B. Cultural and Natural Heritage
The protection of cultural and natural heritage is something that has plagued Governments with extremely tough decisions for many years. We have only recently observed ISIS destroying culturally sensitive locations in the Middle East which gave rise to significant concerns in both the scientific and legal fraternity internationally. A catalyst for the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) Actions was a decision by the Egyptian Government in the 1950s to build the Aswan High Dam, which would have flooded the valley containing the Abu Simbel temples, a treasure of ancient Egyptian civilization. In 1959, after an appeal from the governments of Egypt and Sudan, UNESCO launched an international safeguarding campaign. The Abu Simbel and Philae temples were entirely dismantled, moved to dry ground and reassembled. The campaign cost about $80 million USD, half of which was donated by some 50 countries, showing the importance of solidarity and nations' shared responsibility in conserving outstanding cultural sites. Its success led to other safeguarding campaigns, such as saving Venice and its Lagoon (Italy); the Archaeological Ruins at Moenjodaro (Pakistan), and restoring the Borobodur Temple Compounds (Indonesia). The idea of combining conservation of cultural sites with those of nature comes from the United States of America. A White House Conference in Washington, D.C., in 1965 called for a ‘World Heritage Trust’ that would stimulate international cooperation to protect ‘the world's superb natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry’. In 1968, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) developed similar proposals for its members. These proposals were presented to the 1972 United Nations conference on Human Environment in Stockholm. Consequently, UNESCO initiated, with the help of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the preparation of a draft convention on the protection of cultural heritage. Finally, in 1972, UNESCO recognised the need to identify and permanently protect the world's special areas and adopted the World Heritage Convention. Founded on the principle of international cooperation, the Convention provides for the protection of the world's cultural and natural heritage places. It came into force in 1975 after being initially ratified by 20 countries. There are currently 167 State parties to the Convention There are currently 1121 Properties protected under the Convention, 869 being Cultural; 213 being Natural; and 39 being Mixed. Of these 39 are Transboundary; and 53 have been listed as Properties In Danger. Of the four states as art of this course, Indonesia has nine (9) properties (Borobudur Temple Compounds; Komodo National Park; Prambanan Temple Compounds; Ujung Kulon National Park; Sangiran Early Man Site; Lorentz National Park; Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (In Danger); Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy; and Ombilin Coal Mining Heritage of Sawahlunto). Malaysia has four (4) properties (Gunung Mulu National Park; Kinabalu Park; Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca; and Archaeological Heritage of the Lenggong Valley), Philippines has six (6) properties (Baroque Churches of the Philippines; Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park; Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras; Historic City of Vigan; Puerto-Princesa Subterranean River National Park; and Mount Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary); and Thailand has five (5) properties (Historic City of Ayutthaya; Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns; Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries; Ban Chiang Archaeological Site; and Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex). The important Articles of the Convention include Article 1;[1] Article 2;[2] and Article 3.[3] The Convention encourages cooperation and imposes obligations on signatory State Parties. The principal obligations imposed by the Convention are spelt out in Articles 4[4] and 5[5]. As such, Article 4 is saying that a State Party shall endeavour, in so far as possible, and as appropriate for each country to protect cultural and natural heritage Article 5 outlines several obligations imposed on States Parties to ensure effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated in its territory. For example, States Parties are required to:
• adopt a general policy to give the cultural and natural heritage “a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes,” • establish effective protection services, training and research; and • take appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures.
