Great Barrier Reef
Factors affecting the property in 1986*
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure
- Mining
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Road construction
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1986
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 1986**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1986
A proposal for revocation of 390 ha of Lindeman Island for expansion of a holiday resort was tabled in the Queensland Legislative Assembly on 27 February 1986. Public interest in this action was high and on 12 March the proposal was withdrawn.
Another potential threat from a proposed silica mine at Shelburne Bay has been the subject of an official IUCN enquiry.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1986
10 COM IX.A.14-15
Monitoring of the State of Conservation of the World Heritage Natural Properties
14. As in previous years, IUCN reported on the conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. An information document (CC-86/CONF.003/INF.4) prepared by IUCN presented up-to-date information on some 16 natural properties.
15. The Committee was glad to learn of improvements or of a stabilisation in the previously deteriorating situation of certain properties, notably Djoudj National Park (Senegal), Ngorongoro Conservation area (Tanzania) and Garamba National Park (Zaire) (all inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger). Improvements were also noted for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia), Pirin National Park (Bulgaria), Manas Tiger Reserve (India), Niokolo Koba National Park (Senegal) and Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles). The Committee requested IUCN to keep it informed of the conservation status of Iguazu and Los Glaciares National Parks (Argentina), Mt. Nimba (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) and Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia).
No draft decision proposed
AustraliaExports
* :
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”).
** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.
