Report on a proposal to nominate the North West Cape— Ningaloo Reef area for inscription on the World Heritage List

World Heritage Consultative Committee Final Report 18 October 2004 This ‘Report on a proposal to nominate the North West Cape — Ningaloo Reef area for inscription on the World Heritage List’ by the World Heritage Consultative Committee has been published by the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management.

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the World Heritage Consultative Committee and do not necessarily reflect those of the WA Government, the Minister for the Environment or the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

For bibliographic purposes this report should be cited as:

World Heritage Consultative Committee (2005). Report on a proposal to nominate the North West Cape — Ningaloo Reef area for inscription on the World Heritage List. World Heritage Consultative Committee Final Report 18 October 2004. Government of Western Australia.

This report is available at http://www.naturebase.net.

Report on a Proposal to Nominate the North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef Area for Inscription on the World Heritage List

World Heritage Consultative Committee

Final Report

18 October 2004

World Heritage Consultative Committee Ningaloo and Cape Range World Heritage Area

Nomination Your ref: Our ref: Enquiries: Angas Hopkins Phone: 9442 0318 Fax: 9386 2444 Email: [email protected]

HON DR JUDY EDWARDS MLA MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

18 October 2004

Dear Minister NINGALOO – CAPE RANGE WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION We have pleasure in providing you with the attached report which outlines a way for the Government to progress the Policy commitments to nominate North West Cape and the Ningaloo Marine Park for inscription on the World Heritage List. The World Heritage Consultative Committee has communicated with all of the major stakeholders identified in our Terms of Reference and a range of additional people and groups, including residents and ratepayers of the Shire of Exmouth. The process has been exhaustive for the time available. A significant number of issues remain to be resolved, and we recommend that arrangements be made for on-going consultations embedded within a comprehensive communication strategy through to the time when integrated management arrangements are put in place. At the beginning of the consultation process, the Consultative Committee advised stakeholders of its intention to report the stakeholders’ comments in detail, to reassure them that their input would be taken seriously. We believe we have reported fairly and comprehensively here and hope that, on the basis of reading this report, relevant Government Ministers will give this kind of feedback to stakeholders with whom they come in contact. Reporting in detail is also designed to ensure that the Government has access to all the relevant information when making a decision on boundaries and other issues for the World Heritage nomination. The Consultative Committee has also provided a commentary on some of the views to place

Postal Address: C/o Department of Conservation and Land Management Corporate Headquarters Cnr Hackett Drive & Australia II Drive, Crawley WA 6009 2 them in context for the decisions that the Government might make about this World Heritage nomination. We note that some of the claims about the area have yet to be substantiated, while other views misrepresent the science or the policy positions of Government or its agencies. The Consultative Committee has evaluated the scientific and technical information on the area of interest with the assistance of Dr Warren Nicholls, the consultant retained by the Western Australian Government to prepare the draft nomination. This has given us a high degree of confidence in the advice on boundary options we are providing in this report. We have attempted to evaluate the likely response of the stakeholders to each boundary option, based on the comments and written submissions they provided to us. In this Report, the Consultative Committee identifies an optimal boundary for the proposed World Heritage property – this preferred boundary is designed primarily on the basis of the identified World Heritage values, but also with a view to minimise conflicts with stakeholders. The Consultative Committee has proposed management arrangements designed to minimise these conflicts further. However, the Consultative Committee recognises that the optimal boundary will not suit some of the stakeholders. For this reason, the Consultative Committee has also provided three compromise boundary options; each of these is designed to reduce conflict while still maintaining a degree of credibility of the nomination. In devising these compromise positions, the Consultative Committee notes that some of the stakeholders will not be satisfied still; for example, some stakeholders are opposed to, or do not support, even the smallest nomination, a position that appears to be more about ideology and/or immediate self interest than the future of the region and its community. The Consultative Committee has also made comment on two key issues associated with the management of any future World Heritage Property that includes North West Cape and the Ningaloo Marine Park. Both these issues have arisen in discussions with the stakeholders and members of the local communities. Firstly, a World Heritage Property must be managed to a high standard to ensure that the values leading to its identification as a place of outstanding universal value are protected and presented appropriately, acknowledging the international interest it will attract. Effective management of the proposed North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef World Heritage Property will require a substantial investment of resources; we recommend that this commitment be made by Government and widely publicised at the earliest possible opportunity, well before the World Heritage Committee’s assessment process begins. Secondly, governance and management arrangements will require attention before the nomination proceeds; the Consultative Committee has identified a range of problems with the arrangements for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property that should be avoided, and a pressing need for improved integration and coordination amongst Government agencies involved in planning and management in the North West Cape - Ningaloo Reef area. The Consultative Committee has put forward a model for governance of the proposed North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef World Heritage Property which attempts to solve the identified problems with the Shark Bay World Heritage Property model.

Postal Address: C/o Department of Conservation and Land Management Corporate Headquarters Cnr Hackett Drive & Australia II Drive, Crawley WA 6009 3 The Consultative Committee notes that the final nomination must be submitted by the Commonwealth Government before 1 February 2005 if the area is to be considered by the World Heritage Committee in mid-2006. Members of the Committee are available to continue working with stakeholders and the community up to the time of lodgement to address the as-yet unresolved issues, if required.

Postal Address: C/o Department of Conservation and Land Management Corporate Headquarters Cnr Hackett Drive & Australia II Drive, Crawley WA 6009 4 Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... 7 1. Introduction ...... 11 2. The Approach Adopted...... 15 3. The Study Area...... 17 4. Assessment Against World Heritage Criteria ...... 34 Criterion (i) Geoevolutionary history...... 36 Criterion (ii) Biological evolution...... 36 Criterion (iv) Biological diversity...... 37 5. Stakeholder Consultation ...... 43 The consultation process...... 44 Stakeholders consulted...... 45 Stakeholder’s comments ...... 46 6. Committee’s Responses to the Consultation Processes and the Views Expressed...... 50 The Shark Bay factor ...... 51 Reference to the State Lime Strategy...... 55 Lake MacLeod ...... 56 Hydrocarbon prospectivity of the Cape Range – Rough Range – Giralia Area ...... 57 Hydrocarbon prospectivity of Exmouth Gulf and the Muirons ...... 58 Prospectivity for minerals and gemstones including diamonds...... 59 EPA’s Advice on Petroleum Exploration and Production in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property...... 59 The mangroves on the east coast of Exmouth Gulf are only regionally significant ...... 60 Will create another layer bureaucracy ...... 61 Name of the World Heritage Property ...... 61 Perceptions...... 62 Buffer zones ...... 63 Nathan Dam Case ...... 64 Exmouth Gulf ...... 65 Lack of evidence of World Heritage values on pastoral leases ...... 65 Pastoralists at Shark Bay driven off the land ...... 66 7. Consideration of Boundary Options...... 67 Option 1...... 68 Option 2...... 70 Option 3...... 73 Option 4...... 76 Option 5...... 79 Option 6...... 82 Option 7...... 85 Option 8...... 88

5 Option 9...... 91 Option 10...... 94 Option 11...... 97 Option 12...... 100 Excisions...... 103 8. A preferred boundary for the proposed World Heritage Property ...... 104 Compromise boundary options ...... 109 9. Implications for funding and management ...... 116 10. Conclusions ...... 122 Acknowledgements...... 122 11. References...... 123 Attachment 1. World Heritage Criteria and Requirements under Conditions of Integrity ...... 126 Attachment 2. Copy of the paper with background information provided to stakeholders during the consultation process...... 129 Attachment 3. Report on Stakeholder comment on the proposed nomination143 Resources Sector...... 144 Environmental Sector ...... 158 Other Government agencies ...... 164 Local Government and Community ...... 166 Indigenous Organisations and Communities...... 173 Attachment 4. Summary of written submissions on the proposed World Heritage nomination ...... 175 Resources Sector...... 175 Environmental Sector ...... 181 Local Government & Community...... 183 Indigenous Organisations ...... 184 Attachment 5. Recommendations on future management of World Heritage Properties, extracted from the Report prepared by Ms Sarah Lukeman for the Gascoyne Development Commission...... 185 Attachment 6. List of submittors on the proposed North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef World Heritage nomination ...... 189

6 Executive Summary The present Western Australian Government came into office in February 2001 with a wide range of Policy commitments. Several of these commitments proposed that North West Cape and the Ningaloo Marine Park should be nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List. The importance of community support for any nomination was also recognised. The North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef area rose to public attention during the years 2000 through to 2003 because of controversy about a major development proposal. However, the area had been the focus of extensive scientific research and international scientific interest for more than 20 years because of the significant biological and geomorphological values found there. A preliminary assessment of these values against World Heritage criteria in 1999 by the Australian Conservation Foundation indicated that the area was a strong candidate for inscription. In order to progress the nomination, the Government resolved, in December 2003, to establish a committee to review the scientific and technical information about the area in relation to the World Heritage criteria, to consult with major stakeholders and report on the outcomes of those consultations, and to recommend a suitable boundary for the proposed World Heritage Property. The World Heritage Consultative Committee began its work on 22 June 2004. The Consultative Committee has now met with all but two of the major stakeholders identified in its Terms of Reference, and a range of additional people and groups. The Consultative Committee has travelled to Exmouth and Carnarvon twice – on the first occasion, the Committee met with both Shire Councils, the Coral Bay Progress Association and a range of other organisations. The second trip was in response to an invitation from the Shire of Exmouth to present information to residents and ratepayers of the Shire: this meeting was attended by about 150 people including representatives from the Shire of Shark Bay. The Consultative Committee has received reports that many supporters of World Heritage listing in the Exmouth community felt intimidated and chose not to attend the meeting. The Consultative Committee has received written submissions from a wide range of stakeholders; these are appended in full. Further, a number of stakeholders requested follow-up meetings with the Committee; all requests have been met. Up to the time of this report, the Consultative Committee has had a total of 43 meetings with stakeholders plus the meeting of residents and ratepayers organised by the Shire of Exmouth. The reporting of stakeholder views in this report is both comprehensive and fair. The detailed notes from meetings with stakeholders are included in Attachments 3; these and the written submissions are summarised in the body of the report. The written submissions are attached in full, and written into a table to allow easy reference to the individual stakeholders’ views in Attachment 4. A number of points raised in the meetings or in written submissions were not substantiated, or appear to be based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of facts. The Consultative Committee has attempted to respond to these comments to ensure that the Government has access to all the relevant facts when making the final decision on the nomination.

7 As a result of the consultation process, and the process of preparing the written summary of stakeholders’ comments, members of the Committee believe they now have a good understanding of the views and concerns of all the stakeholders and the basis for those. This understanding of stakeholder views and concerns has been used in the assessment of boundary options and in defining the optional boundary. In addition, some issues raised by stakeholders emerge in the discussion of implications of World Heritage listing for funding and management. In summary, there appears to be general support for a World Heritage nomination, with well over half the stakeholders consulted being positive about the proposal. The resources sector stakeholders are varied in their responses, and range from support (eg WA Fishing Industry Council) through to a position that is effectively complete opposition (eg Victoria Petroleum, Sun Resources). The general view of individual stakeholders within this sector is that they respect the right of the Government to nominate an area for the World Heritage List but that they are anxious to minimise any impact, real or perceived, on their sphere of interest or activity. Many individuals in communities from Carnarvon through to Exmouth are apprehensive, fearing an adverse impact on their business or lifestyle – this fear is partly attributable to what we refer to as the ‘Shark Bay Factor’ and a general lack of access to factual information on the potential benefits and disbenefits of World Heritage listing. The Shire of Exmouth, responding to the sentiment of residents and ratepayers, has indicated support for a nomination that includes only the existing conservation estate, and the need for more information and time for consultation and consideration of the proposal. Since its first meeting, this Committee has identified an urgent need for a comprehensive and on-going communication process to inform the community of the significant natural heritage values of the area and the potential implications of World Heritage listing. The Committee believes that the communication strategy is imperative to a successful nomination. Support for the nomination comes from the coalition of conservation interests under the banner of the Conservation Council of WA – they have indicated support for a more inclusive nomination. The WA Museum, Department of Indigenous Affairs, Heritage Council of WA, the Environmental Protection Authority, the Conservation Commission of WA, the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority, Tourism WA, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, academics, and business interests such as the Carnarvon Chamber of Commerce support the proposed nomination, sometimes conditionally. Some options for appeasing the concerns of specific stakeholders are provided for consideration by Government. The Consultative Committee has reviewed the scientific and technical information on the values of the North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef area in relation to the World Heritage criteria. The scientific evidence establishes that the area should be listed under each of the four criteria, in summary geoevolutionary history, biological evolution, superlative beauty and biological diversity. The Committee has considered a number of boundary options for the proposed nomination, weighing up the information on values against the criteria in the light of stakeholders’ comments. As a result of this detailed and comprehensive process, the Committee has identified an optimal boundary for the proposed World Heritage Property. The Committee has also proposed a number of approaches to dealing with the residual issues of concern

8 to stakeholders. However, the Committee is cognisant of the fact that this optimal boundary does not suit a number of major stakeholders. In recognition of this fact, the Committee has also identified three compromise boundary options for consideration by Government. The potential risks to a successful nomination associated with each compromise option are also identified. The World Heritage Consultative Committee recommends that consideration be given in the first instance to the boundary option shown on Figure 24. The Consultative Committee recommends further that consideration also be given to the arrangements that have been proposed for dealing with residual issues of concern to stakeholders. A key message that has emerged from the consultation processes, and from the experiences at Shark Bay, is the absolute necessity for there to be adequate resourcing for building the scientific knowledge and understanding to underpin sound management, and for effective management of the property. This is a matter for both State and Commonwealth Governments; however, it is notable that the Commonwealth Government’s investment in the management of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property has fallen in the last few years to around $125,000 pa. Advice to the Consultative Committee is that an additional investment of around $2.5 million pa is required for research and management at Shark Bay; it is likely that a similar quantum of additional funding annually will be required for the proposed Cape Range – Ningaloo World Heritage Property. Such is the importance of the resourcing issue for the proposed World Heritage nomination of the North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef area that members of the Consultative Committee believe the nomination should not proceed without a significant commitment of resources up-front. The World Heritage Consultative Committee recommends that the Government gives a clear commitment to adequate resourcing of the proposed World Heritage property at the same time as making a decision to proceed with the nomination. Issues of governance and management of the proposed World Heritage property were also raised frequently during the consultation process. It is critical for the success of the nomination that these issues be resolved at the earliest possible time. Information available to the Consultative Committee suggests strongly that the governance arrangements for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property are dysfunctional. The Ministerial Council has meet only once in the past four years, and so work of the Community Consultative Committee and the Scientific Advisory Committee has limited effect. A model for an alternative governance structure is suggested. Management arrangements for the new World Heritage property must be designed to achieve an improved level of integration and coordination across Government agencies, and cooperation with local government. The suggested governance structure has been designed with this in mind. The World Heritage Consultative Committee recommends that the Government decides on a suitable governance structure and associated management arrangements prior to transmitting the nomination to the Commonwealth Government so that this commitment can be recorded in the relevant section of the nomination.

9 A significant number of issues remain to be resolved with stakeholders. The World Heritage Consultative Committee recommends that arrangements are made for on-going consultations embedded within a comprehensive communication strategy through to the time when integrated management arrangements are put in place.

10 1. Introduction The Western Australian Government came to office in February 2001 with a wide range of Policies and Policy commitments covering issues across all portfolios as well as issues specific to particular electorates. Included within this array of Policy commitments are five separate statements of policy that propose specifically the nomination of North West Cape or the Ningaloo Marine Park for inclusion in the World Heritage list. Details of the Policy commitments are as follows. The Government’s Ecotourism Strategy for WA Policy commits that: Labor will recommend to the Federal Government that the following sites be nominated for World Heritage listing: Ningaloo Marine Park (Ecotourism Strategy for WA 01/02/01 p 6); The Policy goes on to state: Labor will also further investigate the possibility of nominating the following areas: North West Cape (Ecotourism Strategy for WA 01/02/01 p 6, see also Tourism 05/02/01 p 11); The Government’s Environment and Tourism Policies includes the following commitment: Labor will… seek World Heritage listing for the Ningaloo Marine Park. (Environment 07/02/01 p 18, Tourism 05/02/01 p 11) The Working for Ningaloo Policy also commits to a World Heritage nomination: Labor will consult with the local community and traditional owners and, with their support, will recommend to the Commonwealth Government that Ningaloo Marine Park be included on the World Heritage list. (Working for Ningaloo 07/02/01 p 6) These Policy commitments refer specifically to Ningaloo Marine Park and North West Cape. In some circles, the reference to North West Cape is interpreted to mean Cape Range National Park; however, for the purposes of this report, the Policy commitment is interpreted literally. In March 2003, State Cabinet agreed that Ningaloo – Cape Range should be the State’s next priority for consideration for World Heritage listing, and that the adjacent marine and terrestrial environments would be considered together ie that the Policy commitments relating to North West Cape and Ningaloo Marine Park would be considered cognately for implementation. These decision were confirmed in June 2003, when it was resolved that CALM would be the lead agency in developing the nomination, and that the Minister for the Environment would report back to Cabinet on progress with the nomination. Since that decision in June 2003, the Premier has corresponded with the Prime Minister on the proposed nomination (9 July 2003), and the Minister for the Environment has corresponded with her Federal counterpart (11 July 2003). The

11 response from the Prime Minister on 3 August 2003 indicated a willingness to consider a potential nomination for the Ningaloo/ Cape Range area, and referred the proposal to his colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The response from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, dated 7 August 2003, was strongly supportive, describing the area as “an outstanding proposal” for a World Heritage nomination. Negotiations with senior officials from the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage regarding the process, timing, and support commenced in late August 2003. At that initial meeting, Commonwealth officials indicated support for the proposed Ningaloo – Cape Range nomination, and foreshadowed an opportunity to lodge the nomination by 1 February 2005 so that it could be considered by the World Heritage Committee in mid-2006. At that time, the World Heritage Committee had a ruling that they would only consider one nomination from a State Party each year. The Committee’s timetable required nominations to be lodged no later than 1 February each year for consideration by the Committee in about June-July the following year. The intervening period between lodgement of the nomination and consideration of it by the World Heritage Committee is used for expert assessment and evaluation. A workshop involving relevant scientific and technical experts together with Aboriginal community representatives was held in Perth on 6 October 2003 to begin collating information on both natural and cultural values of the area. This information was written up as summaries for use in preparing the nomination. On 15 December 2003, State Cabinet agreed on the process for consulting with all the key stakeholders on the proposed World Heritage nomination. A World Heritage Consultative Committee was to be established to undertake consultations with all relevant stakeholders, to provide advice to Government on the issues raised and the concerns of the stakeholders, and to recommend an appropriate boundary for the proposed World Heritage Property. At that point, expert advice available to Government was that a World Heritage nomination for the Ningaloo Marine Park and the Cape Range National Park only would be unlikely to meet World Heritage criteria, and that a more extensive nomination would be more likely to be successful. In making the decision on the consultation process for the proposed World Heritage nomination, the Government noted that significant public consultation processes involving the Carnarvon – Exmouth communities were already underway. These other relevant processes were: • negotiations with pastoral lessees regarding proposed excisions from leases in 2015; • preparation of the Carnarvon Ningaloo Coast Regional Strategy; • review of the Ningaloo Marine Park Management Plan; and • review of the Cape Range National Park Management Plan. In addition, the Rangelands NRM Coordinating Group was beginning the process of preparing a regional strategy and investment for the rangelands NRM region, which includes the North West Cape and Ningaloo Reef areas. Preparation of the Carnarvon Ningaloo Coast Regional Strategy involved a Community Stakeholder Advisory Group, a Steering Committee and a Technical

12 Support Group. The consultation process for planning the marine park and national park is via a Coral Coast Parks Advisory Committee. The NRM planning for the rangelands region was through the Rangelands NRM Coordinating Group, but involved sub-regional consultative groups including Gascoyne-Murchison Sub- regional groups It was agreed that it would be important to ensure that consultation regarding the World Heritage nomination does not cause confusion and/or overload the Carnarvon – Exmouth communities. The three members of the World Heritage Consultative Committee were appointed by letters of invitation dated 4 June 2004. The three members are: Mr Doug Bathgate - former Exmouth Shire Councillor and President, member of the Exmouth Recreational Fisheries Advisory Committee, Chair of the Coral Coast Parks Advisory Committee and former member of the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority. Ms Sue Jones – Chief Executive Officer, Gascoyne Development Commission, and Chair of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property Community Consultative Committee, and previously Commander HAROLD E HOLT Naval Communications Station, Exmouth. Mr Neil Blake – environment, natural resource and communications consultant with a background in community consultation processes, presently Regional NRM Facilitator for the South Coast NRM Region; previously involved in the development of the Shark Bay World Heritage nomination. The Terms of Reference for the World Heritage Consultative Committee are as follows. Specific questions that the Community Consultative Committee should address are: • What are the main issues and concerns of the key stakeholders, and to what extent are those issues generic versus specific to a particular area? • Are there responses to concerns that can be accommodated without compromising the nomination? This should include concerns about the impact of World Heritage listing on the town of Exmouth. • What is the preferred boundary for the World Heritage nomination that meets the World Heritage criteria including integrity, and requirements for on-going management?