Article 6[6] and 7[7] are also very important with respect to ensuring that a State does not do anything deliberately to damage a property and further re co-operation, respectively. By signing the Convention, each country pledges to conserve the sites situated on its territory, some of which may be recognised as World Heritage. Their preservation for future generations then becomes a responsibility shared by the international community as a whole. The implementation of the World Heritage Convention is facilitated through the Operational Guidelines, which define the procedures for new inscriptions, site protection, danger-listings, and the provision of international assistance under the World Heritage Fund. Application of the International Environmental Law re World Heritage – Example Case Law
The Tasmanian Dam Case is the most famous and influential environmental law case in Australian history. It was also a landmark in Australian constitutional law. In the case, the Commonwealth Government of Australia succeeded in stopping a large hydro-electric dam proposed to be constructed in South-West Tasmania. The seven judges of the High Court split 4:3 in deciding (amongst other matters) that the Commonwealth had power under section 51(xxix)[8] of the Australian Constitution to stop the dam based on Australia’s international obligations under the World Heritage Convention. The Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission, owned by the Tasmanian Government, proposed to construct the Franklin Dam or the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam on the Gordon River in 1978. The dam would have flooded a large section of the Franklin River in South- West Tasmania. In 1981 the area in which the dam was proposed was nominated for listing under the World Heritage Convention. The World Heritage Committee declared the area a World Heritage site in 1982. The listing of the area as a World Heritage site in itself would not have prevented the construction of the dam. To stop the dam required incorporation of the protection of the area under international law into Australian domestic law. In the midst of a growing national controversy in 1982 the Tasmanian Government passed laws allowing the dam to proceed and the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission commenced preliminary works for the construction of the dam. During the Australian federal election of 1983, the Labor Party under Bob Hawke promised to intervene and prevent construction of the dam. The Liberal Party led by Malcolm Fraser refused to use the external affairs power to intervene to stop the dam. Labor won the election and it subsequently passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth),[9] which, in conjunction with the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cth) enabled them to prohibit clearing, excavation and other activities within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. The Tasmanian Government challenged these actions and refused to halt construction of the dam. It argued that the Commonwealth Government did not have power under the Commonwealth Constitution to stop the dam. The Commonwealth Government commenced proceedings in the High Court of Australia for an injunction and declaration of the validity of its laws on 4 April 1983. The case was heard in May and June 1983 and the High Court delivered its judgment a few weeks later on 1 July 1983 (very quick for the High Court). In a 4:3 split decision the High Court largely upheld the validity of the Commonwealth laws, thereby preventing the dam proceeding. The decision had enormous significance for the extent of Commonwealth powers to make laws under the Australian Constitution, including its power to make laws to protect the environment. Following the decision, the legal debate over the extent of the “external affairs” power continued for a decade in a series of cases in the High Court in which the wide view of the external affairs power prevailed. It is now firmly established that under section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution the Australian Government has the power to enact legislation that is reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to fulfil Australia’s international legal obligations. Due to the large number of international obligations that Australia has accepted under international treaties, the external affairs power in section 51(xxix) gives the Australian Government a very wide constitutional power to make laws on many subjects, including protecting the environment. The decision continues to have immense importance in Australia. This was the first test case of Australia’s national environmental laws and a landmark in public interest environmental litigation in Australia. The case occurred only months after Australia’s national environmental laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act), commenced operation and showed that the Act provided an important safety-net protecting biodiversity in Australia beyond the protection provided by State laws. The case involved action to stop the killing of thousands of Spectacled Flying Foxes (Pteropus conspicillatus) on a lychee farm in North Queensland using a large electric grid. Dr Booth applied to the Court for an injunction restraining the respondents from, in effect, killing Spectacled Flying Foxes on or near their lychee orchard at Dallachy Creek, Kennedy in the State of Queensland. Dr Booth asked the Queensland and Commonwealth regulators to take action to stop the killing of flying foxes but they refused to take action. She then applied to the Federal Court of Australia for an injunction under the EPBC Act. The Bosworth’s have a large lychee orchard of approximately sixty hectares. Bosworth had erected fourteen aerial electric fences in a grid pattern within their lychee orchard. Each individual grid line consists of twenty horizontal wires, spaced 25cm apart, strung between poles 4.4m to 9.0m in height with the total length of the electric grids being 6.4km. The admitted purpose for which the grid is operated is to electrocute flying foxes that approach, fly between or depart from the respondents' lychee orchard. The Bosworth’s lychee orchard is in close proximity to the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area which is a listed property under the international Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and National Heritage ("the World Heritage Convention"). The applicant visited the respondents' lychee orchard on four nights during the 2000- 2001 lychee season. On each night she counted the number of dead Spectacled Flying Foxes on and under the Grid. The average number counted by her was 377 per night. Evidence was given that, because