Troubled waters

Making an example of Australia is counterproductive in the fight against climate change. By Sussan Ley.

Once again, the sometimes troubled waters of the Great Barrier Reef are being politicised as a lens through which the world can argue climate change.

Global climate change threatens landscapes, biodiversity, nature and people. Tropical and temperate coral reefs, and the marine ecosystems they support, are no exceptions.

Climate change is real and it is the biggest threat facing the reef; it requires global action rather than global promises.

Our vast and magnificent reef remains a natural wonder and an amazing place to visit, but it also has been through a rough few years from warming oceans, tropical cyclones and coral bleaching events in 2016, 2017 and last year.

As Environment Minister, I did not back away from the sobering assessment of “poor to very poor” when I released the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s 2019 Outlook report.

Instead, we refocused our efforts, investing in world-leading research on heat-resistant corals, on coral seeding and repair, crown-of-thorns starfish control, on water surveillance, illegal fishing controls, water-quality strategies and strategic partnerships with traditional owners.

Investment in the reef, in partnership with the Queensland government, has risen to more than $3bn under the Reef 2050 Plan, a commitment the World Heritage Committee continues to praise.

Notwithstanding the realities we face, I was stunned last week by the draft recommendation to the WHC that singled out our reef for an “in danger” listing. I say this because an “in danger” listing effectively asks a country to change or accelerate its management of the listed site to mitigate the threat. Are the WHC advisers seriously suggesting Australia can single-handedly change the emissions trajectory of the whole world?

UNESCO representatives admit they want to sound an international warning note about the dire fate that awaits all countries if global warming is not halted. Australia shouldn’t be the poster child of a wider agenda.

If the World Heritage List is to be used as a lever for global emissions policy, instead of an assessment of how sites are being managed by individual countries, then there are many more sites around the world, from reefs to rainforests and glaciers, that should face the spectre of imminent danger listing.

If Australians ceased driving our cars and using fossil fuels tomorrow, the threat of climate change to the reef and the impact of warming oceans would remain.

We need broader global action and that is why Australia is forging ahead with international partnerships on hydrogen as we lead the world in the uptake of renewable energy.

As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, we are party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the correct forum for deliberations on emissions policy. We take our responsibilities seriously. If UNESCO wants to make an example of Australia, despite all it is doing to protect its reefs, what incentive is there for those who do not have the same level of resources?

Up and down the 2300km coastline of a 400,000sq km catchment, how do we maintain, support and engage our reef communities if we tell them that, regardless of the outstanding work they do, their life blood will be classified as in danger?

It promotes a false “reef is dead” narrative that risks affecting tourism and the 65,000 jobs the reef supports.

Internationally it also erodes confidence and credibility in the WHC process, which assesses 83 natural World Heritage properties as facing very high or high threats from climate change. Under the global threat logic of this draft decision, these properties, too, should be subject to the same treatment as Australia.

When considering a property for “in danger” listing, paragraphs 183 to 189 of the operational guidelines state “the committee shall develop, as far as possible, in consultation with the State Party, a Desired State of Conservation for the removal of the property from the In Danger List”. This did not occur.

In May, the World Heritage Centre advised our officials that none of Australia’s properties would be considered for “in danger” listing this year. This decision, based on a desktop review, did not include the latest science showing coral recovery and water quality improvements or the strength of collaborations on reef restoration and adaptation, and that is why it came as a shock.

The reef is big enough to be seen from space, but you can’t see it from an office in Paris, and that is the least that was deserved in this instance.

Australia is not on its own in expressing its broader international concerns. On June 23, 11 other countries, including France, Canada, Britain, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Poland, Hungary, Spain, Thailand and Turkey, wrote to UNESCO to add their collective voice to concerns about a broader lack of transparency and proper process in the lead-up to the 44th World Heritage Committee meeting next month.

I would be pleased to invite the World Heritage Centre to conduct a site visit to the Great Barrier Reef. This is the only way to assess its true state. From there, we can work together. That is what the World Heritage Convention is meant to be about: working together to protect iconic properties, not punishing one country to draw focus to a global threat that requires global co-operation and global commitment.

Sussan Ley is the federal Environment Minister. This article was first published in The Australian.