The Committee had its first meeting in Perth on 22 June 2003 A key task of the World Heritage Consultative Committee has been to consult with key stakeholders with an interest in the area, including Government agencies, local governments, industry and community organizations (including Indigenous organizations and groups). At the time of writing the report, all but two of the major stakeholders identified in the list accompanying the Terms of Reference had responded to the Committee’s written requests for input, consultation and written submissions, and a range of additional people and groups were accommodated. The Consultative Committee has

13 travelled to Exmouth and Carnarvon twice – on the first occasion, the Committee met with both Shire Councils, the Coral Bay Progress Association and a range of other organisations. The second trip was in response to an invitation from the Shire of Exmouth to present information to residents and ratepayers of the Shire; this meeting was attended by about 150 people and included representatives from the Shire of Shark Bay. The Committee now has had over forty meetings with stakeholders and members of the community. The Consultative Committee has also received 21 written submissions from a wide range of stakeholders. This report presents the results of the consultation process and the deliberations of the World Heritage Consultative Committee on the preferred boundary for the proposed World Heritage nomination. The approach to presenting the outcomes of the Consultative Committee’s work has involved the following steps: • to report in detail the issues raised and comments made by the stakeholders, and to analyse those issues and comments so as to develop a comprehensive understanding of them all and any underpinning issues; • to review the information on the values of the area in relation to the World Heritage criteria, to gain a full understanding of the nature of the values, their geographical spread, and the extent to which they were compatible or incompatible with other resource uses; • to consider a range of options for the boundary of the World Heritage property in the light of the understanding gained from the assessment against the World Heritage criteria, and in the light of the understanding of stakeholders’ issues and comments; and, on the basis of this analysis • to identify a preferred boundary for the proposed World Heritage nomination. The Consultative Committee has also considered management arrangements that might minimise any residual issues with stakeholders; the Committee also received many comments about the need for adequate resources for management of the proposed World Heritage property, and about governance and management arrangement. Advice on resolving some of those issues is provided. It is pertinent to note that, since the Government’s World Heritage Policy commitments were made, the Government has made other decisions that may have a bearing on how such Policy commitments are implemented: i. Acquisition of Giralia Pastoral Lease for conservation under the Gascoyne-Murchison Strategy; and ii. Exclusion of parts of Exmouth Gulf, Ningaloo, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo and Quobba Pastoral Leases when the leases are renewed in 2015. (Actions under the Land Administration Act 1997 Part 7.) Most of the land in the exclusions will ultimately be vested in the Conservation Commission of WA for conservation, and managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. As a consequence of these decisions, there is or will be additional land under conservation management which could be included in the proposed World Heritage Property. This has been included as a consideration when developing boundary options for proposed World Heritage nomination.

14 2. The Approach Adopted The World Heritage Consultative Committee was required to do two major tasks in the available time: • To consult with a wide range of stakeholders with an interest in the area proposed to be nominated, to develop an understanding of the issues raised by stakeholders and to provide a comprehensive report to Government on those issues; and • To develop an understanding of the natural and cultural heritage values of the area of interest, to assess these values against the World Heritage criteria, and to provide clear advice to Government on a preferred boundary for the proposed World Heritage area. The Consultative Committee was expected to draw on its understanding of the stakeholder issues in developing the advice on the boundary, to minimise conflicts that could arise. The time available for these major tasks was around 14 weeks. The Committee made the decision at its first meeting that the two tasks would have to be undertaken cognately, and this decision has underpinned our work program. It should be noted here that the members of the Committee were appointed on a part time basis, fitting in the responsibilities with their principal employment and other commitments. The stakeholder consultation process is described in Section 5 of this report. In particular, stakeholders were provided with a set of notes with background information on the proposed nomination (Attachment 2). The notes included a map of the Study Area endorsed by the Minister for the Environment as a starting point for the consultation process. However, it was made clear to stakeholders that the final nomination boundary could include part or all of the Study Area, or could (with Government agreement) extend beyond it. The Consultative Committee quite deliberately went to considerable lengths to run a comprehensive consultation process. We have reported in detail on the views and issues raised by stakeholders, and we have analysed the comments of stakeholders in order that they might be understood and communicated to Government. This detailed understanding of the views of, and issues of concern to, stakeholders is used when considering options for the boundary of the proposed World Heritage nomination. The Study Area provided by the Minister for Environment was essential for the stakeholder consultation process because, at the commencement of that process, a boundary based on World Heritage values had yet to be defined. As the stakeholder consultation process continued, work began on assessing the natural and cultural heritage values of the area. The Consultative Committee was assisted in this task by the consultant World Heritage expert, Dr Warren Nicholls, retained by the Department of Conservation and Land Management on behalf of the Government to assist in the preparation of the draft nomination. The information on the natural and cultural heritage values was evaluated against the World Heritage criteria. A set of maps was produced which defined the extent of values under each World Heritage criterion and any additional area that would be required to meet the conditions of integrity for that criterion. These maps are given in Section 4 of this

15 report. This fundamental map data set was then used in the evaluation of boundary options described in Section 7 of this report. The detailed understanding of views of and issues of concern to stakeholders, developed through the analysis of these issues, was also employed in the process of considering boundary options. The evaluation of boundary options against World Heritage criteria, taking into account the views and issues of concern to stakeholders, has enabled to Consultative Committee to meet the second of its key tasks i.e. to provide clear advice to Government on a preferred boundary for the proposed World Heritage area, contained in Section 8 of this report. Additionally, the Committee provides advice on approaches that might be adopted by Government to manage any residual risks associated with the proposed World Heritage nomination. The Committee has made some broad recommendations on resourcing and management arrangements for the proposed World Heritage property, in response to concerns raised by a considerable number of stakeholders about perceived management deficiencies of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, or about present management of the Cape Range – Ningaloo area.

16 3. The Study Area The area that is the focus of this report, and the proposed World Heritage nomination, is centred around North West Cape, the most north westerly part of the Australian continent (Figure 1). The geographical features of the area were documented from the time of the first exploration from the sea, beginning in 1618, although it is claimed that the substantial errors in much of the early mapping of the coast was one of the causes for many of the subsequent shipwrecks. For example, the map of Terra Australis compiled by Matthew Flinders after his circumnavigation in the Investigator in 1802-03 shows a feature called North West Cape about 40 nautical miles east of its actual position, and the western-most point of the peninsula around Point Cloates is not shown at all (Flinders 1914). It is possible that this specific mapping error lead to the large number of shipwrecks near Point Cloates from 1811 through to 1875. Figure 1. Location of the proposed World Heritage Property

17 The history of the previous ca 30,000 years of human habitation of the region is gradually unfolding from painstaking study of artifacts, middens and rock shelters, amongst which is one of the oldest reliably dated archaeological sites in northern Western Australia, at Mandu Mandu Creek rock shelter (Morse 1993). The evidence shows that the lives of the earliest inhabitants of Cape Range were closely associated with the coastline and its rich resources, and that they responded to changes in the position of the shoreline associated with the glacial and interglacial periods. It should be assumed that the Aboriginal people had an intimate knowledge of the marine and terrestrial environments of the region. The North West Cape peninsula was gradually occupied by European pasturing sheep and other livestock from the late 1870s. Thomas Carter was one of these early pastoralists; he took up permanent residence at Point Cloates in 1889, began running sheep and subsequently acquired that land which became known as Yardie Creek Station. Carter is noted as the region’s earliest naturalist and one of the first to describe aspects of the unique native fauna and flora of North West Cape. The first observations of the unique subterranean fauna of Cape Range were published in the early 1960s (Mees 1962, Cawthorn 1963, Richards 1963, see also Whitley 1947). The biodiversity values of the area, including the subterranean fauna, were explored over the ensuing thirty years, and much of the information was brought together at the symposium on the biogeography of Cape Range in 1992, organised by Dr Bill Humphreys of the Western Australian Museum (Humphreys 1993). Early exploitation of the marine environment began with whaling in 1792 and pearling in the 1870s, and continued with the establishment of the whaling station at Norwegian Bay in 1912. Whaling continued through to 1957; it is believed that pearling occurred in Exmouth Gulf up to about this time too. Turtle hunting occurred in the Ningaloo Reef lagoon between 1965 and 1970. Commercial prawn trawling in Exmouth Gulf commenced in 1965 and continues to this day. Undoubtedly some of the values of the Ningaloo Reef, especially the abundance of fish, were apparent to the United States and Australian servicemen who were stationed at North West Cape between 1942 and 1945, and the Wapet geological survey teams present between 1952 and 1956. However, due to the remoteness of North West Cape, no development occurred, and pastoralism remained the only permanent activity with approximately 12 residents on the Cape. The Commonwealth Government retained Learmonth Airbase in a caretaker mode. In 1962, the US Naval Wireless Communication Station was established at North West Cape, and the township of Exmouth grew around it. The townsite of Exmouth was gazetted on 6 December 1963, and the Shire was gazetted as a municipality on 1 July 1964. By the time the town and communications station were opened, the Cape had a population of over 4,000. Because the location of the town was adjacent to some of Australia’s best fishing grounds and scenic beaches, tourism development predictably followed. The human impact on the Ningaloo Reef soon became apparent. The town also became the service centre for prawning and pearl aquaculture industries that established in Exmouth Gulf.

18

The biodiversity conservation values, the aesthetic and other environmental values of the Ningaloo Reef and the Cape Range karst system are now well known and appreciated in international scientific circles. It appears, however, that many of these values are less well appreciated by the local community – in particular, the cryptic subterranean fauna and its global significance have not been well marketed locally. Notwithstanding this lack of knowledge of the scientific values of the area, the Shire of Exmouth was responsible for initiating the creation of the Cape Range National Park, which was gazetted in 1964. The Shire later recommended the southern extension of the park down to Yardie Creek, and this was effected in 1969. In 1972, the newly-formed Environmental Protection Authority initiated a comprehensive review of the conservation reserve system through the State through an expert panel, the Conservation Through Reserves Committee. This Committee subdivided the State into 12 regions, referred to as “systems,” evaluated the existing reserves within each system, and made recommendations for additions. The Cape Range – Ningaloo area was within System 9. On the basis of the work of the Conservation Through Reserves Committee plus public submissions, the EPA provided a set of recommendations to Government (EPA 1975). The EPA’s recommendations for System 9 were endorsed by State Cabinet on 9 February 1976. The EPA’s recommendation for locality 9.2 Cape Range National Park is that: 1. The Cape Range National Park be extended to the boundaries shown in fig. 9.8; and 2. that the status and purpose of the Park be amended to Class A for the purpose of “National Park” and that it be placed under the control of the National Parks Board with power to lease. The area recommended for inclusion in the Cape Range National Park is shown on Figure 2. The EPA’s recommendation for locality 9.3 Ningaloo Reef Tract is that: 1. when appropriate legislation is enacted enabling the creation of aquatic “National Parks” the Ningaloo reef tract be reserved for the dual purposes of recreation and “National Park” and be vested in the National Parks Board, but be managed on the advice of the Director of Fisheries and Wildlife; 2. the boundaries of the proposed Ningaloo reef tract reserve include the reef, lagoon and adjacent shores between North West Cape and Point Anderson (fig. 9.10) extending seaward from 40m above high water mark to the 100m isobath; 3. no proposal to develop any part of coastal areas up to 2 km inland from high water mark lying within the boundaries of the Ningaloo, Cardabia and Warroora pastoral leases be approved without the concurrence of the National Parks Board and the Director of Fisheries and Wildlife; 4. the Department of Lands and Surveys be requested that attempts be made to purchase the Ningaloo station should it come on the market, thus facilitating the reservation of the land as an A class reserve for the purpose of “National Parks”

19 vested in the National Parks Board otherwise the land can be reserved when the lease expires, in which case it is assumed that the lessee would be paid the value of the improvements on the land; 5. the Department of Lands and Surveys be requested that the lessee of the Ningaloo Station not be given the authority at any time to clear or chain any of the land or to do anything to disturb the land other than is provided in the lease; and 6. until legislation is enacted to enable the creation of aquatic “National Parks” the Fisheries Act be employed to protect the marine areas within the boundaries, and the Director of Fisheries and Wildlife be made responsible for their protection. The area recommended for inclusion in the Cape Range National Park is shown on Figure 3. The EPA provided comment and a set of recommendations on Lake McLeod[sic] as follows. On reviewing the Conservation Through Reserves Committee’s report and noting that there is an international treaty between Australia and Japan which protects transequatorial waders, the EPA recommends that: 1. in the event that the lease be relinquished, the ponds and adjacent areas of Lake McLeod be designated a Class A reserve for the purpose of Conservation of Flora and Fauna and vested in the WA Wildlife Authority; 2. in the event that the lease is renegotiated, provisions be inserted to protect that environment. The EPA’s recommendation for locality 9.7 Islands, Exmouth Gulf and Rowley Shoals is that: 1. the following islands be designated Class A reserves for the purpose of Conservation of Flora and Fauna and vested in the WA Wildlife Authority. Simpson, Tent, Round, Whalebone, Weld, Little Rocky, and that portion of Thevenard Island that is vacant Crown land and Serrurier Island which is important as a turtle breeding site; 2. the Department of Lands and Surveys consider designation of other islands in the vicinity as Class B reserves under the Land Act for the purpose of Recreation and Conservation of Flora. The map identifying these important islands for conservation is shown on Figure 4. The EPA provided comment and a set of recommendations on locality 9.8 Coastal Region Exmouth Gulf to Mary Anne Islands as follows. In the belief that the area may provide a supply of nutrients to the adjacent marine ecosystem as well as being a nursery area for fisheries, the EPA recommends that: 1. biological and sedimentological surveys be carried out on tidal and supra-tidal flats in the coastal segment from Exmouth Gulf to Mary Anne Islands under the supervision of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. The EPA makes this recommendation in the full knowledge that its implementation

20 will be costly in terms of manpower, finance and that it will be complex and a long term project; 2. to the Department of Industrial Development that further development of solar salt production be restricted to the supra-tidal zone landward of the mangrove thickets and that any extension require the approval of the EPA. The map identifying these important mangroves and tidal flats is shown on Figure 5. Figure 2. Map from the EPA Red Book (1975) showing proposed additions to Cape Range National Park.

21 Figure 3. Map from the EPA Red Book (1975) showing the area of Ningaloo Reef proposed to be created as an aquatic national park.

22 Figure 4. Map from the EPA Red Book (1975) showing areas of mangroves and algal flats in Exmouth Gulf and along the southern Pilbara coastline that are identified as having high conservation values.

23 A review of the marine conservation reserve system, similar to that of the EPA’s Conservation Through Reserves Committee in 1972-74 was initiated by Government in 1986. The Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group report in 1994 (MPRSWG 1994) identified a series of key marine environments for consideration as marine national parks or marine nature reserves. Two sets of recommendations deal with the area if interest for the World Heritage nomination. Part III: Marine Reserves on the Canning and Pilbara Coasts and the Rowley Shelf. 3. Recommendations for marine reserves on the Pilbara and Canning Coasts and Rowley Shelf. 3.9 Exmouth Gulf (Map III-9) The distinctive eastern mangal and adjacent coastal waters of the gulf already receive a measure of protection under the Fisheries Act. Marine reserve status would enhance that protection. Reservation of the supra-tidal flats between the mangal and the hinterland would be essential to ensure adequate management of the mangal and coastal habitats of the marine reserve. Although they represent a different mangal type, the mangals of Gales Bay and the Bay of Rest should also be included in the reserve. By extending the reserve north along the south-western shore to a point in the vicinity of Learmonth as section of the very different habitats of the western shore would be included. Reservation of a small section of the coastline near Exmouth would then adequately represent the western shore habitats. Accordingly, the Working Group recommends: 1. That the nearshore waters on the eastern and south-western sides of Exmouth Gulf be considered for reservation for the protection of mangal habitat, prawn and fish nursery areas, turtle and dugong feeding areas, and coastal marine fauna and flora generally, and for recreational fishing and such commercial fishing and mariculture as may be consistent with the former purposes. 2. Boundaries: a. That the north-eastern limit of the proposed marine reserve should be located at Locker Point and the south-western limit in the vicinity of Learmonth; b. That the marine area reserved should extend from the High Water Mark seaward to about the 10m bathymetric contour, or some suitable straight lines approximating that contour; c. That the 40m strip of vacant Crown land between the adjacent pastoral leases and High Water Mark should be added to the marine reserve by reservation under the Land Act, together with such portions of the adjacent pastoral leases as will produce simple, clearly definable boundaries. 3. That the EPA 1975 recommendations for declaration of islands in the area as nature reserves should be implemented as soon as possible. The Working Group is of the view that all the island nature reserves should be designated Class A. The areas in and adjacent to Exmouth Gulf recommended for reserves by the MPRSWG are shown in Figure 5.

24 3.10 West Pilbara offshore islands (Map III-8, 9) The waters around the islands and reefs of the Serrurier Group are representative of the offshore marine habitats of the western Rowley Shelf. They also have potential as a resource for recreation and tourism. Due to increasing use of the marine resources of the waters around the Muiron Islands there is a need for increasing management, that is, facilitating access while protecting the environment and its living resources. Reservation of the area as marine park is one means of providing a basis for management. Accordingly the Working Group recommends: 1. Serrurier Island Group a. That an area of waters encompassing Flat, Serrurier, Bessieres, Round and Table Islands and Hood Reef, Black Ledge and Bowers Ledge be considered for reservation for the purposes of public recreation and protection of marine flora and fauna. b. That an integrated Management Plan be developed for both the island Nature Reserve and the surrounding marine reserve, with provisions for recreational fishing and for camping ashore during those seasons when seabirds and turtles are not nesting. 2. Muiron Islands That and area of the waters encompassing the Muiron and Sunday Island group be considered for reservation for the purposes of public recreation and protection of marine flora and fauna, subject to: a. A survey of the marine flora and fauns and habitats surrounding the Muiron Islands and comparison with those from the Ningaloo Marine Park. b. A study of the impact of current and anticipated future recreational fishing on fish stocks around the islands and a report produced on options for management, including the option of reserving the area as a marine park. The Pilbara offshore islands recommended for reserves by the MPRSWG are shown in Figure 5. Part IV: Marine Reserves on the West Coast.3. Recommendations for marine reserves on the West Coast. 3.1 Ningaloo Reef – Southern extension (Map IV-1) The Working Group recommends that: The area at Point Quobba presently gazetted as closed waters under the Fisheries Act should be reserved for the protection of marine flora and fauna, specifically for the small coral reef community in the lagoon. The rocky shores between Point Quobba and Red Bluff should be considered for reservation as a marine reserve, subject to a survey of the habitats, flora and fauna of the shore. The survey should be done in conjunction with the recommended survey of similar habitats along the high energy shores on the western sides of Bernier, Dorrie and Dirk Hartog Islands.

25 Figure 5. Map from the report of the Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group showing areas within Exmouth Gulf and islands off the Gulf which are recommended for reservation.

26

Figure 6. Figure 5. Map from the report of the Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group showing the proposed extension of the Ningaloo Marine Park.

27

In addition to the broad overview of the conservation reserve system through the Conservation Through Reserves Committee process, discussed above, the EPA has also commissioned studies of specific values of areas of significance, and produced a series of guidance statements and position statements to guide developments and impact assessments. Three of these reports are of particular relevance to this assessment of the potential of the Cape Range – Ningaloo area to be nominated as a World Heritage area. A substantial report on the karst system of North West Cape, its values and management, was prepared by three of Australia’s leading authorities on karst for the EPA in 1998 (Hamilton-Smith et al. 1998). The authors identified the fact that the area is internationally significant because of the karst and the subterranean biota inhabiting the interstices of the karst system. The authors went on to make a series of recommendations, of which the following are relevant here: Recommendation 1 The State Government should recognise and accept fully that the Cape Range sub- region is one of the State's most significant natural resources and must be afforded maximum protection. Recommendation 2 Given the demonstrated international significance of the area, the necessary processes should be set in motion to fully evaluate the extent to which the area meets the formal criteria for World Heritage status and then proceed to nomination of suitable boundaries as an appropriate response to the already established significance of the area. Recommendation 3 There should be a formal program of cultural heritage documentation and development of conservation plans in line with the guidelines laid down in the Burra charter. Recommendation 4 Any further housing or accommodation facilities in the Cape Range sub-region must be consistent with conservation management strategies for both the terrestrial and marine environment, so that any construction activities do not impact adversely upon significant environmental features nor the ambience of the surrounding topography. Recommendation 5 Visual impacts of developments must be considered as part of the development approval process. Recommendation 6 A project to map and evaluate both the geomorphic capability and potential pollution sources should be initiated without delay.

28 Recommendation 7 Water extraction must be maintained at a sustainable level congruent with both providing a high quality supply of freshwater and maintaining the spectrum within the anchialine zone. Recommendation 10 Investigations of site conditions for quarries or other major ground disturbance developments on the peninsula should include investigations of water flow dynamics above the watertable. Such investigations should include hydraulic conductivity determinations. Recommendation 12 A program of detailed planning and zoning for the management of the west coast, including the fringing reefs, should be undertaken as soon as possible. Recommendation 15 Detailed environmental investigations of the southern limestone tenements should be appropriately funded and commenced as soon as possible. Recommendation 16 The Departments of Minerals and Energy and Environmental Protection and the Water and Rivers Commission should develop and enforce specific guidelines for the environmental management and decommissioning of borrowpits, quarries and open cut mines in karstic terrains. Recommendation 22 In planning and evaluating proposed developmental activities in the area, professional expertise in karst geomorphology should be involved as early as possible. Geoheritage and geoconservation considerations should be properly taken into account as an integral part of any evaluation. Recommendation 23 Resources must be provided for adequate review and assessment of any environmental impact studies of developmental projects. Recommendation 24 The sensitivity of the coastal plain must be reassessed, given that it is a key zone within the groundwater system and will be subject to structural instability, but at the same time, will be subject to continuing pressures from development. Recommendation 25 The impact of any shore-based activity upon the continuing health of the Ningaloo and Bundegi Reef systems must be carefully considered and protective action taken where necessary. Recommendation 26 Where the opportunity exists, the present Cape Range National Park should be extended, at the earliest possible date, to both the north and east of current boundaries and southwest coast as recommended by the Select Committee.