the lychee season coincides with the peak of the birth and lactation period for Spectacled Flying Foxes, the effect of electrocution would have been greater than indicated by the counts of dead bats because of foetal deaths, abortion or injured females and the death of suckling young. The Bosworth’s, who the Court assumed were in a position to give relevant evidence, did not give evidence with respect to the number, or the species, of the flying foxes killed in their lychee orchard. Indeed, they chose not to give evidence in the proceeding at all. In the circumstances the Court considered it appropriate to draw the inference that the evidence which the respondents could have given would not have been favourable to their case. Assisted by expert evidence, and taking into account the failure of the respondents to give evidence, the Court concluded that it the applicant's evidence that the counts conducted by her were representative of the number of Spectacled Flying Foxes killed in the lychee orchard on each night during the lychee season. On this basis the Court concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the number of female Spectacled Flying Foxes killed by the operation of the Grid during the 2000-2001 lychee season fell within the range of 9,900-10,800. The Court also accepted expert evidence that the total Australian population of Spectacled Flying Foxes in early November 2000 did not exceed 100,000. On that basis, the Court, again assisted by expert evidence, concluded that the probable impact of the operation of the grid, if allowed to continue on an annual basis during future lychee seasons, would have halve the Australian population of Spectacled Flying Foxes in less than five years. Such an impact would be sufficient to render the species endangered within that time frame. The Court was satisfied that the Spectacled Flying Fox contributes to the heritage values of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area in two ways. First, as part of the record of the mixing of the faunas of the Australian and Asian continental plates following their connection. Secondly, as a species which contributes to the character of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area as "one of the most significant regional ecosystems in the world" and as an important and significant natural habitat for in-situ conservation. In the circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the action of the respondents in operating the Grid is an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the world heritage values of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. That is, the Court concluded that it had a discretion to grant the injunction sought by the applicant. As the respondents did not give evidence, or otherwise place before the Court material touching on the profitability of the lychee orchard or their respective financial positions, the Court had very limited material before it capable of justifying the exercise of its discretion in favour of not granting the injunction sought. However, the Court accepted that it is probably not economically feasible for the respondents immediately to protect their entire orchard with netting. Evidence which supported the grant of the injunction was evidence of the national and international interest in the protection of the world heritage values of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. The Court concluded that an injunction restraining the operation of the Grid should be made. However, as the action of the respondents in operating the Grid constitutes a contravention of the Act only while there is no approval of the taking of the action by the respondents in operation under the Act, the injunction will be a conditional one. The person authorised by the Act to grant such an approval is the Minister for the Environment. Despite the success of the case, the future of the species is far from assured due to ongoing pressures, including climate change. In November 2018, an extreme heat wave killed more than 23,000 Spectacled Flying Foxes, a third of the estimated remaining population. This is a case of an application for leave to appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court of Queensland. The decision in the appeal is relevant as it provides important principles for sentencing of serious environmental crimes done for commercial gain, something that is relevant internationally. Between 20 December 2000 and 2 January 2001 a commercial timber-cutter, Brett Dempsey, illegally cut down and removed 25 large trees from the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area in the Upper Barron River near Herberton in North Queensland. The largest tree felled was estimated to be over 300 years old and most were over 100 years old. When sold at auction the timber yielded $45,000.[10] The offences were discovered following reports by residents of suspicious activity in the area including that vehicles had been seen and heard at unusual times. On 1 January 2001, this illegal clearing was reported to a forestry ranger, along with the registration number of a vehicle owned by Mr Dempsey. The forestry ranger discovered heavy equipment in the forest, including a skidder (which is used to push trees) and a caterpillar loader. He went to Mr Dempsey’s home to investigate further. Mr Dempsey denied any knowledge of the incident and gave false information to the officer about the whereabouts of his prime mover truck. The forestry ranger then discovered that the skidder had been removed from the forest. However, a trail of debris led to a residence at a nearby town, where the vehicle was discovered and seized. Further investigation by the forestry officer led to a nearby quarry where he discovered the 25 logs had been buried in a one (1) metre deep pit. Mr Dempsey was charged with an offence against section 56(1) of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993 (Qld) and a further count of stealing contrary to section 398(1) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (the latter offence was because the trees taken were in a national park and therefore the property of the State of Queensland). Mr Dempsey pleaded guilty on the day of the committal hearing and was later sentenced by the District Court to one year imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently. He applied for leave to appeal against the sentence but his application was refused by the Court of Appeal in R v Dempsey [2002] QCA 45. In refusing leave to appeal, Davies JA (with whom McPherson and Williams JJA agreed) stated: “It is unusual to be confronted with a case of intentionally done environmental damage for commercial gain. … This is an offence in which, in particular, the