State of Conservation
Great Barrier Reef
Factors affecting the property in 2011*
- Changes to oceanic waters
- Ground water pollution
- Marine transport infrastructure
- Non-renewable energy facilities
- Other climate change impacts
- Surface water pollution
- Temperature change
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) costal development
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2011
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2011**
1998: State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (1998, D. R. Wachenfield, J. K. Oliver, J. I. Morrissey)
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2011
While no State Party report was requested by the World Heritage Committee for this property, the recent approval of a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Processing Plant on Curtis Island within the property on 22 October 2010 led the World Heritage Centre and IUCN to request that this issue be considered by the Committee at its 35th session due to the potential impacts of this proposal on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). The World Heritage Centre requested additional information on this issue in a letter dated 17 November 2010. The State Party provided additional information on the approval of an LNG plant within the property and recent extreme weather events in letters dated 17 December 2010 and 21 February 2011. The State Party also provided additional information on the management and protection of the property and the issues noted above in a letter dated 8 April 2011.
a) Development of a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Processing Plant on Curtis Island
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN received reports in August 2009 concerning proposals for the development of an LNG processing plant on the south extremity of Curtis Island. The area is within the property, and was zoned as “rural”. In 2008, the local government re-zoned the lands in question as “Industry Precinct”. Curtis Island is located approximately 3-5km from major industrial port facilities of Gladstone (which lie outside, but immediately adjacent to the property). The information provided by the State Party acknowledges that these proposals, if they were to proceed, could have a significant impact on the property, and would therefore be subject to rigorous environmental assessments in line with the State Party’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (EPBC). The State Party had previously expressed its intention to inform the World Heritage Committee of the results of this Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Curtis Island LNG plant was approved by the federal government on 22 October 2010 after the completion of the EIA without the opportunity for the World Heritage Committee to first consider its results.
The State Party, in its letter of 17 December 2010, explains that the approval of the proposed development of LNG plant on Curtis Island, granted to Santos Limited and PETRONAS Australia Pty Limited, is subject to a number of conditions to mitigate the project’s likely environmental impacts. Besides strict environmental safeguard measures, these conditions also require Santos and PETRONAS to offset direct impacts from the LNG plant by securing the long-term conservation of an area of at least five times the size of the plant, preferably located within the property. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN notes that conserving an area that is already part of the property does not compensate for the potential negative impacts on the property. They note that the executive summary of the online Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provided by the State Party appears to make contradictory statements. On the one hand, it concludes that the proposed LNG plant is not expected to have significant negative effects on the area’s heritage values, but on the other hand, it also concludes that there will be direct impacts on subtidal soft bottom communities, saltpan, saltmarsh, seagrass, mangrove and intertidal habitats, as well as potential direct and indirect impacts on whales, dolphins, turtles and dugong.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that there is a link between these values and the OUV of the property. They therefore consider that the LNG plant could represent a clear potential threat to the property’s OUV, due to its expected direct impacts on coastal and marine habitats and species, as well as the potential direct and indirect impacts from increased maritime traffic. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN therefore strongly recommend that the development of the LNG plant be halted until the World Heritage Committee has had the opportunity to consider the EIA and inform the State Party on its conclusions. The complete EIA consists of almost 13,500 pages, and is currently being reviewed by IUCN.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall the Committee’s position that exploration and development of oil and gas should not take place within World Heritage properties, as recognised in leading industry commitments to not explore for, or develop, oil and gas resources in natural World Heritage properties.
b) Extreme climatic events
From late December 2010 to early February 2011, the state of Queensland experienced extreme weather, which resulted in large-scale flooding. In the supplementary information it provided on 21 February 2011, the State Party reported that flood water from Fitzroy River spread into the property to a distance of 65 km off-shore. The flood plume contains freshwater and contaminants, all of which can have detrimental effects on important marine habitats, which contribute to the property’s OUV. The State Party also reported that the category 5 tropical cyclone Yasi, which hit the coast of Queensland in February 2011, caused destruction of corals, as well as having impacted other coastal ecosystems in approximately thirteen percent of the property. Indirect impacts on green turtles and dugongs due to the loss of seagrass are also likely. The State Party is in the process of assessing the damage in the affected areas, but notes that the full extent of this damage will not be known for some time. The State Party expresses its commitment to developing and implementing strategies to improve the property’s resilience and its ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan and the Climate Change Action Plan. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recommend that options be explored for the development and implementation of a restoration programme to support the recovery of damaged marine and coastal habitats, and note that the restoration of the habitats is likely to take a number of years.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2011
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall th World Heritage Committee’s clear position in relation to oil and gas exploration and exploitation, that these activities are incompatible with World Heritage status. They consider that the Liquefied Natural Gas facility approved on Curtis Island within the property could represent a clear potential danger to the property’s OUV and integrity, as defined in paragraph 180(b)(ii) of the Operational Guidelines. Therefore, they strongly recommend the immediate halting of the development of the LNG plant until the World Heritage Committee considers this issue at its 36th session. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN also note the impacts of recent large-scale flooding and Cyclone Yasi on the property, and consider that the World Heritage Committee should welcome the State Party’s commitment to improve the property’s resilience and its ability to adapt to climate change following these extreme weather events.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2011
35 COM 7B.10
Great Barrier Reef (Australia) (N 154)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7B.Add,
2. Notes with extreme concern the approval of Liquefied Natural Gas processing and port facilities on Curtis Island within the property;
3. Urges the State Party to undertake a comprehensive strategic assessment of the entire property, identifying planned and potential future development that could impact the Outstanding Universal Value to enable a long-term plan for sustainable development that will protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;
4. Regrets that the State Party did not inform the Committee as per paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines and requests the State Party to report, in accordance with paragraph 172, its intention to undertake or to authorize any new development that may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property before making decisions that would be difficult to reverse;
5. Also requests the State Party to invite a World Heritage Centre / IUCN reactive monitoring mission as soon as possible to consider the state of conservation of the property as a whole, and to contribute to the strategic assessment process;
6. Welcomes the State Party's commitment to improve the property's resilience and its ability to adapt to climate change and other forms of environmental degradation following the extreme weather events;
7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2012, a report on the course of action taken in response to this decision for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.
Draft Decision: 35 COM 7B.9
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7B.Add,
2. Notes with concern the approval of a Liquefied Natural Gas plant on Curtis Island within the property, which could represent a potential danger to the property’s Outstanding Universal Value and integrity as defined in Paragraph 180(b)(ii) of the Operational Guidelines, and recalls its position that oil and gas exploration and exploitation are incompatible with World Heritage status, in line with leading industry commitments to not develop oil and gas resources in World Heritage properties;
3. Urges the State Party to halt the development of Liquefied Natural Gas plant within the property, until the results of the proposal’s Environmental Impact Assessment are reviewed at its 36th session in 2012, and encourages the State Party to consider identifying alternative locations for these facilities outside the property;
4. Welcomes the State Party’s commitment to improve the property’s resilience and its ability to adapt to climate change following the extreme weather events that have adversely affected its Outstanding Universal Value;
5. Requests the State Party to report to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2012, on the course of action taken in response to this decision, and on the recovery of areas damaged by recent extreme weather events, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).