29 Recommendation 27 Should it not be practicable to extend the National Park to the East Coast, or indeed to make other desirable extensions, then every effort should be made to negotiate a heritage agreement or other co-operative arrangement for protection of such areas. Recommendation 28 A process should be set in motion, probably under the leadership of the Gascoyne Development Commission, to examine the potential for creation of a Cape Range and Ningaloo Special Environmental Region for purposes of tourism development and management (as outlined above) and if possible, co-operative arrangements should be put in place to implement this approach. Recommendation 32 Any future investigation of a site for Environment Impact Analysis must assume the likelihood of Aboriginal occupation, and hence give thorough attention to the search for and assessment of potential Aboriginal sites, and any such investigation should include the caves as well as the surface. Recommendation 33 A continuing inventory of all identified aboriginal sites should be developed; these should be reported to the Registrar, and where appropriate, the Registrar should be asked to consider the declaration of protected areas. Recommendation 34 The feasibility and possible administrative arrangements for a Co-operative Centre for Cape Range Studies should be investigated, and if appropriate, such a centre should be established. Recommendation 35 The establishment of an overall program of environmental and social monitoring should be further examined to ensure that monitoring is comprehensive, integrated and relevant to management requirements. The EPA went on to produce a Position Statement on protection of the environmental values of the area referred to as the Cape Range Karst Province (1999). The area given this title, shown in Figure 7, extends down to Lake MacLeod. The area could equally validly be named the North West Karst Province: there is some discussion on the nomenclature of the proposed World Heritage property in Section 10 of this report. The Position Statement discusses the landscape and environmental values (including biodiversity) of the Cape Range karst system, the Ningaloo Reef system and Exmouth Gulf with the associated mangroves. Brief mention is made of the archaeological values of the province, The EPA Position Statement gives a series of 12 Principles for Environmental Protection of the Cape Range Province. Included is the following principle: 12. Proposed extensions to the Cape Range National Park and the Ningaloo Marine Park should be considered by Government and the decision implemented as a priority.

30 Figure 7. Map from EPA Position Statement No. 1 on Environmental Protection of the Cape Range Province, showing the area of the Province.

31 Also relevant to future management of the Cape Range karst system is the EPA Guidance Statement on Consideration of Subterranean Fauna in Groundwater and Caves during Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia (EPA 2003). This Guidance Statement identifies the importance of the subterranean fauna (stygofauna and troglobitic fauna) from a biodiversity conservation perspective and also because of their importance to science, and notifies proponents of their responsibilities in the event that their development proposal is likely to impact on these elements of the State’s biodiversity. A similar Guidance Statement by the EPA deals with the mangroves and associated ecosystems along the Pilbara coast (EPA 2001). The Guidance Statement draws on work by Semeniuk (1997) who undertook an assessment of these mangrove and related ecosystems for the EPA. The mangroves of Exmouth Gulf were assessed in this study. Semeniuk highlights the unusual nature of the mangrove systems along the Pilbara coast because of the arid conditions under which they are developed. In that study, the mangroves from Giralia Bay to Yanrey Flats, Exmouth [Gulf] East Shore were listed as being regionally significant. The EPA Guidance Statement states the EPA’s objective for areas where the mangroves and associated ecosystems are regionally significant as: The EPA’s operational objective for Guideline 1 areas is that no development should take place that would adversely affect the mangrove habitat, the ecological function of these areas and the maintenance of ecological processes which sustain the mangrove habitats. The EPA’s Guidance Statement on the assessment of environmental factors in relation to benthic primary producer habitat across Western Australia’s marine environment is relevant to the Ningaloo coast and Exmouth Gulf (EPA 2004). The Guidance Statement identifies acceptable levels of disturbance within a wide range of benthic primary produced habitats from coral reef systems to seagrass beds to sponge gardens. The Guidance Statement proposes substantial protection of most of these benthic primary producer habitats because of the contribution they make to productive marine systems as well as their importance for biodiversity conservation. The EPA has also produced a number of Bulletins with recommendations to the Minister for the Environment on specific development proposals. These Bulletins cover a wide range of proposals that include the drilling of wells for petroleum exploration, limestone quarries, the borefield for Exmouth’s water supply, and urban developments. The Geological Survey of Western Australia has mapped the Cape Range – Ningaloo area at the 1:250,000 scale eg Denman and van de Graaff (1982), van de Graaff et al. (1980), Hocking et al. (1985). On the basis of this survey, and drawing on data gathered through private geological surveys, the Geological Survey has also produced a number of comprehensive summaries and analyses eg Hocking et al. (1987), Lasky et al. (2003), Flint and Abeysinghe (2000), Crostella (1996), Crostella and Lasky (1997). The area is reasonably well known and understood from a geological perspective, but specific details will be teased out as work progresses in the area. In summary, the biodiversity and associated environmental values, and the archaeological values of the North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef – Exmouth Gulf area

32 have been well documented over the past ca 120 years since the time of European settlement. The area had been explored from the sea for almost 400 years prior to European settlement, and it is known that Aboriginal people occupied the land and exploited the resources of the coast for about 30,000 years. The geological features of the area have also been revealed over the past century, with the discovery of oil in Rough Range No 1 well in 1954 standing as a significant find. Appreciation of the biodiversity and associated environmental values have prompted a series of proposals for conservation in the area, beginning with the efforts of the Shire of Exmouth in 1964 to have a part of Cape Range gazetted as a National Park. The Environmental Protection Authority’s “Red Book” proposals for substantial increases to the Cape Range National Park, and the reservation of Ningaloo Reef and the islands of Exmouth were endorsed by State Cabinet in February 1976 but have only been partially implemented. This proposal for a World Heritage nomination for the North West Cape and Ningaloo Reef area builds on, and effectively celebrates, the accumulation of knowledge of the values of the area. The use of the name, Cape Range Province in the EPA’s Position Statement on the protection of the environmental values of the area referred to as the Cape Range Karst Province (EPA 1999) will be discussed later in this report.

33 4. Assessment Against World Heritage Criteria The fundamental criterion for a place to be entered in the World Heritage List is that it should be “of outstanding universal value.” This concept of outstanding universal value has been teased apart in the Operational Guidelines for different categories of value to produce a total of 10 specific criteria: six criteria for cultural properties and four criteria for natural properties. The four natural heritage criteria are being used in developing this nomination. These are given in Paragraph 44 of the Operational Guidelines (Attachment 1). Sites nominated should therefore: (i) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of land forms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features (Geoevolutionary history); or (ii) be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals (Biological evolution); or (iii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance (Superlative beauty); or (iv) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation (Biological diversity). (The terms in bold are the shorthand references to the criteria that will be used through this Report.) In addition, a nomination under any natural heritage criterion must meet conditions of integrity, the requirements of which are outlined in detail in the Operational Guidelines (see Attachment 1). To meet the conditions of integrity, a nominated area should include all the elements necessary to express its outstanding universal value, be an adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance, and be free from adverse effects of development and/or neglect. An area nominated under criterion (i) should contain all or most of the key interrelated and interdependent elements in their natural relationships. Examples given in the Operational Guidelines are: an "ice age" area should include the snow field, the glacier itself and samples of cutting patterns, deposition and colonization (e.g. striations, moraines, pioneer stages of plant succession, etc.); in the case of volcanoes, the magmatic series should be complete and all or most of the varieties of effusive rocks and types of eruptions be represented. An area nominated under criterion (ii) should be of sufficient size and contain the necessary elements to demonstrate the key aspects of processes that are essential for the long-term conservation of the ecosystems and the biological diversity they contain. Examples given in the Operational Guidelines are: an area of tropical rain forest should include a certain amount of variation in elevation above sea-level,

34 changes in topography and soil types, patch systems and naturally regenerating patches; similarly a coral reef should include, for example, seagrass, mangrove or other adjacent ecosystems that regulate nutrient and sediment inputs into the reef. An area nominated under criterion (iii) should be of outstanding aesthetic value and include areas that are essential for maintaining the beauty of the site. The example given in the Operational Guidelines is: a site whose scenic values depend on a waterfall, should include adjacent catchment and downstream areas that are integrally linked to the maintenance of the aesthetic qualities of the site. An area nominated under criterion (iv) should contain habitats for maintaining the most diverse fauna and flora characteristic of the biogeographic province and ecosystems under consideration. Examples given in the Operational Guidelines are: a tropical savannah should include a complete assemblage of co-evolved herbivores and plants; an island ecosystem should include habitats for maintaining endemic biota; a site containing wide-ranging species should be large enough to include the most critical habitats essential to ensure the survival of viable populations of those species; for an area containing migratory species, seasonal breeding and nesting sites, and migratory routes, wherever they are located, should be adequately protected; international conventions, e.g. the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), for ensuring the protection of habitats of migratory species of waterfowl, and other multi- and bilateral agreements could provide this assurance. A considerable amount of scientific and technical information on the natural and cultural heritage values of the North West Cape Province has been collected and collated during the course of this project. The process began with a workshop held at the CALM Offices at Kensington on 6 October 2003. Since that time, the project team has followed up the leads identified in the workshop, and the Consultative Committee has been fully briefed. As a part of that briefing process, four eminent scientists presented directly to the Committee at the beginning of the consultation process. Dr Bill Humphries gave a presentation on the biodiversity values of the anchialine system of Cape Range, with a particular focus on the Bundera Sinkhole. He stressed the global scientific significance of the stygofauna, including their distant taxonomic and evolutionary relationships with faunal elements from around 175 million years before present. Dr Vic Semeniuk spoke about the geomorphology of the area and the way in which the evidence in various geological, geomorphological and biological features combined to give a comprehensive picture of the geoevolutionary history of the western margin of the Australian continental plate. Dr Chris Simpson’s presentation on the Ningaloo Reef system emphasised the international significance of this system (including the Muiron Islands), the important influences of the Leeuwin and Ningaloo currents on the system and its biota, the richness of that biota, and the role of Exmouth Gulf in supporting that biota. Dr Barry Wilson further emphasised the biological significance of the marine environments of the area, from Exmouth Gulf through to the Carnarvon Coast, and described the evolutionary history of the marine biota, especially the impact of the historical connection from the Pilbara Coast through to the Carnarvon Coast at times of higher sea levels. This scientific and technical information has been evaluated against the World

35 Heritage criteria. The results of this assessment are included in the draft nomination for the property, being prepared by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. The draft nomination will be available by 15 October 2004. In order to inform the decision on the preferred boundary of the proposed World Heritage property, the scientific and technical information has been recompiled to provide maps that indicate the extent of the area that would be required for a nomination under each particular natural heritage criterion. The results of this analysis are given below, with accompanying maps.

Criterion (i) Geoevolutionary history The boundary identified to encapsulate the values relevant to Criterion (i) includes: • western portion of Exmouth Gulf with the northern extension of the Giralia anticline; • northern portion of Lake MacLeod with its hydrological connections to the sea and the reef system; • anticline systems making up the Giralia, Rough, and Cape Ranges (and their southern continuations); • fossil deposits demonstrating the Cretaceous extinction events, including the exposures in Giralia and Cardabia pastoral leases; • Pleistocene Reef fossil deposits along the west coast of Exmouth Gulf and on Sandalwood Peninsula; • wave-cut platforms along the west coast of Cape Range and around Lake MacLeod; • intake zone for Cardabia Creek located south of Giralia on Marrilla and Winning pastoral leases; • flood-out at the junction of the Cardabia and Lyndon River drainage systems; • distributive drainage systems of the Lyndon and Minilya Rivers where they drain into Lake MacLeod; and • Ningaloo Reef system and beyond out to the 2,000m bathymetric contour (Figure 8).

Criterion (ii) Biological evolution The boundary identified to encapsulate the values relevant to Criterion (ii) includes: • anchialine system of North West Cape (and adjacent waters) with its associated stygofauna; • karst system of the Cape Range anticline with its associated troglobitic communities; • Cape Range with distinctive plant and animal (land snail) communities; • wave-cut terraces along the west coast of Cape Range and the associated fossil deposits;

36 • Giralia Anticline with its marine fossil deposits, especially the outcrops on Giralia and Cardabia Pastoral leases; • Pleistocene reef fossil deposits along the west coast of Exmouth Gulf and on Sandalwood Peninsula; • marine ecosystems of the Ningaloo Reef system to the ~100m bathymetric contour including the Muiron Islands; • mangroves and associated algal mats along the east coast of Exmouth Gulf and the adjacent shallow waters of Exmouth Gulf; • humpback whale resting habitats in the northern part of Exmouth Gulf; and • entire landform sequence from Exmouth Gulf through to Lake MacLeod and adjacent reef, and Cape Range which, together with the history of climate and sea level change, and marine currents, have impacted on the speciation of a range of marine gastropods as demonstrated by species of cowrie shells (Figure 9).

Criterion (iii) Superlative beauty Criterion (iii) is usually an associative one rather than a stand-alone criterion. In other words, places do not get inscribed on the World Heritage List solely on the basis of their outstanding scenic beauty; rather they are inscribed on the basis of values against Criteria (i), (ii) and/or (iv) and may also be inscribed for values against Criterion (iii). Some relevant values in the Cape Range – Ningaloo area are the magnificent panoramic views of the Ningaloo Reef from parts of Cape Range, the ~300 degree panoramas of the reef and gulf systems from parts of Cape Range, and the fairly continuous bush panoramas inland and south of the bottom of Exmouth Gulf. The estuarine environments in the Bay of Rest and along the east coast of Exmouth Gulf have beauty because of their remoteness and lack of disturbance. The underwater scenery associated with the reef system from the Muiron Islands south to Red Bluff is also spectacular (Figure 10).

Criterion (iv) Biological diversity The boundary identified to encapsulate the values relevant to Criterion (iv) includes: • anchialine system of North West Cape (and adjacent waters) with its associated stygofauna; • karst system of the Cape Range anticline with its associated troglobitic fauna; • Cape Range, supporting species of vascular plants, mammals, reptiles and frogs, and land snails that are locally endemic, or have unusual population outliers there; • mangroves of Exmouth Gulf, the Ningaloo coast and Lake MacLeod that support population outliers of bird species; • northern portion of Lake MacLeod that supports substantial populations of migratory wading birds listed under JAMBA and CAMBA, and is being considered for listing as a RAMSAR wetland;

37 • Ningaloo Reef system, including the Muiron Islands, which supports three distinct marine faunas and the transient populations of internationally significant whale sharks; • waters of Exmouth Gulf with associated marine biotas, including sponges and gastropods e.g. species of cowrie shells and the coral colonies on the Pleistocene dune remnants in the southern part of the Gulf, which provides habitats for dugong and migratory humpback whales (Figure 11).

38 Figure 8. Indicative boundary for World Heritage Criterion (i) Geoevolutionary history.

39

Figure 9. Indicative boundary for World Heritage Criterion (ii) Biological evolution.

40

Figure 10. Indicative boundary for World Heritage Criterion (iii) Superlative beauty.

41

Figure 11. Indicative boundary for World Heritage Criterion (iv) Biological diversity.

42 5. Stakeholder Consultation An important aspect of developing any major World Heritage nomination is the process of consultation with stakeholders and members of the relevant communities prior to the nomination being lodged. The importance of the consultation process lies in two areas. First, it is desirable (but not essential, as has been demonstrated with the nomination of the Wet Tropics of Queensland) for the stewardship and long-term management of the property and its values that there be is a high level of support from stakeholders and local communities from the outset. There is a political imperative here too. The World Heritage Committee’s Operational Guidelines identify the importance of participation: 14. Participation of local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State Party in the maintenance of the site. This clause in the Operational Guidelines is, to some extent, a specific restating of the requirements of the World Heritage Convention, in which Article 5 states: 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: 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;… If stakeholders and members of the local community feel as if they contributed to the nomination, there is a good chance that they will feel ownership for the final result. This can be translated into a sense of responsibility for the World Heritage Property, once inscribed, that will, in turn, contribute to effective long-term management of the property. The second and related reason why comprehensive consultation is essential revolves around the messages that stakeholders and the local community will impart to visitors – the sense of ownership and pride in the World Heritage Property will result in those stakeholders and members of the local community becoming ambassadors for the property, extolling its values to visitors. The positive messages will help to ensure that visitors have interesting and satisfying experiences of the property, and ultimately aid the marketing of that property and the concept of World Heritage in general. The Consultative Committee was acutely aware, at the outset of the stakeholder consultation process, of the limitations of the process and the short time available for consultation and reporting. The Committee would have preferred to have started the consultation process early in 2004 or even during the previous year, to allow time to work with stakeholders and members of the community on some of their immediate concerns, to minimise confusion with the other planning processes occurring in the region, and to avoid the impression that World Heritage listing was being thrust on them at the last minute. Further, the Committee would have preferred the consultation process to be embedded within a comprehensive education and communication strategy which would have ensured that accurate information was available to all concerned.

43 The Consultative Committee believes that we now have a good understanding of all the issues of concern to the stakeholders and members of the community – that is, what the concerns are and the basis for those concerns. We consider that the information regarding those issues and concerns reported here, and the comments on some of the issues and concerns in Section 6 of this report, provide a sound basis for Government to make an informed decision on the proposed World Heritage nomination.

The consultation process A list of major stakeholders to be consulted in the processes of formulating a World Heritage nomination for the Cape Range – Ningaloo Reef area was included in the Cabinet Submission on the consultation process which resulted in the establishment of the World Heritage Consultative Committee. This Cabinet Submission was considered and approved on 15 December 2003. The list of major stakeholders was subsequently included in the document setting out the Terms of Reference for the Consultative Committee. All stakeholders were contacted by letter with a follow-up phone call and offered the opportunity to meet with the Consultative Committee, to be briefed on what the Government proposed for the nomination and details of the consultation and nomination processes, and given the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed World Heritage nomination. Stakeholders were provided with a paper giving background information on the proposed nomination, the consultation process including membership and Terms of Reference of the World Heritage Consultative Committee, the World Heritage criteria, and information on the implications for listing. The background paper included a copy of a map showing the boundaries of the study area endorsed by the Minister for the Environment at the commencement of the consultation process. A copy of the background paper is included at Attachment 2. As well as the face-to-face discussions with the Consultative Committee, stakeholders were offered the opportunity to provide written comments on the proposal. Stakeholders were also provided with a set of five questions and asked to respond specifically to each one. The questions were: 1. Does the stakeholder support a nomination based on the defined study area boundary? 2. If not, what are the issues of concern? Does the stakeholder have any suggestions as to how these concerns might be accommodated within a nomination based on the defined study area? 3. Are there known values outside the defined study area that should be included in the nomination? 4. Does the stakeholder have concerns about the nomination of a larger area? If so, what are those concerns? If they relate to a specific area, please identify that area. 5. Are there other issues that the stakeholder would like to draw to the attention of the Consultative Committee?

44 A number of the stakeholders requested follow-up meetings with the Consultative Committee; all requests were accommodated. At the beginning of the consultation process, the Consultative Committee advised stakeholders of its intention to report the stakeholders’ comments in detail, to reassure them that their input would be taken seriously. Detailed notes of the issues and concerns raised at each meeting with stakeholders are provided at Attachment 3. In addition, a copy of each written submission is included at Attachment 4.

Stakeholders consulted For the purposes of this report, the stakeholders have been grouped as follows: Resources Sector Department of Industry and Resources Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association WA Chamber of Minerals and Energy Department of Fisheries WA Fishing Industry Council Recfishwest Department of Agriculture Pastoralists and Graziers Association WA Farmers Federation WA Tourism Commission Environmental Sector Department of Conservation and Land Management Conservation Commission of WA Marine Parks and Reserves Authority Environmental Protection Authority Department of Environment WA Museum Coral Coast Parks Advisory Committee Conservation Council of WA Rangelands NRM Coordinating Group Inc Other Government Agencies Department for Planning and Infrastructure Department of the Premier and Cabinet (Environmental Policy Unit) Heritage Council of WA Water Corporation Gascoyne Development Commission Local Government & Community Department of Local Government and Regional Development WA Local Government Association Shire of Exmouth Shire of Carnarvon Coral Bay Progress Association Carnarvon Chamber of Commerce Residents & Ratepayers of the Shire of Exmouth

45 Indigenous Organisations Department of Indigenous Affairs Yamatji Land and Sea Council Gnulli Working Group North West Aboriginal Corporation

In addition to the listed major stakeholders, representatives of a number of companies with a commercial interest in the area have attended meetings with the Consultative Committee and/or have provided written submissions. All these companies are acknowledged in the list of attendees for the relevant meeting and, in the case of written submissions, listed in the analysis of submissions (Table 1).