imposition of a custodial sentence may be an effective deterrent and, in my opinion, that is an important factor here. This was a serious, blatant and cynical act of environmental destruction for commercial gain. Even when one has regard to the plea of guilty I do not think that the sentence imposed for it was manifestly excessive.” Similarly, McPherson JA stated in R v Dempsey: “I agree [with the judgment of Davies JA]. I also agree specifically with Mr Justice Davies’ remarks about the custodial period and its effect in cases of this kind. An actual period of prison custody is likely to have a real deterrent effect on others minded to commit like offences over and beyond that in other cases. If offenders consider that they might succeed in escaping with nothing more than a financial penalty, it may be that they would take the risk of doing so for the profit that appears to be recoverable from acts like this.” These principles are important for sentencing serious environmental crimes done for commercial gain. The Nathan Dam Case was a major test case of environmental impact assessment under EPBC Act. The Queensland Conservation Council and WWF-Australia challenged decisions of the Federal Environment Minister involving a proposal to construct a large dam in central Queensland. The purpose of building the dam was to supply water to irrigate crops (particularly cotton) and other development in the catchment of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The issue in the case was whether the impacts of the dam could include pollution from farmers using water supplied by the dam (indirect impacts rather than the direct impacts of the dam itself). The court held that they could. The trial was heard in the Federal Court by Kiefel J (now the Chief Justice of the Australian High Court) in 2003 and an appeal was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court by Black CJ, Ryan and Finn JJ in 2004. In relation to the central question of what the phrase “all adverse impacts” meant in section 75(2) of the EPBC Act, the Full Court held that: [52] … “Impact” in the relevant sense means the influence or effect of an action: Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed, vol VII, 694-695. As the respondents submitted, the word “impact” is often used with regard to ideas, concepts and ideologies: “impact” in its ordinary meaning can readily include the “indirect” consequences of an action and may include the results of acts done by persons other than the principal actor. Expressions such as “the impact of science on society” or “the impact of drought on the economy” serve to illustrate the point. Accordingly, we take s 75(2) to require the Minister to consider each way in which a proposed action will, or is likely to, adversely influence or effect the world heritage values of a declared World Heritage property or listed migratory species. As a matter of ordinary usage that influence or effect may be direct or indirect. “Impact” in this sense is not confined to direct physical effects of the action on the matter protected by the relevant provision of Pt 3 of Ch 2 of the EPBC Act. It includes effects which are sufficiently close to the action to allow it to be said, without straining the language, that they are, or would be, the consequences of the action on the protected matter. Provided that the concept is understood and applied correctly in this way, it is a question of fact for the Environment Minister whether a particular adverse effect is an “impact” of a proposed action. However, we do not consider that the Minister did apply the correct test in answering the question of fact which had arisen in the present case. … [55] … the Environment Minister has consistently adopted an interpretation of “adverse impacts… the action … is likely to have” in s 75(2) of the EPBC Act which excludes from that concept the consequences of conduct of persons other than the proponent of the proposed action and activities which were not proposed as part of that action and did not form an inherent or inextricable part of it. [56] The Minister’s approach, on a fair reading of his reasons, was not to find, as a matter of fact, that downstream pollution by irrigators was not likely to occur as a consequence of the construction and operation of the dam. Rather, the Minister seems to have considered that such downstream pollution, whether likely or not, was incapable, on a proper interpretation of the EPBC Act, of constituting an adverse impact of the proposed action being the construction and operation of the dam. We agree with the learned primary Judge that this view was erroneous. [57] As mentioned previously, it is undesirable in the circumstances for this Full Court to attempt to paraphrase the expression in s 75(2) to which we have just drawn attention. Nor is it appropriate to essay an exhaustive definition of “adverse impacts” which an “action” within the meaning ascribed by s 523 may be likely to have. It is sufficient in this case to indicate that “all adverse impacts” includes each consequence which can reasonably be imputed as within the contemplation of the proponent of the action, whether those consequences are within the control of the proponent or not. This is an important decision for courts to consider when thinking about for example the impact of a development. Based on the above, a court is required to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a development. This can be extremely difficult for a court, particularly re cumulative impacts given the level and variations of these impacts. Courts must really rely on the science and determine what the court considers are acceptable impacts and risks to the environment. This case involved a criminal prosecution and sentencing for a serious environmental crime in the District Court of Queensland. In 2001 a grazier, Vincent Thomas Boyle, cleared a large swathe through the Main Range National Park in South East Queensland. The National Park formed part of the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves Australia (CERRA) World Heritage Area (later renamed the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area). The cleared area separated two of the grazier’s properties and the clearing allowed his cattle to move between the properties and increased the size of his pasture. The clearing was in a remote area but came to the attention of the (then) Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a result of a complaint by bush walkers. Footage of the cleared area taken from a plane by the EPA. The grazier was prosecuted on indictment for taking a natural resource in a protected area in contravention of section 62 of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld), an