Kakadu National Park (Australia)
VIII.29 Kakadu National Park (Australia)
The Committee recalled that in July 1999, the third extraordinary session of the Committee examined the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park with reference to the development of a uranium mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease in an enclave of the Park.
The Committee examined the state of conservation of this mixed cultural and natural property in two parts relating to natural values and cultural values.
The Committee was informed that the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) of the International Council of Science (ICSU) and a representative of IUCN had participated in a mission to Kakadu National Park and the Jabiluka and Ranger Mineral Leases in July 2000.
The Committee noted the conclusions of the report of the ISP of ICSU presented by Professor Brian Wilkinson, the leader of the ISP (WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.20) (see Annex XI), the statement made by IUCN to the Committee (see Annex XII) and the response of the Supervising Scientist of Australia (see Annex XIII).
The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that on 28 November 2000 the State Party had advised that a new agreement had been signed between the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government to provide further regulation of mining in the Northern Territory.
The Delegate of Australia thanked the ISP of ICSU and IUCN for their constructive participation in the mission in July 2000. With reference to a concern raised about the change in ownership of the mining company Energy Resources of Australia Inc (ERA), he informed the Committee that the Minister for Environment and Heritage had written to ERA on 22 September 2000, to ensure that they meet commitments made to the World Heritage Committee in July 1999. The Minister's letter had been copied to the new parent company of ERA, Rio Tinto. ERA replied on 31 October 2000 confirming it would honour the commitments.
The Delegate of Australia indicated his full respect for the advice of the ISP and Supervising Scientist concerning monitoring. He stated that he would seek resources for early implementation of monitoring at Jabiluka as part of normal budgetary appropriation procedures.
Responding to questions relating to the ISP's recommendation to establish an Independent Science Advisory Committee for the proposed mine and mill at Jabiluka raised by the Delegate of Finland, the Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that the appointment of the chair and the majority of the voting members of the existing statutory scientific review committee will be made by learned societies in Australia such as the Australian Academy of Science and the equivalent academy for engineering and technology.
The Committee adopted the following decision concerning the protection of the natural values of Kakadu National Park: The twenty-fourth Session of the World Heritage Committee, recalling
1. The Committee decision of July 1999 that ICSU should continue the work of the ISP to assess, in co-operation with the Supervising Scientist and IUCN, the Supervising Scientist's response to the first ISP report
2. That the overall conclusion of the ISP is that the Supervising Scientist has identified all the principal risks to the natural values of the Kakadu World Heritage site that can presently be perceived to result from the approved Jabiluka Mill Alternative proposal; these risks have been analysed in detail and have been quantified with a high level of scientific certainty; such analyses have shown the risks to be very small or negligible and that the development of the approved Jabiluka Mill Alternative should not threaten the natural World Heritage values of the Kakadu National Park
3. That the ISP assessment has been made only in relation to the proposal to develop Jabiluka as described in the April 1999 Report of the Supervising Scientist to the World Heritage Committee and does not necessarily relate to any future new proposals for the Jabiluka Mill Alternative
4. That Australia has provided an assurance that all new aspects of the Jabiluka proposal would be the subject of formal assessment by the Supervising Scientist and that any significant changes would be referred to the Chair of the scientific review committee (see below) for comment
5. That the ISP has made a number of recommendations related to processes that should, in its view, be followed in the final design of the project and on the ongoing regulation and monitoring process
6. That the Australian government has accepted the intent of all of the recommendations of the ISP and the IUCN. In particular, (a) The Australian Government has decided to amend the membership and role of the existing statutory scientific review committee to meet the needs identified by the ISP in its recommendation on the establishment of an Independent Science Advisory Committee. The chair and the majority of the voting members will be appointed following selection by the most appropriate body representing Australian scientists and engineers, possibly the Australian Academy of Science. This Committee will be able to report openly, independently and without restriction (b) The supervisory role of the Supervising Scientist has been strengthened through the Agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments dated 17 November 2000
7. That Australia, noting that the natural values of the lease and surrounding areas have been extensively investigated and documented through the environmental assessment process for Jabiluka, has undertaken to extend this work in the manner recommended by the ISP and the IUCN.
The World Heritage Committee:
8. Welcomes the work of the ISP and the IUCN and the response of the Australian Government to their recommendations
9. Requests that the Australian Government allocate resources as soon as possible to enable the implementation of the landscape and ecosystem analysis and monitoring program recommended by the ISP and IUCN and the appointment of a water resource specialist to the Office of the Supervising Scientist
10. In the light of the above, concludes that the currently approved proposal for the mine and mill at Jabiluka does not threaten the health of people or the biological and ecological systems of Kakadu National Park that the 1998 Mission believed to be at risk.
The Director of the World Heritage Centre referred the Committee to the text of the recommendation of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau. Since then, the Committee had been informed that he had received a letter dated 28 November 2000 from Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, informing him that discussions between the Mirrar and the Australian Government in relation to a new process regarding cultural heritage protection (as outlined in the Bureau recommendation) had broken down. (See Annex XIV).