Stakeholder’s comments A synopsis of the issues and concerns is given below. Resources Sector A majority of stakeholders within the Resources Sector do not support the proposed World Heritage nomination of the Cape Range – Ningaloo Reef area. The most emphatic concerns have been expressed by the minerals and petroleum industry representatives. This response is generally based on the view that World Heritage listing will result in either complete denial of access to the resource of interest, or the imposition of prescriptive environmental controls that will have the effect of making resource development nonviable. Stakeholders within the Resources Sector expressed specific concerns about the following issues: • The consultation process is completely inadequate, limited in time, and not allowing for detailed negotiations in relation to specific resource issues and geographical areas; • The necessity for continued access to the resources of interest to each group • World Heritage listing would result in increased environmental control through the State EPA processes and by the Commonwealth as a result of the World Heritage trigger for the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth), and that this increased environmental oversight was largely unnecessary as the industries involved have a good record of environmental performance. Some of the stakeholders within the Resources Sector appear to be opposed to a World Heritage nomination of any dimension, giving rise to the impression that the position is ideological rather than being based on any issues of substances. A few stakeholders are less concerned about the prospect of a World Heritage nomination, and appear willing to negotiate to minimise any adverse impacts on their operations or commercial interests if the proposed World Heritage nomination proceeds.

46

Environmental Sector Stakeholders within the Environmental Sector support the proposed World Heritage nomination of the Cape Range – Ningaloo Reef area. The response reflects an understanding of the environmental values of the area, a desire to see those values acknowledged by the World Heritage Committee and, in most cases, a consequent expectation or hope that additional resources will be committed to management so that those values will be adequately protected in the long-term. Stakeholders in this sector contributed substantial data and information to support the nomination, and raised the following issues: • There are substantial high-value environmental assets within the study area and beyond; • These values should be included within the area to be nominated, as should be any additional areas necessary to satisfy conditions of integrity; • There is a range of management controls or arrangements in place, or likely to come into effect, that are designed to ensure that the environmental values are not degraded. Stakeholders within the environmental sector sought to clarify a number of misconceptions or misrepresentations brought to the table by other sectoral interests. Other Government Agencies Stakeholders from Other Government Agencies support the proposed World Heritage nomination of the Cape Range – Ningaloo Reef area. It would appear that these agencies acknowledge the origins of the nomination proposal in the Government’s Policy commitments and are prepared to work cooperatively to ensure implementation of the Policy commitments. For example, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has already made allowance for the proposed World Heritage nomination in its planning processes for the Carnarvon-Ningaloo Coast. Stakeholders from other Government agencies have given support for the nomination processes, and have contributed data and information for the nomination document. Stakeholders from other Government agencies raised the following issues: • Include within the nominated area all those values and geographical areas that can be supported by scientific knowledge, but ensure that the nominated area is practical from a management perspective; • Be aware of all the other activities and processes that are occurring in the region at present, including the coastal planning processes, development controls, and the range of existing planning instruments, including the implications of these for decisions on excisions. • Governance and management arrangements for the area to be nominated will need to ensure improved integration and coordination of the activities of Government agencies, local government and natural resource management (NRM) groups.

47 Local Government and Community Stakeholders from Local Government and Community have given mixed responses to the proposed World Heritage nomination of the Cape Range – Ningaloo Reef area. The organisations range in their views from neutral through mildly supportive – supporting a nomination based on the existing CALM estate only, at this stage – to cautiously supportive. The sample of the Exmouth community represented at the meeting of residents and ratepayers on 19 August 2004 was not supportive of a nomination at this time, indicating a preference that the nomination be delayed until after the next State election and requesting a great deal more information. Stakeholders within the Local Government and Community Sector expressed specific concerns about the following issues: • The consultation process is completely inadequate, limited in time, and without sufficient detailed information on specific values and geographical areas. • Likely management arrangements should also be spelled out in advance (there is a very negative attitude towards CALM, and suspicion of any substantial involvement of CALM in the management of the proposed World Heritage Property). In particular, the Shires believe their role should not be overshadowed. • Experience from the Shark Bay World Heritage Property seems to suggest that the anticipated benefits from inscription have not materialised, and that inscription leads to other problems including interference in the Shire’s affairs. • Local governments are increasingly being required to carry bigger administrative loads, often with insufficient support from the Federal and/or State Governments. Capacity building for local governments and local communities should be a focus for any new World Heritage nomination. • The Shire of Exmouth needs a diversified economy – the constraints of World Heritage listing may limit this happening. The negative responses from the Shire of Exmouth and the people attending the Exmouth residents and ratepayers meeting is suggestive of a ‘frontier mentality’ in a portion of the community – the belief that people in the region should be able to do the things they choose without Government controls and intervention. There is a high level of suspicion of the motives of Government in putting forward the World Heritage listing proposal i.e. it will become another layer of control. These attitudes are reinforced by the lack of information on the specific details of the proposed nomination; this highlights the importance of developing and implementing a comprehensive communications strategy as a matter of urgency. Indigenous Organisations Stakeholders from Indigenous Organisations support the proposed World Heritage nomination of the Cape Range – Ningaloo Reef area. The response reflects an understanding of the cultural heritage values of the area, a commitment to protection and management of those values in the long-term, and a desire for greatly improved recognition and acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples’ cultural history and values. Stakeholders in this sector contributed data and information to support the nomination; however, the Gnulli Working Group were reluctant to provide full access to the information being compiled for the land and water claim because of a concern that having the information in the public domain could jeopardise the claim.

48 Stakeholders from Indigenous Organisations raised the following issues: • The area has an important cultural history that should be reflected in the final nomination. • The community on Cardabia pastoral lease would want to be able to continue to look after that country without unnecessary interference or constraints. • Aboriginal people would also want to be able to continue to access sites of spiritual significance, and to continue other traditional activities including fishing, hunting and gathering other food resources. Aboriginal people and the representative from the Department of Indigenous Affairs view the proposed World Heritage nomination as another approach to looking after country and so are supportive in principle. In all, the Consultative Committee has had more than 40 meetings with stakeholders since the commencement of its formal program of activities on 22 June 2004. As a result of the consultation process, and the process of preparing the written summary of stakeholders’ comments, members of the Committee believe they now have a good understanding of the views and concerns of all the stakeholders and the basis for those. Some of the concerns are discussed further in the following Section of this report. This understanding of stakeholder views and concerns has been used in the assessment of boundary options (Section 7) and in defining the optional boundary (Section 8). In addition, some issues raised by stakeholders emerge in the discussion of implications of World Heritage listing for funding and management (Section 9).

49 6. Committee’s Responses to the Consultation Processes and the Views Expressed There are three overarching comments that the Consultative Committee makes on the consultation process to this time. The first point is that the stakeholder consultation process was designed specifically to provide potentially aggrieved parties with the opportunity to provide comment on the proposal, rather than, for example, attempting to canvass the views of all relevant parties or a broad cross section of the community. There is, therefore, a potential bias in the overall tenor of comments that will be reported here because the views of the resources sector have prominence in this report. The second point is that many comments received, both verbally and in writing, reflect either a lack of understanding of the implications of World Heritage listing, or a predilection to misrepresent related facts. We would have preferred to see this consultation process embedded within a comprehensive education and communication strategy which would have served, at the very least, to minimise the extent to which members of the community were prepared to accept misleading information provided by antagonists. Thirdly, in many of the meetings with stakeholders and in the meeting with Exmouth residents and ratepayers, the Consultative Committee found itself being accused of being an advocate for World Heritage listing. The simple act of responding to a view based on a misunderstanding, and attempting to correct the misunderstanding, gave the impression to some that the Consultative Committee was advocating the proposal and, therefore, that it was less likely to acknowledge other opinions. There was no group or organisation speaking up for the proposal; there was only the bogey of Government putting it forward or “imposing this on us”. In contrast, groups opposed to the World Heritage listing were active in having their views promulgated, as was exemplified by the display of copies of the Shire of Shark Bay Open Letter1 in the windows of many shops in Exmouth prior to the meeting of residents and ratepayers. This problem would have been addressed through a comprehensive communication strategy. A range of information and views was provided to the Consultative Committee during the consultation process. The Committee has attempted to report faithfully the views of all stakeholders. However, there are particular points that were raised by stakeholders that the Committee believes need to be challenged or at least discussed further. These are presented in the following section, together with the Committee’s commentary. For simplicity in presentation, each point is given a brief heading; these headings do not attempt to encapsulate the full meaning of the point in question, or to demean those who made each of the points.

1 Unsigned facsimile transmission letter dated 17 August 2004 from Mark J Hook, Chief Executive Officer, on Shire of Shark Bay letterhead, giving 11 dot points of comments on ”World Heritage Listing from a Shark Bay point of view.”

50 The Shark Bay factor A wide range of issues have been included under this heading because the example that is cited is Shark Bay, the information or advice came from the Shire of Shark Bay, or the issue is identified in correspondence from the Shire of Shark Bay. As an example of what we refer to here as the Shark Bay factor, the first comment made by the Coral Bay Progress Association in the meeting with them on 22 July 2004 was “we have been advised by people in Shark Bay not to touch World Heritage with a bargepole.” Specific issues under this heading include: • Project funding: inscription of Shark Bay has not resulted in the promised benefits to the local community, including funding for major projects; • Impacts on the local economy, including through tourism: the failure of the inscription to enhance the economy (including through tourism) • Impacts on development and the approvals processes: World Heritage listing stifles development, creates another layer of bureaucracy, results in undue emphasis on protection of the environment, which results in imbalance where community issues are not adequately considered; • Governance of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property: governance of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property is unrepresentative of the local community and is not responsive to local needs, does not address the major environmental issues such as the declining stocks of Shark Bay snapper; • Government land grab: World Heritage listing is part of a Government land grab, results in an increase in marine sanctuary zones, marine parks;

• Project funding In the lead-up to the nomination of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, the then Federal Minister for the Environment, Hon Ros Kelly MHR, visited Denham and spoke at a public meeting. During that presentation, Ms Kelly spoke about the likely benefits to the local community of World Heritage listing, and made some general statements to the effect that the Federal Government would be investing in the property in order to meet its international obligations. These general statements are now held up as solid promises, and it is this that is being referred to in comments about broken promises. In the meeting of residents and ratepayers on 19 August 2004 organised by the Shire of Exmouth, the Shire President, Shire of Shark Bay told the meeting that his Shire had received “not one cent.” Shark Bay has received in excess of $7 million directly from both State and Federal Governments since the area was inscribed as a World Heritage Property. The bulk of the funding is for the construction of a World Heritage Interpretive Centre in Denham, and a building to provide temporary exhibition space, paid directly to the Shire. It is notable that, on 26 July 2004, the Shire President, Shire of Shark Bay had signed a funding agreement for $5 million with Hon Tom Stephens MLC, Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. Further, the Shire President received $650,000 from the Federal Government’s Regional Partnership Program on 21 August 2004; this additional contribution was known to the Shire President at the time of the meeting of residents and ratepayers in Exmouth on 19 August 2004.

51 In addition to these direct contributions to the Shire of Shark Bay, there has been a substantial investment of funds to the Shark Bay community through additional activities e.g. research, road sealing, Parks management, and spending by the additional CALM staff and their families living in Denham. These CALM staff and families have contributed significantly to the local businesses, with a flow-on effect to the resources of the Shire. There has also been substantial expenditure in the Shire of Shark Bay by other Government agencies e.g. the Department of Fisheries for improved fisheries management. The Consultative Committee finds it difficult to understand how the Shire of Shark Bay can sustain these sorts of claims when all the documented evidence clearly contradicts them.

• Impacts on the local economy, including through tourism There are two dimensions to this issue – firstly that there has not been an increase in tourism, and secondly the observation that Tourism Western Australia does not promote tourism opportunities associated with World Heritage Properties. The Consultative Committee is aware of the fact that, in 1986, the estimated population of the Shire of Shark Bay was 690. The permanent residency growth rate was 2.7%. In contrast, the estimated population of the Shire in 2001 was 960, an increase of 39% over the intervening period. Over the same period, the accommodation available to visitors increased significantly. There were four caravan parks in the Shire providing 344 bays in 1988; in 2002 there were six caravan parks providing 425 bays plus 120 tent sites. Similarly, motel/hotel/chalet style accommodation has also increased, from 14 units and 41 self-contained cottages at the one hotel/motel in 1988 to 220 self-contained motel/ chalet units in 2002. In addition, the Monkey Mia resort can now accommodate around 600 people, and plans are afoot to double the capacity. There clearly has been an increase in the capacity of Shark Bay to accommodate visitors from around 1,000 bed equivalents to around 2,000. Visitor statistics available to the Consultative Committee show that visitor numbers to Monkey Mia have remained relatively constant at 100,000 – 110,000. In contrast, visitors to Francois Peron National Park have increased from 12,000 in 1994/95 to 48,000 in 2003/04. Visitor statistics for 1999 and 2000 show numbers of visitors staying overnight at 127,600 increasing to 134,400 in 2002 and 2003. These overnight visitors have contributed to visitor night statistics showing an increase from 410,000 to 456,500 over the same period. It is not possible to support or refute the claim that there has not been an increase in tourism to Shark Bay; one can only note that there are some very positive signs for tourism in the longer term, provided that the right messages and the right circumstances prevail.

• Impacts on development and the approvals processes Advice on overseeing the Shark Bay World Heritage Property is provided by a Community Consultative Committee and a Scientific Advisory Committee, both

52 reporting to the Ministerial Council. These two committees are often asked to provide advice on development proposals; however, it is only advice, and is normally sought under existing routine processes. For example, development proposals referred to the Environmental Protection Authority are assessed by the Authority under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Authority would normally seek advice from the committees on a proposal for development in or adjacent to the Shark Bay World Heritage Property in the same way as it would seek advice from a range of Government agencies and local governments. Consideration of the proposal by the committees is not another step, or another layer of approvals; the EPA is merely widening the net of sources of advice that it would routinely seek on development proposals. The key objective in managing World Heritage Properties is that the values for which each property is inscribed should be protected. The test that should be applied to development proposals is that the proposal should not adversely affect the values. One example given by the Shire of Shark Bay is the Gunson Resources mineral sands mining proposal for an area located immediately to the south east of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property. There is criticism of the fact that the EPA has sought advice of the two Shark Bay World Heritage committees on this proposal. However, there is no evidence that the relatively minor involvement of the committee has, or will, either delay the proposal or result in it not going ahead. Another example is the proposal to develop a date palm plantation in an area south of Denham on the former Peron pastoral lease. A brief written proposal considered by the Shark Bay World Heritage Consultative Committee was followed by a formal request that the proponent develop a detailed proposal that included business and management plans. The proponent has chosen not to do so. In the meantime, the Department of Agriculture advised DOLA that the proposal was unlikely to be viable, based on experience with a similar proposal at Gascoyne Junction.

• Governance of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property Under the World Heritage Convention, the State Party has an obligation to ensure that each World Heritage Property within its jurisdiction is managed in such a way as to protect the values for which that property is inscribed. Australia is the State Party to the Convention; therefore, the Federal Government has responsibilities in relation to the management of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property. This responsibility is discharged, in part, through formally agreed governance arrangements. A Ministerial Council comprising two Federal Government Ministers and two Western Australian Government Ministers, has overall responsibility for ensuring that effective management arrangements are in place and that the World Heritage values area being protected. Reporting to the Ministerial Council are two committees, a Community Consultative Committee and a Scientific Advisory Committee. Membership of the two committees is decided by the Ministerial Council. It appears that the concern that has been expressed relates to the membership of the Community Consultative Committee, suggesting that it is not sufficiently representative of local interests and points of view. Yet the membership guidelines

53 specify that the majority of members are residents of the property, or live in the vicinity of the property. They are selected on the basis of their knowledge or background in fields such as conservation, heritage, local government, fishing, tourism, Aboriginal matters, park management and/or agriculture (pastoralism). And, at present, all but two of the Committee are residents of the region. It appears that the underlying issue is that the Community Consultative Committee is not subservient to the Shire of Shark Bay and, therefore, exercises separate judgement on issues that arise within the Shire; however, that is surely what it established for: to provide advice to the Ministerial Council on issues related to the World Heritage Property and its values. An alternative, equally justifiable view is that it is legitimate to have non-local people sitting on the Community Consultative Committee because the Shark Bay World Heritage Property is prized by the whole community of Western Australians. Members of the World Heritage Consultative Committee are aware of the failings of the present governance arrangements for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property – a member of the Consultative Committee, Ms Sue Jones, Chairs the Shark Bay World Heritage Property Community Consultative Committee and sits on the Scientific Advisory Committee. A key problem is that the Ministerial Council does not meet, and so the work of the Community Consultative Committee and the Scientific Advisory Committee which are established to advise the Ministerial Council has no real effect. A model for an alternative governance structure is suggested elsewhere in this report. An oft-cited problem is that the World Heritage governance structures do not deal with local priority issues, such as declining stocks of Pink Snapper in Shark Bay. Evidence is to the contrary: when the results of surveys in the early 1990s indicated that stocks of Pink Snapper were susceptible to overfishing in the Eastern Gulf, Freycinet Estuary, Denham Sound and the oceanic area, the Fisheries Department took action as a priority action because the area was a World Heritage Property. The initiatives in 1994 were: • Review and restructure the Shark Bay Limited Entry Snapper Fishery. • Introduction of seasonal closures and reduced bag and possession limits of Pink Snapper for recreational fishers. • Introduction of a total allowed catch (TAC) for the Freycinet Estuary and a tag system for Pink Snapper. • Development of an agreement between the Prawn Industry and Recreational sector on a new boundary for the prawn fishery, to limit the by-catch of Pink Snapper. It is estimated that the Department of Fisheries has invested $ 2.8 million in improved management of the fishery as a direct acknowledgement of the sensitivity of the World Heritage values.

• Government land grab The claim is that World Heritage listing is part of a Government land grab and that it also results in an increase in marine sanctuary zones, marine parks.

54 The establishment of a wide range of terrestrial and marine conservation reserves was foreshadowed in the original Shark Bay Region Plan, adopted in 1988 (SPC 1988). This plan was developed in consultation with the Shire of Shark Bay from about 1986 through to 1988, and had their complete support when adopted. The final Land [and Water] Use proposals included identifying 14 separate areas of land for public purpose reserves – for environment protection, environment protection and recreation, or for protection of coastal landforms and vegetation, and eight areas within the marine environment for public purpose reserves – protection of stromatolites and sedimentary deposits, protection of marine mammal habitat, prawn nursery and seagrass protection.

Since the completion of the Shark Bay Region Plan, the Western Australian Government has acquired the whole of Peron pastoral lease and converted the northern section to a national park, as proposed in the Plan. More recently, the Government has acquired Nanga pastoral lease and is in the process of converting the southern portion to a form of conservation reserve, as proposed in the Plan. The Government is also in the process of acquiring the Dirk Hartog pastoral lease, and portions of Carrarang and Tamala leases for conservation and environmental protection, as proposed in the Plan. In summary, then, the Government has done nothing to change land tenure that was not foreshadowed in the 1988 Shark Bay Region Plan. It is relevant to note that the anticipated land tenure changes described above are all foreshadowed in the Shark Bay Regional Strategy, prepared by the Western Australian Planning Commission through a highly consultative process and released in October 1997 (WAPC 1997). Faure Island pastoral lease has been purchased through normal commercial negotiations by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy. The lease will be destocked as much as possible and used as a private wildlife reserve. In 1990, the Shark Bay Marine Park was gazetted. This marine park covers an area of 748,725 hectares. This is substantially larger than was proposed in the 1988 Shark Bay Region Plan. The decision to create a marine park of this size arose in negotiations between the Commonwealth and State Governments prior to the lodging of the World Heritage nomination. However, it must be acknowledged that the Shark Bay Marine Park is a multiple use park, similar in concept to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and a wide range of uses including commercial fishing are permitted. The Shark Bay Marine Reserves Management Plan 1996-2006 (CALM 1996) identifies eight sanctuary zones totalling 41,152 hectares ie 5.5% of the total of 748,725 hectares. There is no intention to revisit this management plan and to increase the area designated as sanctuary zone.

Reference to the State Lime Strategy Officers of the Department of Industry and Resources have referred to the State Lime Strategy in the context of discussions about the need for industry to have access to the limestone resources of Cape Range, in a manner that suggests this strategy exists and that it is an agreed, authoritative, Government position.

55 The Consultative Committee has ascertained that a document was produced by the then Department of Resources Development entitled “Towards a State Lime Supply Strategy” in May 2001 and circulated for comment; however, stakeholder agreement was not achieved and the draft Strategy lapsed. Apparently, the Department of Industry and Resources made overtures to other Government Agencies early in 2004 about restarting negotiations on the proposed strategy but there has been no follow-up. Thus, the draft document has no status except perhaps within the Department of Industry and Resources. In contrast, the EPA Red Book (EPA 1975) that recognises the conservation values of Cape Range and proposes a significant increase in the size of the National Park was endorsed by State Cabinet on 9 February 1976. These values are also recognised formally in the EPA’s Guidance Statement for environmental impact assessment of development proposals in relation to the groundwater and karst ecosystems of Cape Range (EPA 2003). It can be asserted, therefore, that the competing claims for the Cape Range karst limestone system have as much status and validity as the limestone mining proposals. It should also be noted here that the Mining Warden has recommended against granting mining tenements for broad scale mining of limestone within Cape Range because of the very considerable biodiversity and associated environmental values of the karst system of Cape Range (Calder SM [2001] WAMW 1).

