AUSTRALIA’S CREDIBILITY AS PROTECTOR of the Great Barrier Reef hangs in the balance. In June 2013, the United Nations’ environmental arm UNESCO will decide whether to list the reef as a World Heritage site in danger.

A sobering assessment of the reef’s health came in October this year, when a major study revealed coral cover had been halved since the mid-1980s due to cyclones, bleaching and the crown-of-thorns starfish.

The study warned that on current trends, what’s left of the reef’s coral could halve again within the next 10 years.

Australia has until 1 February to convince UNESCO it’s making substantial progress on the reef’s environmental management.

Great Barrier Reef in danger?

Earlier this year, UNESCO put Australia on notice over its management of the reef, criticising the Queensland and federal governments for their handling of coastal development.

The UN body’s concern was sparked by gas industry developments on Curtis Island off Gladstone, and prompted UNESCO to send a delegation to Australia to check on the safeguards in place for an environmental asset of global importance.

UNESCO expressed concern at the scale of development being considered in and adjacent to the World Heritage area.

The global body warned the reef could be added to the list of World Heritage sites in danger, if Australia does not demonstrate it’s taking appropriate action to protect the area.

Such a listing would be a massive blow to Australia’s environmental credentials, its international reputation, and Queensland’s tourism industry.

Full sobering report

Bubblecar said:

AUSTRALIA’S CREDIBILITY AS PROTECTOR of the Great Barrier Reef hangs in the balance. In June 2013, the United Nations’ environmental arm UNESCO will decide whether to list the reef as a World Heritage site in danger.

A sobering assessment of the reef’s health came in October this year, when a major study revealed coral cover had been halved since the mid-1980s due to cyclones, bleaching and the crown-of-thorns starfish.

The study warned that on current trends, what’s left of the reef’s coral could halve again within the next 10 years.

Australia has until 1 February to convince UNESCO it’s making substantial progress on the reef’s environmental management.

Great Barrier Reef in danger?

Earlier this year, UNESCO put Australia on notice over its management of the reef, criticising the Queensland and federal governments for their handling of coastal development.

The UN body’s concern was sparked by gas industry developments on Curtis Island off Gladstone, and prompted UNESCO to send a delegation to Australia to check on the safeguards in place for an environmental asset of global importance.

UNESCO expressed concern at the scale of development being considered in and adjacent to the World Heritage area.

The global body warned the reef could be added to the list of World Heritage sites in danger, if Australia does not demonstrate it’s taking appropriate action to protect the area.

Such a listing would be a massive blow to Australia’s environmental credentials, its international reputation, and Queensland’s tourism industry.

Full sobering report

The feds need to stop Kweenslanders selling off their state.

UNESCO – gallant little country, but sometimes they can just mind their own business.

party_pants said:

UNESCO – gallant little country, but sometimes they can just mind their own business.

That’s not what the world will be wanting to hear.

>due to cyclones, bleaching and the crown-of-thorns starfish.

I intend to write a stern letter on the morrow, to UNESCO, and demand they do something about these pesky bloody cyclones.

Something must be done!

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

UNESCO – gallant little country, but sometimes they can just mind their own business.

That’s not what the world will be wanting to hear.

Yeah, but, how else to get coal out of Gladstone without a deep-water port?

>That’s not what the world will be wanting to hear.

It must be the right wing fascist deep within my soul, but I do solemnly believe that any organisation that starts with the capital letters UN is generally a vast waste of fucking time.

sibeen said:

It must be the right wing fascist deep within my soul, but I do solemnly believe that any organisation that starts with the capital letters UN is generally a vast waste of fucking time.

Is an ineffectual international body better than no international body at all?

>Is an ineffectual international body better than no international body at all?

In some ways, Witty, yes.

On “peace keeping missions” as an example, the UN mandated rules have resulted in anything but peace happening. Soldiers ‘forced’ by rules of engagement to stand watching whilst civilians are being massacred.

This form of ‘peace keeping mission’ is the type normally convened by the UN. Other types, that are formed by coalitions of Western nations – interventions in the former Yugoslavia, East Timor, etc, normally result in a robust intercession, that is rubber stamped by that most inept of organisations.

Not impressed, people!

I’ve now had to resort with posting inflammatory comment over on CiF. Bad form by you lot, bad form :)