The Representative of ICOMOS reflected that when ICOMOS had evaluated the Phase I and Phase 2 nominations of Kakadu, for inclusion on the World Heritage List, the cultural values had been assessed in relation to the area's archaeology and rock art. It had only been in the evaluation of Phase 3 of the nomination that the living cultural traditions were properly considered.
The Representative of ICOMOS stressed that for any cultural heritage impact assessment there must be cultural mapping. He acknowledged the existence of an impasse between the Mirrar Traditional Owners and the Australian government and suggested that the same process as had been used for the review of scientific issues by the ISP of ICSU should be used for resolving the issue of cultural mapping. He suggested the establishment of an independent international group to consult with the Mirrar and the Australian government to find a way forward.
The Delegate of Thailand cautioned against intervening in domestic affairs by establishing an independent international group to deal with cultural issues at Jabiluka.
The Delegate of Hungary trusted that a solution could be found and made reference to the outstanding importance of the living cultural heritage of Kakadu National Park and expressed his concern with the current situation reported to the Committee.
The Delegate of Australia expressed his concern about the breakdown in dialogue between the Mirrar Traditional Owners and the Australian government. He however saw it as "an interruption" and "not termination" of the dialogue process. He informed the Committee that the Minister for Environment and Heritage was ready to recommence talks at any time. Explaining what could have been the cause of the interruption, he referred to the letter from Yvonne Margarula that referred to concern to allegations that financial incentives had been offered to the Mirrar People (see Annex XIV). He stressed that indeed at no time had such an offer been made by the Australian negotiators.
The Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that he considered that the only commitment made by the Australian government to the Committee in July 1999 that had not been fully met was the development of a cultural heritage management plan and cultural mapping. He recalled that the Jabiluka mine was on stand-by and in environmental management mode and that commercial production would not take place for a considerable time reflecting the commitment to sequential mines. He stated that the mining company was legally obliged to provide a Cultural Heritage Management Plan and that the Australian government was concerned that a correct process for its preparation be found as soon as possible through a process of domestic negotiation.
The Delegate of South Africa expressed her agreement with the independent review process proposed by ICOMOS and suggested use of a facilitator. She appealed to the Australian government to agree to a process involving an outside facilitator noting that Kakadu is a site of value to all humankind not just Australia.
The Delegate of Finland suggested that a similar method of working to that which had been used to address scientific issues at Kakadu should be used to ensure progress on cultural heritage issues.
The Delegate of Canada acknowledged the importance of the living cultural values of Kakadu and expressed the wish of Committee members to see their protection. If an agreement between the Mirrar and the State Party was not possible, then involvement of a third party should be considered.
The Observer of Papua New Guinea stressed the importance of recognizing living cultural heritage values right at the beginning of the process of World Heritage identification and protection.
ICCROM commented that while they had strongly supported the recommendation proposed by the twentyfourth session of the Bureau, particularly given its emphasis on process, they were concerned that "process" was being interpreted in different ways by different delegates, as "mediated dialogue" by South Africa, and as "study" or "scientific reference group" by ICOMOS and others. ICCROM felt that clarification of the implications of reference to process was necessary for the consolidated recommendation being drafted to be fully effective in assisting the State Party.
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, was invited to address the Committee. She spoke about her country (her traditional lands) and of the sacred sites and "dangerous sites" (djang) at Jabiluka. She said that her country was "in danger" because the Government of Australia said that they were lying when they said the site was sacred and the Mirrar appealed for help from the World Heritage Committee. The Delegate of Australia said that the Minister for Environment and Heritage stressed that he did not believe the Mirrar were acting dishonestly.
The Committee adopted the following decision on the protection of cultural values at Kakadu National Park:
11. Noted the concern of the Traditional Owners that serious impacts on the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka still exist.
12. Considered that the Committee's previous decision regarding cultural mapping and the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka cannot be implemented at this stage and that an approach founded on partnership between all parties concerned is required to ensure the protection of the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park.
13. Recalled that at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in Paris (2000) ICOMOS indicated its willingness to "participate in activities leading towards resolving cultural heritage issues pertaining to the management of Kakadu National Park".
14. Noted that the State Party is prepared to consider a new process to address any outstanding issues relating to cultural values. Any new process would be facilitated by the State Party, in consultation with Traditional Owners and other domestic stakeholders.
15. Expressed disappointment about the current interruption in dialogue between the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners.
16. Reaffirmed the importance of the living cultural heritage of Kakadu National Park.
17. Encouraged the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners to resume and continue their efforts in a constructive dialogue, in order to develop together a process leading towards the protection of Kakadu's cultural heritage.
18. In the event that the interruption in the dialogue continues, requested that the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners consider a facilitated dialogue to achieve an agreed-upon process by the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001.