Lake MacLeod Concern has been expressed by Dampier Salt Ltd about the possible inclusion of all or a part of Lake MacLeod, in part because World Heritage listing may cut across an arrangement to have an area of the Lake designated as a Ramsar wetland. The concern may stem from a belief that the two listing processes are based on the same values set. The Ramsar wetland listing reflects the very considerable importance of the lake as a wetland for migratory wading birds. The lake hosts very large populations of up to 70 species of migratory waders, including 25 species that are listed under the CAMBA and JAMBA international agreements. Any proposal to incorporate a portion of Lake MacLeod within the area of the proposed World Heritage nomination will revolve around the hydrological connection that the lake has with the adjacent reef – sea water flows through the karst between the sea and the reef for up to 18 km, creating a marine environment at the northern end of the lake with mangroves, marine fish and other marine organisms. The seasonal presence of large numbers of migratory wading birds would be acknowledged in the nomination but would not be pivotal to the inclusion of the portion of the lake. The World Heritage listing of a portion of Lake MacLeod would not preclude designation of the same or a different area of the lake as a Ramsar wetland. Such a dual listing is acknowledged as a possibility in the World Heritage Committee’s Operational Guidelines (Paragraph 44 (b) (iv)), because the two processes are complementary. It is understood that the parties involved in developing the Ramsar nomination for Lake MacLeod are wrestling with management of the catchment of the lake,

56 particularly those rivers and creeks that flow into the northern part of the lake: Lyndon and Minilya Rivers, Cardabia Creek. The input of freshwater, sediment and pollutants is an issue for the Ramsar wetland values, and also for the production of salt at the southern end of the lake. There is a prospect that World Heritage listing of a portion of Lake MacLeod and portions of the critical catchments could lead to improved management of those catchments as, elsewhere in this report, the Consultative Committee has proposed that Government provide capacity-building support to pastoral lessees in the area, drawing on the catchment management skills embedded within the EMU Project team.

Hydrocarbon prospectivity of the Cape Range – Rough Range – Giralia Area Several of the smaller petroleum exploration and production companies with tenements over Cape Range, Rough Range and the area south of Exmouth Gulf have expressed extreme concern about the likely impact of any World Heritage listing on their exploration and production activities and plans. The companies have identified their tenements and highlighted the potential for significant discoveries and consequent production of hydrocarbons. Their concerns have been echoed by the Department of Industry and Resources and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. Because of their personal knowledge of the activities of the petroleum industry in region, members of the Consultative Committee have taken the trouble to investigate further the claims regarding the hydrocarbon potential of these areas. The Cape Range – Rough Range – Giralia area has been explored extensively for hydrocarbons, beginning in 1947 when Ampol Exploration took out exploration permits over the entire Carnarvon Basin. Survey techniques have included use of seismic and gravity data, and drilling. An estimated 50 wells have been drilled. The area includes the Rough Range 1 oil discovery in 1953; it is estimated that Rough Range 1 and 1A have produced a total of around 45,000 barrels of oil since that time. Cape Range 2 produced a minor show of gas. The prospectivity of the area has been reviewed comprehensively in two publications produced by the Geological Survey of Western Australia (Crostella 1996, Crostella and Lasky 1997). The authors find that the potential hydrocarbon traps in the Cape Range – Rough Range area appear to have low retention of hydrocarbons, implying that prospectivity is low, but that prospectivity in the Giralia area might be higher. However, it is noted that the Cape Range – Rough Range – Giralia area is highly faulted as a consequence of the tectonic activity associated with the separation of the Indian Sub-continent from Gondwana. Independent evaluation of the information on the geology of the area suggests that the likelihood of a significant discovery of hydrocarbons in the Cape Range – Rough Range – Giralia area is very small indeed (PJ Russell, personal communication 2004). The Committee also notes that the hydrocarbon industry in Western Australia has a very good safety record, and that risk management during operations is at a high standard. The Committee believes that it would be appropriate to acknowledge the pre-existing tenements and known hydrocarbon reserves within the area to be

57 nominated, and the excellent safety record of the industry. Reflecting this, the Committee suggests that a management arrangement should be possible where petroleum exploration and production is permitted within the Cape Range – Rough Range – Giralia area within the World Heritage Property, subject to the strict requirements of relevant Commonwealth and State environmental protection legislation. The Committee notes that the present environmental oversight of petroleum explorations in this area is inadequate, and recommends that the environmental management practices of these companies should be subjected to increased scrutiny, matching that applied to companies operating in the marine environment. The Committee proposes that exploration be permitted to continue for a maximum of 10 years, or until such time as the existing tenement holders relinquish their tenements. In other words, tenements would lapse unless production infrastructure was in place by the end of the 10 year period.

Hydrocarbon prospectivity of Exmouth Gulf and the Muirons Several petroleum exploration and production companies with tenements in Exmouth Gulf and/or adjacent to the Muiron Islands have expressed extreme concern about the likely impact of any World Heritage listing on their exploration and production activities and plans. The companies have identified their tenements and known reserves, and highlighted the potential for significant discoveries and consequent production of hydrocarbons. Their concerns have been echoed by DoIR and APPEA. The information provided to the Consultative Committee by the representatives of the petroleum companies reveals that the reserves at the Rivoli Gas Field in Exmouth Gulf and those of Leatherback and Ridley Oil Fields east of the Muiron Islands are all non-commercial. The tenement holders plan further exploration beneath the existing Rivoli Gas Field and of structures to the south west and south east of Rivoli. The Committee is aware that the companies with interests in these known fields have not engaged in any negotiations for the supply of energy to the proposed new power station in Exmouth or for the supply to the Naval Base. The proponents for the new power station are developing the proposal based around a proposal to truck gas from an access point on the Dampier to Perth gas pipeline, because there have been no offers of supply from the more proximate sources at Leatherback or Rivoli. The Committee notes that the known reserves are subeconomic, and also takes on board advice that the area of the proposed nomination is not as prospective for hydrocarbons as the portion of the Exmouth Sub-basin further off-shore. The Committee also notes that the hydrocarbon industry in Western Australia has a very good safety record, and that risk management during operations is at a high standard. The Committee believes that it would be appropriate to acknowledge the pre-existing tenements and known hydrocarbon reserves within the area to be nominated, and the excellent safety record of the industry. Reflecting this, the Committee suggests that a management arrangement should be possible where the petroleum production is permitted within the Muiron Islands and Exmouth Gulf portions of the World Heritage Property, subject to the strict requirements of relevant Commonwealth and State environmental protection legislation. Further, the

58 Committee suggests that exploration be permitted to continue, again subject to strict environmental controls, for a maximum of 10 years, or until such time as the existing tenement holders relinquish their tenements. In other words, the explorations would lapse unless production infrastructure was in place by the end of the 10 year period.

Prospectivity for minerals and gemstones including diamonds The Department of Industry and Resources, in its initial written submission on the proposed World Heritage listing, indicated that the area was prospective for gold, silver, copper/lead/zinc, diamonds, tungsten, gypsum and gemstones. Subsequent discussions with Departmental officers revealed that this evaluation was for an area of about 60,000 km2 which includes within it the c 8,000 km2 of the Minister’s Study Area. It is now clearly understood that some of these mineral resources are located in areas that will not be included within any larger nomination. For example, the area prospective for diamonds is an area with “kimberlitic” alkali- picrite intrusive structures and tuffs near Wandagee Hill, about 100 km east of Red Bluff, well east of the area under consideration. The Department also provided information indicating the presence of copper/lead/zinc and barite deposits associated with the Giralia-Marrilla anticline and fault complexes. Exploration leases cover parts of Cardabia, Marrilla, Winning and Mia Mia pastoral leases. No significant deposit of any one of these mineral resources has yet been discovered. The Consultative Committee believes that a small mine for these minerals would not be incompatible with the protection of World Heritage values provided that it was managed appropriately. Any approval to mine would be subject to rigorous environmental assessment.

EPA’s Advice on Petroleum Exploration and Production in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property A number of stakeholders from the resources sector including APPEA and petroleum companies, and also DoIR, have made reference to the EPA’s Section 16(e) Advice to the Minister for the Environment in October 2003 on Petroleum Production in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, and have represented that Advice as prohibiting exploration and production. The inference is then made that these activities would be likely to be banned from a new World Heritage property in the North West Cape - Exmouth Gulf area. The EPA’s overarching advice is that there be a presumption against petroleum development activities within the Shark Bay World Heritage Property on the basis that these activities could not be carried out without significantly affecting the values for which the Property has been credited World Heritage status. The EPA goes on to indicate that this position of ‘presumption against’ would not preclude the assessment of a petroleum proposal under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, but the circumstances associated with the proposal would need to have been designated by the State to be of exceptional importance and of a strategic

59 nature. Advice to the Consultative Committee from the EPA Service Unit is that the EPA’s position has never been tested – no petroleum exploration of production company has yet made an application to drill within the Shark Bay World Heritage Property. Further, a senior manager from Victoria Petroleum NL indicated that officers from DoIR had advised them not to bother to make application to drill on Dorre Island because they would be unlikely to get EPA approval to do so. In effect, the perceptions held by the petroleum industry in relation to World Heritage listing are being reinforced by second guessing the EPA’s response to a proposal by officers of DoIR. The Committee believes that it would be appropriate to acknowledge the pre- existing tenements and known hydrocarbon reserves within the area to be nominated, and the excellent safety record of the industry. The Committee suggests that a management arrangement should be possible where the petroleum production is permitted within the Muiron Islands and Exmouth Gulf portions of the World Heritage Property, subject to the strict requirements of relevant Commonwealth and State environmental protection legislation. Further, the Committee suggests that exploration be permitted to continue, again subject to strict environmental controls, for a maximum of 10 years, or until such time as the existing tenement holders relinquish their tenements. In other words, the explorations would lapse unless production infrastructure was in place by the end of the 10 year period.

The mangroves on the east coast of Exmouth Gulf are only regionally significant At the first meeting with the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and representatives of member companies, a representative of Straits Resources Pty Ltd contended that the mangroves of the east coast of Exmouth Gulf were only of regional significance and, by implication, therefore not significant. The EPA’s Position Statement on the mangroves of the Pilbara coast, based on an assessment by Semeniuk (1997), defines two categories of mangroves: regionally significant mangrove stands that are considered to have very high conservation significant, and other mangroves that may still have high conservation significance. In other words, in this classification, regionally significant mangroves are of the highest importance on the Pilbara coast. The mangroves from Giralia Bay to Yanrey Flats, Exmouth [Gulf] East Shore are listed as being regionally significant. Semeniuk (1997) assessed the mangrove stands of the Pilbara coast using four separate criteria, and concluded that no stand is nationally or internationally significant, but that some are regionally significant (the remainder are locally significant). Semeniuk does, however, highlight the unusual nature of the mangrove systems along the Pilbara coast because of the arid conditions under which they are developed. Elsewhere, Semeniuk notes that the mangroves of the east coast of Exmouth Gulf are important because the area has the largest discrete areas of mangal in the State south of the Kimberleys, six species of mangroves are present, of which three are at their southern limits of distribution: Aegialitis annulata,

60 Aegiceras corniculatum, Bruguiera exaristata, (see http://dseweb.murdoch.edu.au/wamangrove/ accessed on 22/09/2004 and http://florabase.calm.wa.gov.au/ accessed on 22/09/2004). Further, information from RE Johnstone (WA Museum, personal communication October 2003) indicates that the Exmouth Gulf mangroves are important for mangrove birds and support the southern-most populations of Pilbara species including the Mangrove Robin and the Mangrove Golden whistler.

Will create another layer bureaucracy This issue was raised by a range of stakeholders including many in the minerals and petroleum sector, the Department of Fisheries, the Shire of Exmouth and members of the Exmouth community at the meeting of residents and ratepayers. Companies within the resources sector believe they are responsible, have a good environmental record, and that the existing levels of oversight by State Government agencies are sufficient. It is correct that inscription of an area on the World Heritage List results in an increased level of surveillance from Commonwealth Government, as World Heritage values are one of seven triggers for the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act). However, environmental impact assessment under the EPBC Act is carried out by the Western Australian EPA in accordance with a Partnership Agreement. Therefore, although there is additional protective legislation, the implementation of this should be seamless. Governance arrangements will be put in place to oversee the on-going research into, and management of, the proposed World Heritage property. Some options for government arrangements are discussed in Section 9 of this report. A key consideration is that management arrangements must be highly effective, and will almost certainly involve improved integration and coordination of activities of Government agencies. Currently there is no proposal to establish a large overarching management structure such as an equivalent of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority or the Wet Tropics Management Authority. It is hoped that the governance arrangements will deliver improved performance across Government agencies and will be almost invisible.

Name of the World Heritage Property The MG Kailis Group initially expressed support for a World Heritage nomination based on the identified study area, and indicated that the company had no strong objections to the inclusion of Exmouth Gulf if it was found to have World Heritage values (facsimile letter dated 22/07/04). The company subsequently wrote to the Committee indicating a change in position to opposition to the inclusion of Exmouth Gulf. This change of position reflected a concern arising from the likely name of the World Heritage property (letter to the Minister for the Environment dated 26 August 2004). In a meeting organised to discuss the concerns of MG Kailis Group on 14 September 2004, the MG Kailis representative, Mr Matthew Lilly, portrayed a scenario for the future where the company wished to continue its fishing

61 commercially activity in Exmouth Gulf, and the Gulf was included within a ‘Ningaloo World Heritage Property,’ giving rise to a public perception that the commercial fishing was actually on the reef. The concern was that the perception could have an adverse impact on the business. The MG Kailis representative indicated support for the proposed nomination and for the inclusion of Exmouth if the nomenclature issue could be resolved satisfactorily. The Consultative Committee acknowledges this as a legitimate concern, but suggests that the risk is low, and that the risk is very manageable. Some options for managing the risk are given in Section 9 of this report. Notwithstanding the above views, the Committee did consider naming options such as the Ningaloo - Cape Range – Exmouth Gulf World Heritage Property or the North West Cape Province World Heritage Property. Further discussion of this issue is provided in Section 8.

Perceptions There are a number of issues raised that fall under the heading of perceptions. The perception that MG Kailis might be fishing commercially within the World Heritage Property, dealt with above, is one. Another perception issue was raised by representatives of hydrocarbon exploration and production companies, and stems from the debates about exploration and production near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the previous Government’s policy that there be no exploration and production within the Ningaloo Marine Park, and the situation with respect to exploration and production in Shark Bay discussed prior. In essence, the hydrocarbon industry is wary of the creation of marine protected areas or marine World Heritage properties near to prospective or production tenements because of the risk that they may be eventually limited in their activities or completely prohibited from activities within those tenements because of a public view that they are endangering the values of the marine protected area or property. The Consultative Committee discussed at length the precautions that are now taken by the hydrocarbon industry when conducting operations at sea. These precautions are exhaustive, and include the use of booms for higher risk activities such as drilling, where a blow-out and oil spill may occur. The hydrocarbon industry has a very good safety record in Western Australia, and is committed to maintaining this record. The Committee believes the issue and public perceptions are manageable, but recognises that this risk management may incur costs to the industry and to individual companies. Government also has a role to play here. Regardless of the decision on the proposed World Heritage area, Government and the hydrocarbon industry must continue to work together to ensure that risks of oil pollution in marine environments are minimised and that the public is kept abreast of the improvements in practice and technologies to protect environmental values. Another relevant issue concerns the perception that all lands and waters within a World Heritage Property boundary must be pristine and well managed. The issue is raised by pastoralists from adjacent to the Shark Bay World Heritage Property who receive complaints from visitors to the area about the degraded state of their leases

62 and the presence of goats there: they find it an imposition to have to respond to the complaints. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Shire of Shark Bay constructed an entry statement for the World Heritage property at the turn-off to Denham from the North Western Coastal Highway, well outside the actual World Heritage property. The Consultative Committee acknowledges that a public perception exists that World Heritage properties should be pristine. The Committee notes that is an erroneous view, and that many of Australia’s World Heritage properties contain areas with activities that may degrade general aesthetic and environmental values. At the same time, the Committee is very conscious the overarching responsibility of the State Party is to ensure that the identified World Heritage values are protected. It is possible for there to be a significant gap between management to protect all aesthetic and environmental values and management to protect the World Heritage values. This is a matter to be addressed through accurate and effective communication and signage that emphasises the World Heritage values, the responsibilities of the State Parties, and the details of the management plan. There is potential for this management/perception conundrum to be an issue for the proposed Cape Range – Ningaloo World Heritage Property. The recommended boundary option includes areas of pastoral leases where the principal World Heritage values are geological. These geological features will be little affected by continuing pastoral activities and, therefore, would not normally be given a priority for management. There is the distinct possibility that visitors to the Cape Range – Ningaloo World Heritage Property will raise concerns about the state, and on-going management, of some of the pastoral lands included within the property. The Committee has recommended specific management approaches for these pastoral lands to address the public perception and overall environmental management issues. These include providing access to the capacity building Environmental Management Understanding (EMU) process with an option to develop accredited Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) for each pastoral enterprise.

Buffer zones A number of stakeholders in the resources sector raised concerns about the potential impact of buffer zones (around or adjacent to any World Heritage property) on their commercial interests. In particular, pastoralists and representatives of the petroleum industry expressed concern that the buffers could extend “forever” and impact adversely on enterprises or proposed activities at great distance from the World Heritage property. Paragraph 17 of the Operational Guidelines states: 17. Whenever necessary for the proper conservation of a cultural or natural property nominated, an adequate "buffer zone" around a property should be provided and should be afforded the necessary protection. A buffer zone can be defined as an area surrounding the property, which has restrictions placed on its use to give an added layer of protection; the area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through technical studies. Details on the size, characteristics and authorized uses of a buffer zone, as well as a map indicating its precise boundaries, should be provided in the nomination file relating to the

63 property in question. Although the provision exists to identify buffer zones in any World Heritage nomination, the Australian Government has not used the buffer zone concept in any of the existing 16 World Heritage properties. Further, it is not proposed to define buffer zones for the Cape Range – Ningaloo World Heritage nomination. The approach adopted in Australia is one of protecting the identified World Heritage values in a property.2 Those values are to be protected against adverse impacts regardless of source of those impacts: the source may be a proposed development within the boundaries of the property or it may be well outside the property, for example upstream. Activities within or adjacent to a World Heritage property that are not likely to have any impact are of no concern.

Nathan Dam Case Reference has been made in some of the stakeholder meetings with resources sector representatives, and in written submissions, to the recent Federal Court decision referred to as the Nathan Dam case. These references have invariably implied that the decision will mean that it will be virtually impossible to undertake any kind of development anywhere near a World Heritage Property. These references misrepresent the points argued in the case, and the implications of the decision. The case was an appeal by the Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage to the Full Court of the Federal Court against an earlier decision by a single judge of the Federal Court on a matter of administrative law.3 In the primary case, the Queensland Conservation Council and the World Wide Fund for Nature (Australia) sought judicial review of decision of the Minister under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) in relation to a proposal to construct and operate the 880,000 megalitre Nathan Dam on the Dawson River. The water was to be used for irrigated agriculture. Keifel J found that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage had erred in refusing to consider the impacts of the associated downstream agricultural development when making a decision on the level of assessment of environmental impacts for the construction and operation of the dam. The Full Court of the Federal Court rejected the appeal, and upheld the original decision that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage must consider a broad range of possible impacts of the proposal which could properly extend to the whole, cumulated and continuing effect of the proposal, including the impacts of consequent activities by third parties. The decisions go to the administration of Part 3 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) which deals with requirements for environmental approvals. It is so that the arguments concerning the downstream

2 Part 3 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth). 3 Black, CJ, Ryan and Finn JJ, Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc [2004] FCAFC 190 (30 July 2004) reported at http://www/austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2004/190.html, which was an appeal against the earlier decision in the case Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2003] FCA 1463 (“the Nathan Dam Case”).

64 impacts referred to impacts of agricultural chemicals on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Property; however, this was one example of likely broader impacts used to argue the case because the Commonwealth legislation incorporates a trigger for environmental approvals for activities that might impact on World Heritage and National Heritage values.

Exmouth Gulf The Department of Fisheries and other stakeholders indicated some concern that inclusion of Exmouth Gulf in the World Heritage property would lead to restrictions to commercial and/or recreational fishing activities or it would impose such additional controls as to have the same effect. The World Heritage Consultative Committee proposes elsewhere in this report that any portion of Exmouth Gulf that is included in the nomination should be gazetted a Fish Habitat Protection Area as soon as practicable. The creation of such a Fish Habitat Protection Area under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 would satisfy requirements for management regimes to protect values to be identified in the nomination, and would mean that the Department of Fisheries will have responsibility for overall management of the area. The issues about future perceptions of the commercial prawn fishery in Exmouth Gulf have been dealt with separately above.

Lack of evidence of World Heritage values on pastoral leases At the meeting with pastoralists at Bullara Station organised the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, several pastoralists asserted that there were no values on their leases and that, therefore, the land should not be included in he nominated area. There are two issues here. Firstly, not all the land included within a World Heritage property will have the identified World Heritage values. However, any additional land that is included will have value that contributes to the overall integrity of the nomination, in accordance with the Operational Guidelines e.g. the requirements for the conditions of integrity for criterion (ii) (biological evolution) state “for example… a coral reef should include, for example, seagrass, mangrove or other adjacent ecosystems that regulate nutrient and sediment inputs into the reef. In other words, if a coral reef has World Heritage values, the adjacent coastal areas and possibly the catchments that drain into the reef should be included in the nominated area. The second point is that the pastoralists may not be aware of the World Heritage values on their leases because they are cryptic or difficult to comprehend. The pastoral leases over the anchialine system will almost certainly incorporate unique communities of stygofauna and troglobitic fauna at depths below the ground surface. Other leases south of Exmouth Gulf have globally outstanding fossil deposits at or below the surface. It is important to note here that where that World Heritage values are subterranean such as in the examples given above, protection of those values will not require any special actions or changes to existing management practices.

