Barrier Reef by Katharina Neumann [Page

By Katharina Neumann, Deputy Editor, SS Law and Political Science

Shimmering schools of fish, vibrant, colourful corals, and peacefully floating turtles – I remember my first time snorkelling at the Great Barrier Reef as if it was yesterday. Sadly, a few kilometres south of this underwater wonderland, a very different picture transpired. There were no turtles, only single fish, and most disturbingly, the corals which gave the other spot its sense of magic were bleached and lifeless. - This was my experience in 2018.

Today, three years later, more than half of the Great Barrier Reef looks like the latter described wasteland. With rising sea temperatures and increased levels of ocean acidification, climate change has left its mark on the vibrant underwater paradise, as evidenced by the increased incidence of mass coral bleaching. As the rate of global warming is forecasted to increase, conservationists fear that the Reef’s condition will reach an irreversible tipping point after which its biodiversity will fail to recover from the mass mortality of corals. Considering these developments, the recent United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) decision to not classify the Great Barrier Reef as an endangered World Heritage Site is regrettable. Unfortunately, it is an illustration of the persistent ineffectiveness of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention as an international legal tool, which leaves our world’s cultural and natural heritage with little legal protection.

The World Heritage Convention 1972, a treaty ratified by 194 countries, is regarded as one of the most significant international legal tools supporting the conservation of the world’s cultural and natural heritage. It connects in a single document the concepts of nature conservation and the preservation of cultural properties, recognising the fundamental need to protect the balance between the two. The Convention was drafted to encourage the identification and preservation of areas with cultural and natural heritage around the world which are of outstanding value to humanity. State Parties pledge to identify potential sites and to protect and preserve their national heritage, expressing a shared commitment to preserve the world’s natural and cultural legacy for future generations. The Convention also empowers the World Heritage Committee, which is composed of 21 State Parties, to inscribe a World Heritage Property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The condition of such a property must correspond with at least one of the criteria set out in paragraphs 179 and 180 of the World Heritage Convention Operational Guidelines, which include among others “a severe deterioration of the natural beauty.” Overall, the List of World Heritage in Danger is designed to inform the international community of the conditions which threaten the very characteristics for which a property was included in the World Heritage List, and to encourage corrective action.

In the most recent controversy concerning the Great Barrier Reef, the Committee notified Australia that due to its deteriorating composition, it sought to classify the Reef as endangered. Most importantly, UNESCO accused Australia of failing to meet key water quality and land management targets, while also criticising the country’s conservative government for its poor climate efforts. UNESCO’s warning was based on a report

submitted by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, which urgently recommended the inscription of the Reef to the list of World Heritage in Danger, which includes Everglades National Park, the Historic Centre of Vienna and fifty-one other properties. However, rather than relying on the rigorous scientific document by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre with inputs from Australia’s own Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and official government reports on water quality, the Australian government protested that the decision was flawed and a result of China’s current chairmanship of the Committee. To prevent the inscription, which would most certainly weaken post-pandemic tourism and limit the $6.4 billion which the Reef contributes to the Australian economy per year, Australia’s government engaged in several concerted lobbying efforts, including a trip of Environment Minister Sussan Ley to Paris to personally convince the UNESCO committee and an invitation which was extended to twelve foreign ambassadors to the Reef for a snorkelling trip. Eventually, despite climate-change-spurred damage to the ecosystem, UNESCO did not downgrade the Great Barrier Reef in its recent World Heritage Committee session in Fuzhou.

This decision showcases several foundational problems of UNESCO which are indicative of its ineffectiveness. First, it is evident that the organisation is becoming progressively more politicised. In the late 1980s, sites such as the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in the United Republic of Tanzania, which was listed as endangered due to the overall deterioration attributable to a general lack of management, could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger as a result of continuous monitoring and technical cooperation projects. However, such collective efforts are almost unimaginable in the current political climate, as State Party interests have recently become more fragmented and adversarial. This makes the process of identifying and protecting valuable sites a political decision, thereby undermining the aims of the Convention. The underlying issue is that UNESCO is a technical agency, and not a funding organisation such as the UN Development Programme. Rather, UNESCO’s funding is dependent on contributions from State Parties. As a result, sensitive political issues may lead states to withhold their funding or trigger a withdrawal from the organisation, as illustrated by the US withdrawal following a string of UNESCO decisions that the US perceived to be biased against Israel. This increasing politicisation is also evident from the Great Barrier Reef case: instead of heeding the scientific consensus underlying the Committee decision, it is evident that Australia manipulated the process to play power politics with China. Overall, it is evident that the focus of State Parties has shifted from adhering to the Convention’s vision, towards lobbying and promoting their own interests.

Furthermore, the organisational structure of UNESCO brings into question the effectiveness of the Convention. The Committee has significant decision-making power and as a result, the possibility to challenge its independence or authority is limited. This increases the likelihood that the Committee will favour some projects over others for ideological, political, or economic reasons.

For example, the Committee has made ambiguous choices regarding the World Heritage in Danger List in the past. The removal of the Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany from the programme serves as an excellent example. The Committee tried to stop the construction of a bridge across a part of the valley as it would damage its integrity. However, Germany continued to build the bridge, arguing that it was necessary to alleviate traffic congestion, which eventually led to the removal of the site. As the only other site ever removed from the World Heritage Register at this point was the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, the decision in Germany was highly criticised as it essentially equated the building of a bridge with Oman’s decision to reduce the wildlife sanctuary by 90 per cent after oil had been found at the site, resulting in a steep decline of the population of Arabian oryx. Many argued that the decision regarding the Elbe Valley was thus disproportionate.

Ultimately, the decision on the Great Barrier Reef is merely an example of the organisational deficiencies of UNESCO. Essentially, the goals embedded in the text of the World Heritage Convention cannot be realised in the current political climate, due to the inadequacy of the organisation. This indicates an urgent need for reform which must provide UNESCO with mechanisms to affect real change when governments do not comply with the basic premises of preservation. The status of the organisation is regrettable especially in light of climate change, and UNESCO’s mandate to pay special attention to new global threats that may affect the natural and cultural heritage is of crucial importance. Global warming will be, and in many parts of the world already is, a threat to both the cultural and natural treasures of our planet. If we want to save the Great Barrier Reef and many other extraordinary sites, we need to ensure that UNESCO lives up to its mandate.