi le site est inscrit. Mais, les cas ne sont pas les mêmes, nous devons faire extrêmement attention et examiner les cas, cas par cas. Parce que quand un pays se sent humilié, quand il pense qu’on s’immisce un peu dans ses affaires intérieures, ce pays peut se sentir sanctionné.
Donc, en résumé ce que nous devons faire c’est d’aider les Etats membres, parce que c’est à eux qu’il revient en dernier ressort de protéger leur environnement, de protéger les valeurs culturelles auxquelles sont attachées leurs populations. Nous devons les aider. Quand un pays est prêt à aller dans ce sens, je pense que nous devons l’aider. Et pour conclure, je voudrais dire que les propositions du Bureau constituent pour ma délégation une base de travail, une base de consensus, parce que ces propositions me paraissent empreintes de prudence, mais également de sagesse. Elles font un peu la part des choses, instaurent une certaine équité entre les différents intérêts en jeu. Nous devons travailler un peu, faire le toilettage de ces propositions, dans le sens du dialogue qui est demandé ici. Je me félicite de la demande de dialogue que les scientifiques eux-mêmes ont demandé ici. Donc pour conclure, faisons attention, prenons une décision pour l’avenir, une décision durable. Je vous remercie.
ANNEX XXI
Statement by Finland
Thank you Mr President.
The Delegation of Finland has naturally followed with great attention and interest the discussion during this morning. The Delegation of Finland also recognises and welcomes very much the information and all the actions made by the Australian Government to facilitate in resolving the many big problems of Kakadu.
Still this morning the Delegation of Finland was very concerned about the cultural values of Kakadu, not so much for the archaeological ones but even more for the intangible values of the Mirrar people. Now a draft concerning the Cultural Heritage Management Plan and it seems to give some hope that the concerns for the intangible values may be taken into consideration. The Finnish Delegation wishes that the work concerning Kakadu will be continued in confidence of all parties especially with the Mirrar people and the Government of Australia. The Delegation of Finland agrees with the recommendations of the Bureau but to be amended with the point of views of the different delegations here.
ANNEX XXII
Statement by Italy
Merci Monsieur le Président, l’Italie se reconnaît surtout dans l’esprit et dans les suggestions présentées par la France et par le Japon.
ANNEX XXIII
Statement by Morocco
Merci Monsieur le Président.
Je vais essayer de ne pas être long aussi, comme l’ont fait certains de mes collègues délégués d’un certain nombre de pays. Mais je voudrais que vous me permettiez d’abord de saluer l’intervention de Madame la représentante du peuple Mirrar, qui a fait le déplacement pour nous parler officiellement au nom de ce peuple, et je crois que c’est là un point qu’il ne faut pas oublier. Je voudrais aussi adresser les remerciements du Maroc aux excellentes interventions, et aux dialogues engagés devant nous par les professeurs Wilkinson et Johnston, et en disant cela je ne voudrais pas revenir à tout ce qui s’est dit, car le Maroc s’inscrit tout à fait dans la ligne tracée à la fois par la Thaïlande, surtout le Japon et la France, et le Canada.
Il me semble Monsieur le Président, que le terme qui paraît avoir retenu l’attention de nous tous dans cette session, est celui de dialogue. Tous les intervenants l’ont employé pour illustrer ou expliciter la position de leur pays. Et nous le rappelons qu’au cours de la réunion du Bureau la semaine dernière, c’était le mot de confiance qui avait émergé dans nos discussions.
Pour être pratique Monsieur le Président, il me semble que le Comité doit maintenant adresser à l’Etat-partie, qui nous a d’ailleurs donné l’impression très claire d’encourager toute initiative visant à faire évoluer la question dans le sens positif, lui adresser une invitation explicite à prendre des mesures concrètes et démonstratives pour mettre en confiance le peuple Mirrar, et je me dis ici que les propositions de l’ICOMOS me paraissent tout à fait entrer dans le cadre de cet appel que nous devons adresser à l’Etat-partie, et je veux dire par-là la mise en place d’une carte culturelle, la mise en place d’un plan de gestion le plus précis possible, conçu et mis en oeuvre avec les populations autochtones, ceci me paraît important. Il appartient aussi à notre Comité de faire sien, s’il était possible les propositions du professeur Wilkinson, qui appelle à la continuation du travail et du dialogue scientifique en trois phases comme il les a bien explicitées.