65 Elsewhere in this report, the Consultative Committee proposes that lessees of pastoral leases which are within or adjacent to the area to be nominated for World Heritage listing be offered support for management of those leases. Specifically, the proposal is that they be offered the services of the EMU (Environmental Management Understanding) Project team to work with them to help plan future management. A desirable goal is for all pastoral enterprises within the proposed World Heritage Property to be internationally accredited through an Environmental Management System (EMS) that is built on the EMU process outcomes. It is envisaged that EMU + EMS for pastoral lease components of the World Heritage Property will satisfy requirements for management regimes to protect values.

Pastoralists at Shark Bay driven off the land A media statement by Mr Tim Meecham, PGA representative for the Gascoyne Region, states that there is only one pastoral lease left in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, thereby implying that the others have been forced out of business by World Heritage listing. There were originally six pastoral leases in the Property area when the nomination process for Shark Bay began in around 1988. Before the nomination was lodged, and based on land-use proposals in the Shark Bay Region Plan, Peron pastoral lease was purchased for conservation. Nanga pastoral lease was purchased for conservation in December 2000 as a part of the agreed Gascoyne- Murchison Strategy. Tamala and Carrarang still operate as pastoral leases, though both are subject to 2015 exclusions, and the main focus of activity on Carrarang is on salt production by Shark Bay Salt. There is a biodiversity conservation initiative on Heirisson Prong, within this lease, as an informal environmental offset for the salt production. Faure Island is technically a pastoral lease though it has been purchased by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy and is in the process of being destocked. Negotiations are underway to acquire Dirk Hartog pastoral lease in advance of the lease expiring in 2015; portions of that lease may be converted to national park in due course. In summary, it is correct that the level of pastoral activity within the Shark Bay World Heritage Property has declined compared to what it was in 1988; however, those changes have been largely in response to market forces. Of the six pastoral leases over parts of the area in 1988, only two are expected to continue beyond 2015. Three have been purchased for conservation, and a fourth is expected to transition to the conservation estate within 11 years. All three pastoral leases that have been purchased for conservation were purchased on the open market, at market values. The then lessees made commercial decisions to sell; not one of those transactions was made under duress.

66 7. Consideration of Boundary Options The assessment of values against the World Heritage criteria given in Section 4 of this report reveals two key facts. The first is that there are values within the Cape Range – Ningaloo area that are of outstanding universal significance and, therefore, a successful World Heritage nomination is possible. There are values that satisfy all four natural heritage criteria: maps showing the boundaries that define the limits of the specific World Heritage values under each criterion are shown in Figures 8 – 11. These values are largely coincident. Thus, this assessment process validates the overall World Heritage significance of a core area which includes the whole of the North West Cape peninsula, the Ningaloo Reef from the Muiron Islands southwards to Red Bluff, portions of Exmouth Gulf, the northern portion of Lake MacLeod, and the drainage systems onto the reef. The second key point is that the boundaries defining the limits of World Heritage values under each criterion all extend beyond the boundaries of the study area selected as a starting point for the stakeholder consultation process by the Minister for the Environment. In other words, a nomination based on the study area boundary would be likely to be deferred by the World Heritage Committee pending the outcomes of negotiations to extend the boundary. Under its Terms of Reference, the World Heritage Consultative Committee is required to advise the Government on, inter alia, a preferred boundary for the World Heritage nomination that meets the World Heritage criteria including integrity and requirements for on-going management. The preferred boundary should be one that defines the areal extent of a World Heritage nomination that will have the best chance of succeeding. The challenge for the Consultative Committee has been to identify a preferred boundary that satisfies the requirements for a successful nomination while, at the same time, minimising the impacts that the World Heritage Property may have on stakeholders and the local community. The Consultative Committee has evaluated 12 boundary options. Each option has been evaluated against each of the World Heritage criteria, including the requirements relating to integrity and future management for each criterion. Each option has also been considered from the perspective of the stakeholders whose views are known and reported elsewhere in this report. On the basis of this comprehensive assessment of boundary options against the World Heritage criteria, the Consultative Committee has identified a boundary that, in the Committee’s view, is optimal i.e. a World Heritage nomination based on the identified optimal boundary has a high likelihood of succeeding, and it minimises potential impacts on stakeholders and the community. Management arrangements to address any residual impacts or concerns are provided in the evaluation of each boundary option. The Consultative Committee has also identified three compromise boundary options that could be considered should the Government not be prepared to accept the optimal boundary.

67 Option 1. Cape Range National Park and the Ningaloo Marine Park (with proposed extensions) This option is shown in Figure 12. The option includes only those lands and waters that are or will be vested in the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and the Conservation Commission as National Parks or Marine Parks by the time the World Heritage nomination is considered by the World Heritage Committee in mid-2006 ie this boundary does not include Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park or the proposed marine management area around the Muiron Islands. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could only be considered under criterion (ii), and possibly criteria (iii), (iv). It could not be considered under criterion (i), as the important evidence is outside the nominated area. This option would not include the following values: i. the entire anchialine system that supports the stygofauna and the entire karst system with its troglobitic fauna. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); ii. the associated hydrological and chemical linkage between the porous karst system and the adjacent Ningaloo Reef system, and possibly with the waters of Exmouth Gulf. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iii. the Muiron Islands which are identified to have the highest diversity of fish and other marine phyla in the region. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iv. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); v. the drainage catchments onto the reef, especially in the area from just north of the Warroora Homestead southwards to Red Bluff, and in the vicinity of Point Cloates. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and vi. the hydrological linkages between the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the sea, possibly impacting on the reef ecosystem, and contributing to the very considerable biodiversity values of that part of the Lake. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv).

The Committee has received independent advice that the World Heritage Committee would almost certainly defer a nomination based on this boundary option. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria.

68 Figure 12. Map showing Boundary Option 1 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

69

Indications are that most stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries; the noticeable exceptions would be the coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, both of whom strongly prefer a more extensive nomination. The Shire of Exmouth has a position of support for a nomination based around the existing CALM conversation estate. Most elements within the resources sector would support a nomination with these boundaries, with the notable exception being Sun Petroleum which indicated support that is conditional on the proposal having the majority support of the local community, and permitting the continuation of petroleum activities including infrastructure development.

Option 2. Cape Range National Park with proposed extensions, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, the 2015 excisions along the Ningaloo Coast and including the Commonwealth Department of Defence Bombing Range. This option is shown in Figure 13. The option includes all lands and waters that are or will be vested in the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and the Conservation Commission by the time the 2015 excision processes are finalised and the land is transferred, together with the land on the west side of Cape Range maintained by the Department of Defence as a bombing range. The option does not include the Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park or the proposed marine management area around the Muiron Islands. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could only be considered under criterion (ii), and possibly criteria (iii), (iv). This option would not include the following values: i. the entire anchialine system that supports the stygofauna and the entire karst system with its troglobitic fauna. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); ii. the associated hydrological and chemical linkage between the porous karst system and the adjacent Ningaloo Reef system, and possibly with the waters of Exmouth Gulf. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iii. the waters of Exmouth Gulf with their significant marine biodiversity values. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iv. the Muiron Islands which are identified to have the highest diversity of fish and other marine phyla in the region. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criterion (iv); v. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and

70 vi. the drainage catchments onto the reef, especially in the area from just north of the Warroora Homestead southwards to Red Bluff, and in the vicinity of Point Cloates. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv). vii. the hydrological linkages between the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the sea, possibly impacting on the reef ecosystem, and contributing to the very considerable biodiversity values of that part of the Lake. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv). The Committee has received independent advice that the World Heritage Committee would almost certainly defer a nomination based on this boundary option. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria. Indications are that most stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries; the noticeable exceptions would be the coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, both of whom strongly prefer a more extensive nomination. The Shire of Exmouth has a position of support for a nomination based around the existing CALM conservation estate, but would be hard pressed to oppose a nomination that includes those lands and waters that will make up the CALM estate when the present planning processes are concluded. Most elements within the resources sector would support a nomination with these boundaries; however, the pastoral industry has not indicated support, perhaps because the 2015 pastoral exclusion processes are not yet finalised. Some of the smaller operators within the hydrocarbon industry may not support a nomination based on this boundary option, if the written submission from Sun Petroleum is any indication. However, hydrocarbon prospectivity of the area within the option is exceedingly low - the area has been explored comprehensively without success, and any as-yet discovered reservoirs would be very small because of the extensive faulting of the area.

71 Figure 13. Map showing Boundary Option 2 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

72 Option 3. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, and 2015 excisions along the coast adjacent to the Ningaloo Reef. This option is shown in Figure 14. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, and the 2015 excisions along the coast adjacent to the Ningaloo Reef on Ningaloo, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo and Quobba pastoral leases. This option would include parts of Exmouth Gulf, Bullara and Ningaloo pastoral leases. The option does not include the Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park or the proposed marine management area around the Muiron Islands. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could only be considered under criteria (ii) and (iv). The area may also qualify under criterion (iii) provided that areas outside the proposed area were included in the vistas. This option would not include the following values: i. the Muiron Islands which are identified to have the highest diversity of fish and other marine phyla in the region. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criterion (iv); ii. the coastal waters of Exmouth Gulf adjacent to and effectively connected with the anchialine system of North West Cape, and the significant marine biodiversity values of the Gulf. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iii. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iv. the drainage catchments onto the reef, especially in the area from just north of the Warroora Homestead southwards to Red Bluff, and in the vicinity of Point Cloates. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and v. the complete system of the hydrological linkages between the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the sea and the inland expression of these linkages. These hydrological linkages possibly affect the reef ecosystem, and contribute to the very considerable biodiversity values of the northern part of the Lake. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (i) and (ii).

The Committee has received independent advice that the World Heritage Committee would almost certainly defer a nomination based on this boundary option. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria. Indications are that most stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission

73 and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association are unlikely to support this nomination as it includes portions of Exmouth Gulf, Bullara and Ningaloo pastoral leases. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would probably oppose a nomination based on this option as the Cape Range – Rough Range area is still considered prospective for petroleum products. There has been a minor show of petroleum products from Rough Range No 1 well, but independent assessment suggests that further production is exceedingly unlikely because the area has been explored comprehensively, and any reservoirs would be very small because of the extensive faulting of the area.

74 Figure 14. Map showing Boundary Option 3 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

75 Option 4. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, and coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system. This option is shown in Figure 15. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, and the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef as defined by the escarpment of the Bullara Sunkland. This option would include portions of Exmouth Gulf, Bullara, Ningaloo, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo and Quobba pastoral leases. The option does not include Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park or the proposed marine management area around the Muiron Islands. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could only be considered under Criteria (ii) and (iv). The area may also qualify under Criterion (iii) provided that areas outside the proposed area were included in the vistas. This option would not include the following values: i. the Muiron Islands which are identified to have the highest diversity of fish and other marine phyla in the region. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); ii. the coastal waters of Exmouth Gulf adjacent to and effectively connected with the anchialine system of North West Cape and the significant marine biodiversity values of the Gulf. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iii. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iv. the complete system of the hydrological linkages between the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the sea and the inland expression of these linkages. These hydrological linkages possibly affect the reef ecosystem, and contribute to the very considerable biodiversity values of the northern part of the Lake. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); v. the unique inland mangrove stands and associated biodiversity values, and the generally co-located populations of migratory waders and other water birds in the northern portion of Lake MacLeod. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (i), (ii) and (iv); and vi. the flood-out areas near the north eastern end of Lake MacLeod containing the distributory delta systems of the Minilya and Lyndon Rivers and around the junction of Cardabia Creek with the Lyndon River. There are unique environmental features associated with this flood-out area, including the southern-most extent of Mitchell grass plains (Astrebla ?pectinata). The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option runs a high risk of being deferred by the World Heritage

76 Committee. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria. Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association is unlikely to support this nomination as it includes portions of Exmouth Gulf, Bullara, Ningaloo, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo and Quobba Stations. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as the Cape Range – Rough Range area is still considered prospective for petroleum products. There has been a minor show of petroleum products from Rough Range No 1 well, but independent assessment suggests that further production is exceedingly unlikely because the area has been explored comprehensively, and any reservoirs would be very small because of the extensive faulting of the area.

77 Figure 15. Map showing Boundary Option 4 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

78 Option 5. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system and the northern portion of Lake MacLeod. This option is shown in Figure 16. The option includes the entire North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef as defined by the escarpment of the Bullara Sunkland, and the northern portion of Lake MacLeod. This option would include portions of Exmouth Gulf, Bullara, Ningaloo, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba and Minilya Pastoral leases. The option does not include Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park or the proposed marine management area around the Muiron Islands. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could only be considered under Criteria (ii) and (iv). The area may also qualify under Criterion (iii) provided that areas outside the proposed area were included in the vistas. This option would not include the following values: i. the Muiron Islands which are identified to have the highest diversity of fish and other marine phyla in the region. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criterion (iv); ii. the coastal waters of Exmouth Gulf adjacent to and effectively connected with the anchialine system of North West Cape and the associated marine biodiversity values. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (i) and (ii); iii. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and iv. the key surface drainage systems into Lake MacLeod including Cardabia Creek, and the flood-out area near the north eastern end of Lake MacLeod containing the distributory delta systems of the Minilya and Lyndon Rivers and Cardabia Creek. There are unique environmental features associated with this flood-out area, including the southern-most extent of Mitchell grass plains (Astrebla ?pectinata).

The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option runs a moderate to high risk of being deferred by the World Heritage Committee. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria. Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see amore inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association

79 would not support this nomination as it includes portions of Ningaloo, Bullara, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo and Quobba Stations. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. Dampier Salt Ltd has indicated that they do not support the inclusion of the northern part of their lease over Lake MacLeod; however, they are in the process of negotiating a nomination of that area for listing as a Ramsar wetland, thus acknowledging its international importance as a site for migratory wading birds. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as the Cape Range – Rough Range area is still considered prospective for petroleum products. There has been a minor show of petroleum products from Rough Range No 1 well, but independent assessment suggests that further production is exceedingly unlikely because the area has been explored comprehensively and any reservoirs would be very small because of the extensive faulting of the area.

80

Figure 16. Map showing Boundary Option 5 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

81 Option 6. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system, the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the most significant surface drainages into that part of Lake MacLeod. This option would also include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and the majority of the marine fossil deposits associated with the Giralia Anticline and the Pleistocene Reef fossils on Sandalwood Peninsula. This option is shown in Figure 17. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef, the portion of Lake MacLeod north of the line east of Red Bluff, and the surface drainages into this part of Lake MacLeod including Cardabia Creek, and the flood-outs at the mouths of the Lyndon and Minilya Rivers. This option will include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and the southern part of Exmouth Gulf from a line joining the north east point of Giralia to Point Lefroy. This option would include portions of Exmouth Gulf, Bullara, Ningaloo, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba, Minilya, Mia Mia and Marrilla pastoral leases. The option does not include Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park or the proposed marine management area around the Muiron Islands. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could be considered under criteria (i), (ii) and (iv). The area may also qualify under criterion (iii) provided that areas outside the proposed area were included in the vistas. This option would not include the following values: i. the Muiron Islands which are identified to have the highest diversity of fish and other marine phyla in the region. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); ii. the whole of the coastal waters of Exmouth Gulf adjacent to and effectively connected with the anchialine system of North West Cape, the significant marine biodiversity values of the remainder of Exmouth Gulf including the coral colonies on Pleistocene dune substrates, the whole of the area proposed for a marine protected area, and the whale resting areas in the north of the Gulf. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (i), (ii) and (iv); iii. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); iv. the mangroves and associated fringing algal flats which are identified as being important nursery habitats for a range of marine biota. Some species of marine organisms, including fish, which have a part of their reproductive cycles dependent on the estuarine waters of and adjacent to the mangroves or the detritus food chains associated with the mangroves migrate to the waters of the Ningaloo Reef system. The omission of the mangroves and associated fringing algal flats from the nomination is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and

82 v. the full suite of evidence of the geoevolutionary history of the western margin of the Australian continental plate, including the Marrilla Anticline, the preCambrian basement rocks in Yanrey Pastoral Lease, the disrupted drainage system at the mouth of the Yanrey River, and the intake zone for the springs feeding into Cardabia Creek which is located south of Giralia (ex pastoral lease). This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criterion (i). The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option runs a moderate to high risk of being deferred by the World Heritage Committee. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria. Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association would not support this nomination as it includes portions of Ningaloo, Bullara, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba, Minilya, Mia Mia and Marrilla Stations. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. There is said to be some prospectivity for diamonds too, but independent assessment suggests that this would be very low indeed. There are reports of potential silver and zinc mineralisation associated with the Giralia and Marrilla fault complex: these are being explored at present but no significant discovery has been announced. The same area is also prospective for barite. Dampier Salt Ltd has indicated that they do not support the inclusion of the northern part of their lease over Lake MacLeod; however, they are in the process of negotiating a nomination of that area for listing as a Ramsar wetland, thus acknowledging its international importance as a site for migratory wading birds. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as the Cape Range – Rough Range and Giralia areas, and the southern part of Exmouth Gulf, are still considered prospective for petroleum products. There has been a minor show of petroleum products from Rough Range No 1 well, but independent assessment suggests that further production is exceedingly unlikely because the area has been explored comprehensively, and any reservoirs would be very small because of the extensive faulting of the area.

83 Figure 17. Map showing Boundary Option 6 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

84 Option 7. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system, the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the most significant surface drainages into that part of Lake MacLeod. This option would also include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and the majority of the marine fossil deposits associated with the Giralia Anticline and the Pleistocene Reef fossils on Sandalwood Peninsula. The option would also include the corals and other marine organisms associated with the substrates of the northern extension of the Pleistocene dune system into Exmouth Gulf. This option would include the mangroves and associated algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, and the proposed marine protected area associated with these mangals. This option is shown in Figure 18. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef, the portion of Lake MacLeod north of the line east of Red Bluff, and the surface drainages into this part of Lake MacLeod including Cardabia Creek, and the flood-outs at the mouths of the Lyndon and Minilya Rivers. This option will include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and extend northwards to include the proposed marine protected area in Exmouth Gulf (Wilson Report), incorporating the mangroves and associated algal flats on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. The option does not include Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park or the proposed marine management area around the Muiron Islands. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could be considered under Criteria (i), (ii) and (iv). The area may also qualify under Criterion (iii) provided that areas outside the proposed area were included in the vistas. This option would not include the following values: i. the Muiron Islands which are identified to have the highest diversity of fish and other marine phyla in the region. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); ii. the whole of the coastal waters of Exmouth Gulf adjacent to and effectively connected with the anchialine system of North West Cape, the significant marine biodiversity values of the remainder of Exmouth Gulf including mangrove nursery areas, the coral colonies, the dugong feeding areas of seagrass and the whale resting areas in the north of the Gulf. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (i), (ii) and (iv); iii. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and iv. the full suite of evidence of the geoevolutionary history of the western margin of the Australian continental plate, including the Marrilla Anticline, the exposure of the preCambrian basement rocks in Yanrey Pastoral Lease,

85 the disrupted drainage system at the mouth of the Yanrey River, and the intake zone for the springs feeding into Cardabia Creek which is located south of Giralia (ex pastoral lease). This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criterion (i). The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option runs a moderate to high risk of being deferred by the World Heritage Committee. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria. Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association would not support this nomination as it includes portions of Ningaloo, Bullara, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba, Minilya, Mia Mia, Marrilla and Urala pastoral leases. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. There is said to be some prospectivity for diamonds too, but independent assessment suggests that this would be very low indeed. There are reports of potential silver and zinc mineralisation associated with the Giralia and Marrilla fault complex: these are being explored at present but no significant discovery has been announced. The same area is also prospective for barite. Dampier Salt Ltd has indicated that they do not support the inclusion of the northern part of their lease over Lake MacLeod; however, they are in the process of negotiating a nomination of that area for listing as a Ramsar wetland, thus acknowledging its international importance as a site for migratory wading birds. It would also raise the standards of environmental assessment and performance for the proposed solar salt development on the algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as the Cape Range – Rough Range and Giralia areas, and the southern part of Exmouth Gulf, are still considered prospective for hydrocarbons. There has been a minor show of petroleum products from Rough Range No 1 well, but independent assessment suggests that further production is exceedingly unlikely because the area has been explored comprehensively, and any reservoirs would be very small because of the extensive faulting of the area. The Department of Fisheries may not support the nomination because it would increase the level of oversight of fishing activities by Commonwealth bureaucrats.