offence with a maximum sentence of $225,000[11] or 2 years imprisonment for an individual. The grazier pleaded guilty, which meant that there was no trial before a jury and the case proceeded directly to sentencing for the offence. As the prosecution was on indictment the sentencing occurred in the District Court of Queensland. The sentencing occurred in two stages: The few previous prosecutions for serious environmental crimes established imprisonment as being a real possibility in Boyle’s case despite his plea of guilty, that he was 76 years of age, and had no criminal history. Rehabilitation of the cleared land was practically impossible and the estimated to cost $410,000[12]. As discussed above, in The Queen v Dempsey [2002] QCA 45, the Court of Appeal refused an application to appeal against a sentence of twelve (12) months imprisonment imposed on a commercial timber- cutter who cut down and removed 25 trees, most of which were over 100 years old, from the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area contrary to section 56(1) of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993 (Qld). To avoid goal, Boyle “volunteered” to donate 480 hectares of other forested land owned by him to the Main Range National Park. Given the significant conservation values of this land, the Government accepted his offer and agreed to not press for imprisonment. The agreement did not exchange the 13 hectares of cleared land, which remained in the National Park and CERRA World Heritage Area. The sentencing judge, Hoath DCJ, made it clear that based on R v Dempsey imprisonment would have been imposed except for the fact that the grazier was in the unique position of having land of high conservation value to offer as compensation to the National Park. Boyle was first sentenced in December 2004. He was fined $10,000[13] and ordered to pay compensation amounting to $410,000 with specific provision to allow him to pay this by a transfer of 480 hectares of his land to the Queensland Government for inclusion in the National Park. However, the case did not end there. Only days after the original sentence was imposed, the EPA learnt that logging was occurring on the land offered in compensation. EPA officers investigated and found around 250 logs had been removed, old timber tracks had been re-opened and damage had been caused to parts of the land in removing the timber. The transfer of the land was proposed to occur in March 2005 so at the time of the logging it was owned by Boyle and no approval was required for the forestry operations. No offence had therefore technically been committed by the logging but it was clearly contrary to the spirit of the agreed land-swap. To halt the logging, the Minister for the Environment took the rare step of issuing a conservation order under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld). The EPA then sought to re-open the sentencing of Boyle on the basis that the sentence had been decided on a clear factual error of substance (namely that the land offered in compensation was substantially pristine). At the second sentence hearing, Hoath DCJ re- sentenced Boyle to pay a $50,000[14] fine, plus compensation of $410,000 with provision allowing this to be paid by transfer of the 480 hectares to the Queensland Government. A conviction was recorded. While the offer of a land-swap as compensation for illegal clearing is novel, the real significance of the case is that it illustrates how courts increasingly consider heavy penalties appropriate for serious environmental offences. When estimated legal fees of $10,000[15] are added, the offence will have cost in the order of $500,000.[16] This is a significant deterrent.
Footnotes [1] Article 1: For the purpose of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "cultural heritage": monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view. [2] Article 2: For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "natural heritage": natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty. [3] Article 3 - It is for each State Party to this Convention to identify and delineate the different properties situated on its territory mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 above. [4] Article 4 - Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State. It will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and co-operation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical, which it may be able to obtain. [5] Article 5
1. To ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory, each State Party to this Convention shall endeavour, in so far as possible, and as appropriate for each country: o to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes; o to set up within its territories, where such services do not exist, one or more services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage with an appropriate staff and possessing the means to discharge their functions; o to develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out such operating methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the dangers that threaten its cultural or natural heritage; o to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of this heritage; and o to foster the establishment or development of national or regional centres for training in the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage and to encourage scientific research in this field.
[6] Article 6
1. Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate. 2. The States Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, to give their help in the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 11 if the States on whose territory it is situated so request. 3. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to take any deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 situated on the territory of other States Parties to this Convention.
[7] Article 7 - For the purpose of this Convention, international protection of the world cultural and natural heritage shall be understood to mean the establishment of a system of international co- operation and assistance designed to support States Parties to the Convention in their efforts to conserve and identify that heritage. [8] Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act - Sect 51: Legislative powers of the Parliament The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxix) external affairs [9] One of the precursor Acts leading to the development of the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) [10] Approximately $33,000 USD [11] Approximately $165,000 USD [12] Approximately $300,000 USD [13] Approximately $7,300 USD [14] Approximately $36,600 USD [15] Approximately $7,300 USD [16] Approximately $366,000 USD