En conclusion Monsieur le Président, le Maroc appuie l’idée que le temps n’est pas encore à l’inscription de Kakadu sur la Liste du patrimoine en péril, car il y a manifestement, comme beaucoup de mes collègues ont tenu à le souligner, l’apparition de signes encourageants de prise en compte positive de différentes remarques soulevées par le cas de Kakadu. Et donc, nous appuyons tous les délégués qui nous ont précédés et qui ont insisté sur ce point.
ANNEX XXIV
Statement by Ecuador following the adoption of the decision by the Committee
Thank you Mr Chairman.
On the instructions of my Government I have a declaration to make after the decision.
The Government of Ecuador joins the consensus reached by the Committee with a positive but critical attitude, with the hope to co-operate and contribute to the better conservation of Kakadu National Park.
Nevertheless, the Government of Ecuador would like to support and underline the importance of the several technical and scientific opinions, including those of the consulting bodies of this Committee, which assert the danger and risk of Kakadu National Park due to the mining activity. The Government of Ecuador would also like to express its concern and solidarity with the situation that is facing the indigenous population at the site.
The Government of Ecuador considers it very important to take careful consideration of the qualified opinion of the advisory bodies of the Committee as well as the willingness of the States Party to follow and accept the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee.
In that sense, the Government of Ecuador considers, following the very clear and solid opinion of the distinguished delegate from Thailand this morning, that if a case of urgent need exists, a site could be, and should be, inscribed in the World Heritage List in Danger, according to Article 11 (4) (the final sentence) of the Convention.
This position, however, doesn't mean at all that the Government of Ecuador is not recognising the efforts of Australia in order to reduce the impact of the mining activity and, on the contrary, it encourages it to continue to do so.
ANNEX XXV
Statement by Mr Mounir Bouchenaki,
Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Merci Monsieur le Président. Honorables délégués, à l’issue de cette session extraordinaire du Comité, je voudrais faire très rapidement parce que le temps est déjà très largement dépassé, au nom de tous mes collègues du Centre du patrimoine mondial, au nom du Directeur général de l’UNESCO, je voudrais remercier en premier lieu le Président Matsuura, qui depuis plus de six mois a travaillé sans relâche avec moi et avec l'ensemble de mes collègues particulièrement sur cette question.
Je voudrais également exprimer ma gratitude et celle de mes collègues pour M.Janos Jelen, Rapporteur, qui je dois l'avouer n'est pas un rapporteur habituel travaillant avec nous sans relâche il nous a apporté son concours précieux tout au long de la semaine qui vient de s'écouler.
Mes nouvelles responsabilités au Centre ont coïncidé avec l'organisation d'une session extraordinaire, immédiatement consécutive à la 23ème session du Bureau de notre Comité. Cela a été certainement pour le Centre et pour moi-même une expérience unique et en tout cas fort enrichissante.
Avec les représentants des autorités australiennes il n'y a pas eu de semaine depuis janvier de cette année sans échange de lettre, de fax, de E-mail et bien entendu de rencontres qui ont permis au Centre du jouer pleinement son rôle du Secrétariat de la Convention.
Avec nos organes consultatifs, avec 1'ICSU, avec les représentants des ONG, nous n'avons cessé de faire en sorte que le Centre serve de relais et de point de contact dans une transparence totale pour l’ensemble de ce dossier.
Pour finir je voudrais, dire tout l'intérêt que le Directeur général a accordé à cette question relative à la protection du Parc national du Kakadu. Puis-je rappeler qu'il y a deux ans, l'UNESCO a organisé, pour la première fois, en coopération avec le Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, une exposition sur l'art rupestre australien et nous avons reçu, dans une salle similaire, une délégation d'aborigènes d'Australie qui - pour la première fois - ont accepté de présenter leur vision et leur interprétation de l'art rupestre dans les sites où ils continuent à vivre. Et je peux vous assurer que nous avons beaucoup appris, lors de ce séminaire et de cette exposition au Museum d’Histoire Naturelle. Cela montre, s'il en était besoin, combien il est important de prendre en considération la protection et la diffusion des cultures traditionnelles. Les débats de la semaine dernière et d'aujourd'hui constituent certainement pour la Convention de 1972 une avancée réelle. La Convention de 1972 est entre les mains des Etats. La protection du patrimoine est entre les mains des Etats, et le Secrétariat de l’UNESCO, le Centre du patrimoine mondial continuera de faire tout ce qui est en son pouvoir, et pour vous servir, et pour faire en sorte que cette Convention puisse aider à la protection, à la préservation et à la mise en valeur de notre patrimoine commun. Je vous remercie Monsieur le Président.