86

Figure 18. Map showing Boundary Option 7 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

87 Option 8. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system, the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the most significant surface drainages into that part of Lake MacLeod. This option would also include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and the majority of the marine fossil deposits associated with the Giralia Anticline and the Pleistocene Reef fossils on Sandalwood Peninsula. This option would include the mangroves and associated algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, and the proposed marine protected area associated with these mangals. The option would also include the whole of Exmouth Gulf, with the corals and other marine organisms associated with the substrates of the northern extension of the Pleistocene dune system into Exmouth Gulf, the sponges and gastropods (eg species of cowrie shells), and the habitats for dugong and migratory humpback whales. This option is shown in Figure 19. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef, the portion of Lake MacLeod north of the line east of Red Bluff, and the surface drainages into this part of Lake MacLeod including Cardabia Creek, and the flood-outs at the mouths of the Lyndon and Minilya Rivers. This option will include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and extend northwards to include the proposed marine protected area in Exmouth Gulf (Wilson Report), incorporating the mangroves and associated algal flats on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. The northern boundary for Exmouth Gulf extends from the most north-easterly point of the proposed marine protected area west to the southern boundary of the proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area. The option does not include Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park or the proposed marine management area around the Muiron Islands. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could be considered under Criteria (i), (ii) and (iv). The area may also qualify under Criterion (iii) provided that areas outside the proposed area were included in the vistas. This option would not include the following values: i. the Muiron Islands which are identified to have the highest diversity of fish and other marine phyla in the region. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criterion (iv); ii. the whole of the coastal waters of Exmouth Gulf adjacent to and effectively connected with the anchialine system of North West Cape, and the significant marine biodiversity values of the remainder of Exmouth Gulf including the whale resting areas in the north of the Gulf. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (i), (ii) and (iv); iii. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and iv. the full suite of evidence of the geoevolutionary history of the western

88 margin of the Australian continental plate, including the Marrilla Anticline, the exposure of the preCambrian basement rocks in Yanrey Pastoral Lease, the disrupted drainage system at the mouth of the Yanrey River, and the intake zone for the springs feeding into Cardabia Creek which is located south of Giralia (ex pastoral lease). This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criterion (i). The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option runs a moderate to high risk of being deferred by the World Heritage Committee. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria. Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association would not support this nomination as it includes portions of Ningaloo, Bullara, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba, Minilya, Mia Mia, Marrilla, and Urala pastoral leases. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. There is said to be some prospectivity for diamonds too, but independent assessment suggests that this would be very low indeed. There are reports of potential silver and zinc mineralisation associated with the Giralia and Marrilla fault complex: these are being explored at present but no significant discovery has been announced. The same area is also prospective for barite. Dampier Salt Ltd has indicated that they do not support the inclusion of the northern part of their lease over Lake MacLeod; however, they are in the process of negotiating a nomination of that area for listing as a Ramsar wetland, thus acknowledging its international importance as a site for migratory wading birds. It would also raise the standards of environmental assessment and performance for the proposed solar salt development on the algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as the Cape Range – Rough Range and Giralia areas, and the southern part of Exmouth Gulf, are still considered prospective for hydrocarbons. There has been a minor show of petroleum products from Rough Range No 1 well, but independent assessment suggests that further production is exceedingly unlikely because the area has been explored comprehensively, and any reservoirs would be very small because of the extensive faulting of the area. The Department of Fisheries may not support the nomination because it would increase the level of oversight of fishing activities by Commonwealth bureaucrats. MG Kailis would support this nomination only if the name of the proposed World Heritage Property did not give rise to the perception in the future that the company was trawling on the reef, and so jeopardise their commercial fishing operation.

89 Figure 19. Map showing Boundary Option 8 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

90 Option 9. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system, the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the most significant surface drainages into that part of Lake MacLeod. This option would also include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and the majority of the marine fossil deposits associated with the Giralia Anticline and the Pleistocene Reef fossils on Sandalwood Peninsula. This option would include the entire area of Exmouth Gulf south of a line joining the north-eastern point of the proposed marine protected area (Wilson Report) on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, to northern extent of the proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area - to include the mangroves and associated algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. The whole of the proposed marine protected area associated with these mangals, the corals and other marine organisms associated with the substrates of the northern extension of the Pleistocene dune system into Exmouth Gulf, the sponges and gastropods e.g. species of cowrie shells), and the habitats for dugong and migratory humpback whales is included. This option is shown in Figure 20. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef, the portion of Lake MacLeod north of the line east of Red Bluff, and the surface drainages into this part of Lake MacLeod including Cardabia Creek, and the flood-outs at the mouths of the Lyndon and Minilya Rivers. This option will include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and extend northwards to include the proposed marine protected area in Exmouth Gulf (Wilson Report), incorporating the mangroves and associated algal flats on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. The northern boundary for Exmouth Gulf extends from the most north-easterly point of the proposed marine protected area west to the northern boundary of the proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area. The option does not include Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could be considered under Criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). This option would not include the following values: i. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and ii. the full suite of evidence of the geoevolutionary history of the western margin of the Australian continental plate, including the Marrilla Anticline, the exposure of the preCambrian basement rocks in Yanrey Pastoral Lease, the disrupted drainage system at the mouth of the Yanrey River, and the intake zone for the springs feeding into Cardabia Creek which is located south of Giralia (ex pastoral lease). This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criterion (i). The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option runs a moderate to high risk of being deferred by the World

91 Heritage Committee. The Australian Government would be asked to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage Property, to expand the boundary to meet the specified criteria. Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association would not support this nomination as it includes portions of Ningaloo, Bullara, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba, Minilya, Mia Mia, Marrilla, Yanrey and Koordarrie pastoral leases. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. There is said to be some prospectivity for diamonds too, but independent assessment suggests that this would be very low indeed. There are reports of potential silver and zinc mineralisation associated with the Giralia and Marrilla fault complex: these are being explored at present but no significant discovery has been announced. The same area is also prospective for barite. Dampier Salt Ltd has indicated that they do not support the inclusion of the northern part of their lease over Lake MacLeod; however, they are in the process of negotiating a nomination of that area for listing as a Ramsar wetland, thus acknowledging its international importance as a site for migratory wading birds. It would also raise the standards of environmental assessment and performance for the proposed solar salt development on the algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as it would include the small, non-commercial hydrocarbon deposit at Leatherback, adjacent to the Muiron Islands, the non- commercial hydrocarbon deposit at Rivoli, east of Exmouth and possible small deposits nearby, and the Cape Range – Rough Range and Giralia areas which have a very low chance of any further hydrocarbon strikes. The Department of Fisheries may not support the nomination because it would increase the level of oversight of fishing activities by Commonwealth bureaucrats. MG Kailis would support this nomination only if the name of the proposed World Heritage Property did not give rise to the perception in the future that the company was trawling on the reef, and so jeopardise their commercial fishing operation.

92 Figure 20. Map showing Boundary Option 9 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

93 Option 10. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system, the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the most significant surface drainages into that part of Lake MacLeod. This option would also include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and the majority of the marine fossil deposits associated with the Giralia Anticline and the Pleistocene Reef fossils on Sandalwood Peninsula. This option would include the entire Exmouth Gulf south of a line joining the northern-most point of proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area to the northern extent of the proposed marine protected area (Wilson Report) on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, to include the mangroves and associated algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, the whole of the proposed marine protected area associated with these mangals, the corals and other marine organisms associated with the substrates of the northern extension of the Pleistocene dune system into Exmouth Gulf, the sponges and gastropods e.g. species of cowrie shells, and the habitats for dugong and migratory humpback whales. This option would include the captured delta system of the Yanrey River, the associated section of the dune sequence, and the location of groundwater outflow into the algal flats and mangrove ecosystems. This option is shown in Figure 21. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef, the portion of Lake MacLeod north of the line east of Red Bluff, and the surface drainages into this part of Lake MacLeod including Cardabia Creek, and the flood-outs at the mouths of the Lyndon and Minilya Rivers. This option will include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and extend northwards to include captured delta system of the Yanrey River and the proposed marine protected area in Exmouth Gulf (Wilson Report) which incorporates the mangroves and associated algal flats on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, and the whole of Exmouth Gulf south of a line from the northern-most point of the proposed marine protected area west to the northern-most point of the proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area. The option does not include Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could be considered under Criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). This option would not include the following values: i. Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds. This omission is likely to raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (ii) and (iv); and ii. the intake zone for the springs feeding into Cardabia Creek which is located south of Giralia (ex pastoral lease). This drainage systems flows into Lake MacLeod and thence onto the reef. This omission may raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (i), (ii) and (iv). This option would provide a complete and comprehensive boundary for the proposed World Heritage nomination. The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option has a high chance of being

94 supported by the World Heritage Committee. Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association would not support this nomination as it includes portions of Ningaloo, Bullara, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba, Minilya, Mia Mia, Marrilla, Yanrey, Koordarrie and Urala pastoral leases. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. There is said to be some prospectivity for diamonds too, but independent assessment suggests that this would be very low indeed. There are reports of potential silver and zinc mineralisation associated with the Giralia and Marrilla fault complex: these are being explored at present but no significant discovery has been announced. The same area is also prospective for barite. Dampier Salt Ltd has indicated that they do not support the inclusion of the northern part of their lease over Lake MacLeod; however, they are in the process of negotiating a nomination of that area for listing as a Ramsar wetland, thus acknowledging its international importance as a site for migratory wading birds. It would also raise the standards of environmental assessment and performance for the proposed solar salt development on the algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as it would include the small, non-commercial hydrocarbon deposit at Leatherback, adjacent to the Muiron Islands, the non- commercial hydrocarbon deposit at Rivoli, east of Exmouth and possible small deposits nearby, and the Cape Range – Rough Range and Giralia areas which have a very low chance of any further hydrocarbon strikes. The Department of Fisheries would probably not support the nomination because it would increase the level of oversight of fishing activities by Commonwealth bureaucrats. MG Kailis would support this nomination only if the name of the proposed World Heritage Property did not give rise to the perception in the future that the company was trawling on the reef, and so jeopardise their commercial fishing operation.

95 Figure 21. Map showing Boundary Option 10 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

96 Option 11. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, and the Commonwealth waters component of the existing Marine Park, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system, the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the most significant surface drainages into that part of Lake MacLeod. This option would also include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and the majority of the marine fossil deposits associated with the Giralia Anticline and the Pleistocene Reef fossils on Sandalwood Peninsula. This option would include the entire Exmouth Gulf south of a line joining the northern-most point of proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area to the northern extent of the proposed marine protected area (Wilson Report) on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, to include the mangroves and associated algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, the whole of the proposed marine protected area associated with these mangals, the corals and other marine organisms associated with the substrates of the northern extension of the Pleistocene dune system into Exmouth Gulf, the sponges and gastropods e.g. species of cowrie shells, and the habitats for dugong and migratory humpback whales. This option would include the captured delta system of the Yanrey River, the associated section of the dune sequence, and the location of groundwater outflow into the algal flats and mangrove ecosystems. This option is shown in Figure 22. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef, the portion of Lake MacLeod north of the line east of Red Bluff, and the surface drainages into this part of Lake MacLeod including Cardabia Creek, and the flood-outs at the mouths of the Lyndon and Minilya Rivers. This option will include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and extend northwards to include captured delta system of the Yanrey River and the proposed marine protected area in Exmouth Gulf (Wilson Report) which incorporates the mangroves and associated algal flats on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, and the whole of Exmouth Gulf south of a line from the northern-most point of the proposed marine protected area west to the northern-most point of the proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area. The option includes Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could be considered under Criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). This option would not include the following values: i. the intake zone for the springs feeding into Cardabia Creek which is located south of Giralia (ex pastoral lease). This drainage systems flows into Lake MacLeod and thence onto the reef. This omission may raise concerns under the requirements for integrity for criteria (i), (ii) and (iv). This option would provide a complete and comprehensive boundary for the proposed World Heritage nomination. The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option has a high chance of being supported by the World Heritage Committee. Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and

97 the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association would not support this nomination as it includes portions of Ningaloo, Bullara, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba, Minilya, Mia Mia, Marrilla, Yanrey and Koordarrie pastoral leases. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. There is said to be some prospectivity for diamonds too, but independent assessment suggests that this would be very low indeed. There are reports of potential silver and zinc mineralisation associated with the Giralia and Marrilla fault complex: these are being explored at present but no significant discovery has been announced. The same area is also prospective for barite. Dampier Salt Ltd has indicated that they do not support the inclusion of the northern part of their lease over Lake MacLeod; however, they are in the process of negotiating a nomination of that area for listing as a Ramsar wetland, thus acknowledging its international importance as a site for migratory wading birds. It would also raise the standards of environmental assessment and performance for the proposed solar salt development on the algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as it would include the small, non-commercial hydrocarbon deposit at Leatherback, adjacent to the Muiron Islands, the non- commercial hydrocarbon deposit at Rivoli, east of Exmouth and possible small deposits nearby, and the Cape Range – Rough Range and Giralia areas which have a very low chance of any further hydrocarbon strikes. BHP Billiton have expressed concern about the inclusion of the Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park because it may, at some point in the future, influence approvals for activities in its tenements to the west because of a perception that this might damage the reef system. The Department of Fisheries would probably not support the nomination because it would increase the level of oversight of fishing activities by Commonwealth bureaucrats. MG Kailis would support this nomination only if the name of the proposed World Heritage Property did not give rise to the perception in the future that the company was trawling on the reef, and so jeopardise their commercial fishing operation.

98 Figure 22. Map showing Boundary Option 11 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

99 Option 12. North West Cape including the entire anchialine system of the Cape Range karst, the Ningaloo Marine Park with proposed extensions, and the Commonwealth waters component of the existing Marine Park, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef south of the Cape Range karst system, the northern portion of Lake MacLeod and the most significant surface drainages into that part of Lake MacLeod. This option would also include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and the majority of the marine fossil deposits associated with the Giralia Anticline and the Pleistocene Reef fossils on Sandalwood Peninsula. The option would also include the corals and other marine organisms associated with the substrates of the northern extension of the Pleistocene dune system into Exmouth Gulf. This option would include the entire area of Exmouth Gulf south of a line joining the northern-most point of proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area to the northern extent of the proposed marine protected area (Wilson Report area) on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. This part of Exmouth Gulf would include the mangroves and associated algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, the whole of the proposed marine protected area associated with these mangals, and the whale resting habitats in the northern part of the Gulf. This option would include the captured delta system of the Yanrey River, the associated section of the dune sequence, and the location of groundwater outflow into the algal flats and mangrove ecosystems. The option would also include the intake zone for springs feeding into the Cardabia Creek (and thus contributing to the catchment of the Ningaloo Reef) – these intake zones are immediately south of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) on Marrilla pastoral lease. This option is shown in Figure 23. The option includes all of the North West Cape peninsula, the entire Ningaloo Marine Park with extensions, the coastal drainage systems onto Ningaloo Reef, the portion of Lake MacLeod north of the line east of Red Bluff, and the surface drainages into this part of Lake MacLeod including Cardabia Creek, and the flood-outs at the mouths of the Lyndon and Minilya Rivers. This option will include the whole of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) and extend northwards to include captured delta system of the Yanrey River and the proposed marine protected area in Exmouth Gulf (Wilson Report) which incorporates the mangroves and associated algal flats on the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf, and the whole of Exmouth Gulf south of a line from the northern-most point of the proposed marine protected area west to the northern-most point of the proposed Muiron Islands Marine Management Area. The option includes Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park. This option would include the captured delta system of the Yanrey River, the associated section of the dune sequence, and the location of groundwater outflow into the algal flats and mangrove ecosystems. The option would include the intake zone for springs feeding into the Cardabia Creek (and thus contributing to the catchment of the Ningaloo Reef) – these intake zones are immediately south of Giralia (ex pastoral lease) on Marrilla pastoral lease. A nomination based on the boundaries for this option could be considered under Criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). This option would provide a complete and comprehensive boundary for the proposed World Heritage nomination. The Committee has received independent advice that a nomination based on this boundary option has a high chance of being supported by the World Heritage Committee.

100 Indications are that many stakeholders would support a nomination based on these boundaries. The coalition of conservation NGOs, the Conservation Commission and the Policy Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet would prefer to see a more inclusive/expansive nomination. The Pastoralists & Graziers Association would not support this nomination as it includes portions of Ningaloo, Bullara, Cardabia, Warroora, Gnaraloo, Quobba, Minilya, Mia Mia, Marrilla, Yanrey and Koordarrie pastoral leases. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option because it would effectively prevent large-scale mining of the Cape Range karst system for limestone. There is said to be some prospectivity for diamonds too, but independent assessment suggests that this would be very low indeed. There are reports of potential silver and zinc mineralisation associated with the Giralia and Marrilla fault complex: these are being explored at present but no significant discovery has been announced. The same area is also prospective for barite. Dampier Salt Ltd has indicated that they do not support the inclusion of the northern part of their lease over Lake MacLeod; however, they are in the process of negotiating a nomination of that area for listing as a RAMSAR wetland, thus acknowledging its international importance as a site for migratory wading birds. It would also raise the standards of environmental assessment and performance for the proposed solar salt development on the algal flats along the eastern side of Exmouth Gulf. APPEA and the Department of Industry and Resources would oppose a nomination based on this option as it would include the small, non-commercial hydrocarbon deposit at Leatherback, adjacent to the Muiron Islands, the non- commercial hydrocarbon deposit at Rivoli, east of Exmouth and possible small deposits nearby, and the Cape Range – Rough Range and Giralia areas which have a very low chance of any further hydrocarbon strikes. BHP Billiton have expressed concern about the inclusion of the Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park because it may, at some point in the future, influence approvals for activities in its tenements to the west because of a perception that this might damage the reef system. The Department of Fisheries would probably not support the nomination because it would increase the level of oversight of fishing activities by Commonwealth bureaucrats. MG Kailis would support this nomination only if the name of the proposed World Heritage Property did not give rise to the perception in the future that the company was trawling on the reef, and so jeopardise their commercial fishing operation.

101 Figure 23. Map showing Boundary Option 12 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

102 Excisions An issue that was raised often with the World Heritage Consultative Committee during the stakeholder consultation process was the option of excising areas from the proposed World Heritage area prior to nomination, so that these areas are not subject to the same constraints and management oversight. The precedent for excisions is the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, where there are two excisions: the agreed area of urban development at Denham, and the salt production ponds and associated facilities of the Shark Bay Salt Joint Venture. However, it should be noted that Monkey Mia has not been excised: the area covered is small and it does not threaten the World Heritage values. In fact, it can be argued that the activities associated with the development at Monkey Mia are about promotion of the World Heritage values, so its presence within the World Heritage Property is entirely consistent with the intent of the World Heritage Convention. The general position of the World Heritage Committee, based on an interpretation of previous decisions and discussions, is that it does not favour excisions, but will accept an excision where it contains an existing urban development that does not threaten the World Heritage values of the property, and where the area being excised has no values in its own right. The World Heritage Committee is unlikely to agree to an excision for a future development, particularly a development that may detract from the World Heritage values. Areas that have been proposed for excisions from within the Cape Range – Ningaloo World Heritage Property include: • the Town of Exmouth, which may be defined by the envelope of existing development or by the boundary of area covered by the Shire of Exmouth Town Plan No. 3; • part or all of the Naval Communications Station, areas A, B and/or C; • Learmonth RAAF Base; • the land owned by the Department of Defence on the western side of Cape Range and used as a Bombing Range; • the townsite of Coral Bay; • the proposed CALM Act Section 5 (h) reserve in Cape Range for mining of limestone and conservation; • other mining tenements, possible mines, and/or hydrocarbon production facilities. Expert advice would be required on each of these possible exclusions. Commentary on some is provided in the section below addressing the preferred boundary.

103 8. A preferred boundary for the proposed World Heritage Property The Terms of Reference for the World Heritage Consultative Committee require us to recommend to Government a preferred boundary for the proposed World Heritage Property. Members of the Consultative Committee recognises that this is a critical outcome of our work – much rides on this advice in terms of the likely success of the nomination, and in terms of the way in which the various stakeholders respond. The success of the nomination is not a foregone conclusion solely because of the inclusion of the Ningaloo reef system, which is so spectacular and so significant on a global scale. The nominated area must meet at least one, preferably two, of the World Heritage criteria and it must also meet the requirements of integrity. In the case of a reef system, the World Heritage Committee’s Operating Guidelines state clearly and explicitly that, for a nomination of a reef system, the area being nominated should include the “… seagrass, mangrove or other adjacent ecosystems that regulate nutrient and sediment inputs into the reef.” The Consultative Committee is aware that around 50% of nominations to the World Heritage List are either rejected outright because the place being nominated does not have values “of outstanding universal significance” or they are deferred pending a satisfactory outcome of negotiations with the nominating State Party over boundaries and management arrangements. The Consultative Committee has consulted widely and has attempted to record faithfully the views of each of the stakeholder organisations or groups. And in doing this, the Committee has been made acutely aware of the concerns of stakeholders in relation to the study area, and has developed a good understanding of the likely responses to any of the other boundary options. The Consultative Committee has identified from the boundary options considered, an optimal boundary for the proposed world Heritage Property. This optimal boundary is shown in Figure 24 below. It is the Consultative Committee’s view that this optimal boundary “meets the World Heritage criteria including integrity, and requirements for on-going management,” as was required under our Terms of Reference. In deciding on that optimal boundary, members of the Consultative Committee were conscious of the impacts, real or asserted, that the nomination may have on stakeholders. This optimal boundary is designed to minimise some of the impacts, while not compromising the proposed World Heritage Property or putting at risk the likelihood of success of the nomination. It is optimal, in the view of the Consultative Committee, because a nomination based on this boundary has a high likelihood of succeeding, yet it does not seriously impact upon other interests. The Consultative Committee draws attention to the following features of the optimal boundary: • the area proposed to be nominated does not include the Commonwealth waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park with its gradation into deeper waters and the associated marine biota, the whale migration routes and the whale shark feeding grounds; • the area proposed to be nominated does not include captured delta of the Yanrey River, the associated dune sequence and the location of groundwater

104 outflow into the algal flats and mangrove ecosystems; and • the area proposed to be nominated does not include the intake zone for the springs that feed into Cardabia Creek. This drainage systems flows into Lake MacLeod and thence onto the reef. The Consultative Committee recognises that a nomination based on the optimal boundary will still raise concerns amongst stakeholders, especially those associated with the resources sector. The Committee believes that some of the key concerns could well be addressed through the management arrangements for the World Heritage Property. Particular concerns of stakeholders may be addressed in the following way: • access to the limestone resources of Cape Range. The Consultative Committee has the view that mining the limestone of Cape Range at the scale that is suggested by the size of the proposed Section 5 (h) reserve would be incompatible with management of the Range as a part of a World Heritage Property. The Committee also notes that the Mining Warden made similar recommendations in considering an application for 10 mining leases totalling an area of 8,250 hectares within the proposed Section 5 (h) reserve.4 The Mining Warden recommended the granting of only one mining lease (but access to mine only approximately 6 hectares) and that the remainder of the mining leases be refused. The basis of the findings by the Mining Warden was a recognition of the global significance of the karst system and the fauna of the karst system, and the integrity of the system, and the belief that mining of limestone at the scale contemplated in the application would adversely impact these globally significant natural values. The Mining Warden also noted the important archaeological and ethnographic values of Cape Range, and the likelihood that these values would also be adversely impacted by limestone mining. The Committee acknowledges that some mining is legitimate. The option exists to excise some land from the area to be nominated specifically for future mining of limestone; however, such an excision is unlikely to be viewed favourably by the World Heritage Committee. • exploration and production of hydrocarbons. The Committee acknowledges that the area proposed for the World Heritage nomination under the optimal boundary does include some known hydrocarbon reserves and some prospective sites. The Committee notes that the known reserves are subeconomic, and also takes on board the advice that the area of the proposed nomination is not as prospective for hydrocarbons as the portion of the Exmouth Sub-basin further off-shore. The Committee also notes that the hydrocarbon industry in Western Australia has a very good safety record, and that risk management during operations is at a high standard. The Committee believes that it would be appropriate to acknowledge the pre-existing tenements and known hydrocarbon reserves within the area to be nominated as a dimension of the geo-evolutionary history, and the excellent safety record of the industry. Reflecting this, the Committee suggests that a management arrangement should be possible where the petroleum production is permitted within the Muiron Islands and Exmouth

4 Finesky Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Speleological Federation (inc) and Others, judgement delivered 9 February 2001.

105 Gulf portions of the World Heritage Property, subject to the strict requirements of relevant Commonwealth and State environmental protection legislation. A similar arrangement should be possible for the hydrocarbon exploration and production companies with tenements in the Cape Range and Giralia areas; however, the environmental management practices of these companies should be subjected to increased scrutiny, matching that applied to companies operating in the marine environment, as the present controls would seem rather lax. Further, the Committee suggests that exploration be permitted to continue, again subject to strict environmental controls, for a maximum of 10 years, or until such time as the existing tenement holders relinquish their tenements. In other words, the explorations would lapse unless production infrastructure was in place by the end of the 10 year period. • Lake MacLeod and the proposed Ramsar listing. The Consultative Committee notes the concerns expressed by Dampier Salt that including a part of Lake MacLeod within the area to be nominated for World Heritage listing will complicate management of the lake and the company’s proposal for listing a different area of the lake as a RAMSAR wetland. The Committee is sympathetic to the position of the company, noting that they initiated the Ramsar listing of their own volition. However, the Committee finds that the case for inclusion of the northern portion of the lake within the area to be nominated is compelling. The Committee also notes that Ramsar listing and World Heritage listing are complementary processes, not exclusive of each other, and that this is specifically alluded to in the Operational Guidelines. It is understood that the parties involved in developing the Ramsar nomination for Lake MacLeod are finding management of the catchment of the lake very challenging, because there are no existing arrangements that would enable the parties to engage with managers upstream. The input of freshwater, sediment and pollutants is an issue for the Ramsar wetland values, and also for the production of salt at the southern end of the lake. There is a prospect that World Heritage listing of a portion of Lake MacLeod and portions of the critical catchments could lead to improved management of those catchments as, elsewhere in this report, the Consultative Committee has proposed that Government provide capacity-building support to pastoral lessees in the area, drawing on the catchment management skills embedded within the EMU Project team. • developments in Exmouth. The Consultative Committee proposes that the area covered by the Shire of Exmouth Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (adopted in 1997) be excised from the proposed World Heritage nomination. This should give a degree to comfort to the Shire councillors and to residents and ratepayers, some of whom have been concerned about excessive intrusion by managers of the proposed World Heritage Property into the affairs of local government. • developments in Coral Bay. The Consultative Committee notes that Coral Bay is small, and will continue to be so under the proposals in the Ningaloo Coast Regional Strategy, Carnarvon to Exmouth (WAPC 2004). Further, the structure planning arrangements are intended to transform the Coral Bay settlement into one that has limited impact on the environment. Under these circumstances, the

106 Committee believes that developments at Coral Bay will not be incompatible with management of the World Heritage Property and, therefore, should not be excised; however, the Government may choose to exclude the area of the Coral Bay settlement as defined in the Regional Strategy. • Defence lands. The World Heritage Consultative Committee has been advised informally that the Department of Defence is prepared to accept inclusion of its lands and facilities within the proposed World Heritage Property. These negotiations are being handled by officers in the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage. • Fisheries management in Exmouth Gulf. The World Heritage Consultative Committee notes the concerns expressed by MG Kailis Fisheries regarding their continued access to the Exmouth Gulf prawn fishery. The company has identified a risk that the public might confuse their operations in Exmouth Gulf with a perception of fishing on Ningaloo Reef because of the name of the World Heritage Property. A solution is to give the proposed World Heritage Property a name that does not lead to this confusion e.g. the Ningaloo - Cape Range – Exmouth Gulf World Heritage Property or the North West Cape Province World Heritage Property. Another option might be to develop a formal, legally binding contractual arrangement between the company and the State Government, allowing continued access to the Gulf fishery subject to relevant conditions. This approach is used extensively for mineral and petroleum resource projects, for example with State Agreement Acts. The concerns about the proposed World Heritage nomination expressed by the Department of Fisheries seem to reflect a lack of commitment to a whole-of- Government approach to implementing Government Policy. An approach to the management of the World Heritage Property that may satisfy this Department is for the area of Exmouth Gulf included within the World Heritage Property to be designated a Fish Habitat Protection Area. This approach would give the Department ownership and responsibility, and would also contribute to satisfying the requirements for effective management of the World Heritage Property. In conclusion, the World Heritage Consultative Committee believes that the optimal boundary strikes a reasonable balance between the requirements of Government to put forward a World Heritage nomination that is successful, and the desire of Government not to alienate important groups of stakeholders. The proposals given above represent a genuine attempt by the Committee to identify solutions to the residual concerns of stakeholders with respect to a nomination based on the optimal boundary. The World Heritage Consultative Committee recommends that consideration be given in the first instance to the boundary option shown on Figure 24. The Consultative Committee recommends further that consideration also be given to the arrangements that have been proposed for dealing with residual issues of concern to stakeholders.

107 Figure 24. Map showing Optimal Boundary for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

108 Compromise boundary options As noted above, the World Heritage Consultative Committee selected the optimal boundary because, in their view, a nomination based on this boundary has a high likelihood of being accepted by the World Heritage Committee, yet does not seriously jeopardise other interests. The Consultative Committee recognises, however, that the optimal boundary for the proposed World Heritage Property will not be accepted readily by many stakeholders, particularly those from the resources sector, even if the suggested management proposals are put in place. This lack of acceptance was anticipated from the start of the consultation process and, for this reason, the Committee resolved at the outset to report fully and comprehensively on the comments of all the stakeholders, to defuse complaints that stakeholders’ comments were ignored. The Consultative Committee has also resolved to provide for Government consideration, boundary options for the proposed World Heritage nomination, other than the optimal boundary. The Committee has identified three boundary options for this purpose. However, it should be clearly understood that each of the compromise boundaries has associated risks. The principal risk is that the World Heritage Committee will not accept a nomination based on either one of these boundaries; in which case, that Committee will defer consideration of the nomination until such time as the boundary is modified to include the identified areas or World Heritage values. The three compromise boundaries identified by the Consultative Committee are described below.

Compromise Boundary Option 1 does not include the Muiron Islands proposed Marine Management Area. The boundary is shown on Figure 25 below. The Muiron Islands and surrounding waters are an important component of the Ningaloo Reef system. This northern end of the Ningaloo Reef system supports around 100 species of fish that do not occur on the main section of the reef. There is a strong likelihood that other species of marine organisms are also restricted to the reefs of the Muiron Islands. As well, the waters off the Muirons are used by six species of nationally threatened turtles, and beaches of the islands are important nesting sites for all four species: Loggerhead, Hawksbill, Flatback and Green turtles. There is a risk, therefore, that the World Heritage Committee will defer consideration of a nomination based on this boundary until the Muiron Islands are included within the boundary. Should the Government choose to submit a nomination based on this compromise boundary option, management arrangements to deal with some of the residual concerns should be considered. The management arrangements described above for the following issues are relevant: • access to the limestone resources of Cape Range; • exploration and production of hydrocarbons (Exmouth Gulf, Cape Range and Giralia areas); • Lake MacLeod and the proposed Ramsar listing;

109 • developments in Exmouth; • developments in Coral Bay; • Defence lands; and • fisheries management of Exmouth Gulf. Choosing this option would obviate the concerns of the majority of the hydrocarbon industry. However, those hydrocarbon exploration and production companies with interests in Exmouth Gulf and on land, on the eastern side of the North West Cape peninsula including Rough Range and in the Giralia area will inevitably have residual concerns that will need to be addressed. The management arrangements suggested above in relation to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons within Exmouth Gulf and in the Cape Range area and the Giralia area should deal adequately with these concerns.

Compromise Boundary Option 2 does not include the Muiron Islands proposed Marine Management Area and the majority of Exmouth Gulf, especially the areas used for commercial fishing for prawns, the Rivoli hydrocarbon deposit and associated areas prospective for hydrocarbons. The boundary is shown on Figure 26 below. The World Heritage values of the Muiron Islands are described in Compromise Boundary Option1 above. The western portion of Exmouth Gulf is significant because the waters of the Gulf are effectively linked to, and a part of, the anchialine system of Cape Range. In addition, the substrates of this part of the Gulf support corals, sponges and a range of related marine organisms. There is a risk, therefore, that the World Heritage Committee will defer consideration of a nomination based on this boundary until the Muiron Islands and the western portion of Exmouth Gulf are included within the boundary. Should the Government choose to submit a nomination based on this compromise boundary option, management arrangements to deal with some of the residual concerns should be considered. The management arrangements described above for the following issues are relevant: • access to the limestone resources of Cape Range; • exploration and production of hydrocarbons (Cape Range and Giralia areas); • Lake MacLeod and the proposed Ramsar listing; • developments in Exmouth; • developments in Coral Bay; • Defence lands; and • fisheries management of Exmouth Gulf. Choosing this option would obviate the majority of concerns of the hydrocarbon industry. However, those hydrocarbon exploration and production companies with interests on land, on the eastern side of the North West Cape peninsula including Rough Range and in the Giralia area will inevitably have residual concerns that will need to be addressed. The management arrangements suggested above in relation to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons within the Cape Range area and the Giralia area should deal adequately with these concerns.

110

Compromise Boundary Option 3 includes only the actual Muiron Islands plus the surrounding marine environment only to one kilometre from the islands therefore does not include the area of the Leatherback Oil Field, and excludes Sunday Island and the majority of Exmouth Gulf, especially the areas used for commercial fishing for prawns, the Rivoli hydrocarbon deposit and associated areas prospective for hydrocarbons. The boundary is shown on Figure 27 below. This option excludes the deeper waters off the Muiron Islands, Sunday Island and all the waters surrounding that island, and the waters between Sunday Island and North and South Muiron Islands. The waters immediately adjacent to the Muiron Islands are an important component of the Ningaloo Reef system. This northern end of the Ningaloo Reef system supports around 100 species of fish that do not occur on the main section of the reef. There is a strong likelihood that other species of marine organisms are also restricted to the reefs of the Muiron Islands. As well, the waters off the Muirons are used by six species of nationally threatened turtles, and beaches of the islands are important nesting sites for all four species: Loggerhead, Hawksbill, Flatback and Green turtles. The western portion of Exmouth Gulf is significant because the waters of the Gulf are effectively linked to, and a part of, the anchialine system of Cape Range. In addition, the substrates of this part of the Gulf support corals, sponges and a range of related marine organisms. The inclusion of the Muiron Islands and the surrounding waters to one kilometre only should satisfy the requirements of the World Heritage Committee, although there may be residual concerns about the proximity of oil and gas developments. However, there is a risk that the World Heritage Committee will defer consideration of a nomination based on this boundary until the western portion of Exmouth Gulf is included within the boundary. Should the Government choose to submit a nomination based on this compromise boundary option, management arrangements to deal with some of the residual concerns should be considered. The management arrangements described above for the following issues are relevant: • access to the limestone resources of Cape Range; • exploration and production of hydrocarbons (Cape Range and Giralia areas); • Lake MacLeod and the proposed Ramsar listing; • developments in Exmouth; • developments in Coral Bay; • Defence lands; and • fisheries management of Exmouth Gulf. Choosing this option would obviate the majority of concerns of the hydrocarbons industry. However, those hydrocarbon exploration and production companies with interests immediately adjacent to the Muiron Islands and on land, on the eastern side of the North West Cape peninsula including Rough Range and in the Giralia area will inevitably have residual concerns that will need to be addressed. The concerns of companies with tenements adjacent to the Muiron Islands are about the additional level of management oversight that may be applied by the Commonwealth

111 Government under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The concerns of companies with tenements onshore are that they will be denied access to the tenements either immediately or once the World Heritage property is inscribed. The management arrangements suggested above in relation to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons within the Cape Range area and the Giralia area should deal adequately with these concerns.

112 Figure 25. Map showing Compromise Boundary Option 1 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

113 Figure 26. Map showing Compromise Boundary Option 2 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

114 Figure 27. Map showing Compromise Boundary Option 3 for the proposed World Heritage nomination.

115 9. Implications for funding and management Two issues were raised repeatedly during the consultation process: the absolute importance of ensuring adequate funding for the management of the proposed World Heritage property, and the importance of having governance and management arrangements that engage all the relevant stakeholders and the local community, and that are effective. Both issues have a profound effect on the way in which the community views any World Heritage property. Although the Australian Government is the State Party to the World Heritage Convention, that Government appears not to have taken much responsibility for the World Heritage properties in Western Australia. For example, since inscription of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property in 1991, the Commonwealth has contributed $6 million; this includes $0.95 for half the cost of the purchase of Peron Station in 1990 and $1.7 million to the Shire for the construction of an interpretive facility in Denham. However, funding has declined sharply in the last three years to around $124,000 pa. In contrast, the contribution of the State Government is now around $1 million pa. It is estimated that the level of funding that would be required to manage the Shark Bay World Heritage Property appropriately for its status is around an additional $2.5 million per year. There has been no specific allocation of Commonwealth funds for the management of the Purnululu World Heritage Property. This is despite the fact that the World Heritage Committee in its consideration of that nomination …”request[ed] that the State Party significantly increase funding and staffing for the property, in order to improve natural and cultural heritage management; to minimise the impacts of grazing animals and invasive species; to upgrade staff and visitor facilities…” This recommendation reflected the findings of the IUCN in its assessment report that “Staffing and funding are barely adequate for current operations and well short of levels required under World Heritage standing.” The IUCN went on to propose and increase in funding of AUD$3 million per year for three years plus an annual operating grant of about AUD $400,000. Preliminary estimates are that the Cape Range – Ningaloo World Heritage Property will require an on-going additional investment of about the same quantum indicated above for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property. An initial injection of capital funds will also be required. Under the new funding arrangements for NHT2, funding for the management of Western Australia’s World Heritage Properties will come from the allocation to the Rangelands NRM Region. Anticipated annual funding for the Rangelands NRM Region is $2.2 million. The way the regional strategy is developing at present, the amount of funding that is likely to be allocated for the management of World Heritage Properties is likely to be very small indeed. The Consultative Committee notes the recent announcement by the Premier that the Government will invest an additional $5 million over four years in research on the Ningaloo Reef and associated marine ecosystems.5 This is an important initiative for

5 $5 million to learn more about Ningaloo and save the Whale Shark. Media Statement released 26

116 filling identified knowledge gaps. However, the Consultative Committee notes that the great majority of the $2.5 million identified above is for on-ground management of the proposed World Heritage property, which would be informed by the outcomes of this research program. Such is the importance of adequate resourcing for the proposed North West Cape - Ningaloo Reef World Heritage Property that the Consultative Committee believes that the nomination should not proceed until a suitable commitment has been given by Government. The World Heritage Consultative Committee recommends that the Government gives a clear commitment to adequate resourcing of the proposed World Heritage property at the same time as making a decision to proceed with the nomination. The issue of funding for the management of all Western Australia’s World Heritage Properties located in Western Australia is critical. The Consultative Committee believes that there should be a specific, dedicated State funding stream for this purpose. The Committee notes that such an arrangement could be used to negotiate funding parity with the Commonwealth. The other key issue raised is the governance and management arrangements for the proposed World Heritage property. As has been noted earlier in this report, the arrangements for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property are considered dysfunctional, so any arrangement for North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef must be designed to avoid the problems experienced in Shark Bay. Also it is felt that governance and management arrangements for the new World Heritage property must be designed to achieve an improved level of integration and coordination across Government agencies, and cooperation with local government. At the same time, the Consultative Committee was very conscious of the need to avoid a highly bureaucratic and potentially costly arrangement, because of those concerns raised by many stakeholders. The nomination for the proposed North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef World Heritage property requires an indication of the management arrangements that are likely to be put in place for the property. This requirement provides an opportunity to review the administrative arrangements for the Shark Bay and Purnululu World Heritage Properties and to put in place appropriate arrangements to oversight all three properties. The Consultative Committee considered a number of governance models. Three are reported here: the Shark Bay World Heritage Property arrangements, arrangements for the management of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Property in North Queensland, and a proposed model with a Coordinating Council. The present administrative arrangements for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property consist of a Ministerial Council (two Federal Ministers, two State Ministers) which should meet at least once a year, with a Consultative Committee and a Scientific Advisory Committee, both of which meet three times per year. However, over the last two years the Ministerial Council has had only one brief phone link-up to appoint some new Committee members. In the last four years, the Ministerial Council has met face-to-face only once. This apparent disinterest has caused

July 2004 at http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/media/ accessed on 15 October 2004.

117 frustration for Committee members, as their advice and recommendations have not been heard. The lack of discretionary funding for management of the Shark Bay Property has also caused frustration. The structural and reporting arrangements for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property arrangements are shown in Figure 28.

Figure 28. Governance arrangements for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property.

The arrangements for the Wet Tropics stand in marked contrast to those for Shark Bay, because of the existence of a specifically constituted management authority. Following World Heritage Listing of the Wet Tropics in 1988, the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments agreed on a framework to manage the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. They established a small Cairns-based agency (the Wet Tropics Management Authority or WTMA) with responsibilities for managing the Wet Tropics according to Australia's obligations under the World Heritage

118 Convention. Unlike a regular Government department, WTMA answers to both levels of Government, and is directed by an independent board of directors appointed by a Ministerial Council. The Wet Tropics Ministerial Council is made up of four Ministers - two each from the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments. The Ministerial Council coordinates funding and policy between the two levels of government, approves management plans and appoints the Wet Tropics Board. The Board is made up of six directors and reports to the Ministerial Council. It is responsible for the way the Authority performs its functions and exercises its powers. The Board meets several times a year to discuss and prioritise the Authority's objectives, strategies and policies. The Executive Director of the Wet Tropics Management Authority is a non-voting member of the Board. The Authority is a relatively small, policy-focussed organisation with about 30 staff members. It is not responsible for day-to-day management issues such as maintenance, routine permits, and enforcement activities which are the responsibilities of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. However, it is responsible for the coordination of on-the-ground management to ensure the World Heritage Area is properly protected. As is the case with the administrative/management arrangements for most other Australian World Heritage properties, the Board is directly advised by a Community Consultative Committee and a Scientific Advisory Committee. In addition, a series of stakeholder liaison groups (landholders, neighbours, tourism industry, conservation sector), chaired by a Board member, operate to provide regular advice and feedback to the Authority. The structural arrangements are illustrated in Figure 29.

119 Figure 29. Governance arrangements and functions for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Property in North Queensland.

120 Arrangements proposed by the Consultative Committee for the North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef World Heritage property strike a balance between the Shark Bay model and the Wet Tropics model, with a Coordinating Council and three subsidiary committees. The Coordinating Council could be considered a non-statutory equivalent of the Wet Tropics Management Authority Board. The major functions of the Coordinating Council would be to provide strategic oversight over planning and management of the property, and the investment of funds. The Council would also have primary responsibility to ensure close coordination between the three tiers of government, and across State Government agencies, in the management of the property. The Coordinating Council would have strong links with the planning body which is proposed (Ningaloo Sustainable Development Authority), and may be assisted in some of the planning activities by that body. A simple diagrammatic representation of the proposed arrangement is shown in Figure 30. It is conceivable that one Ministerial Council and Coordinating Council could oversight all three Western Australian World Heritage Properties. However, the three committees shown on the figure would probably be property-specific. Figure 30. Proposed structural arrangements for the governance and management of the proposed North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef World Heritage property.

In conclusion, the Consultative Committee reiterates the requirement that the governance and management arrangements for the proposed World Heritage property be addressed prior to the nomination. The World Heritage Consultative Committee recommends that the Government decides on a suitable governance structure and associated management arrangements prior to transmitting the nomination to the Commonwealth Government so that this commitment can be recorded in the relevant section of the nomination.

121 10. Conclusions

Despite the limited time and resources to undertake this task, the members of the World Heritage Consultative Committee have confidence in the strength of our advice to Government on the proposal to nominate Cape Range Ningaloo for World Heritage listing. We have worked hard to ensure that this report is based on the best available knowledge and we have similar confidence in the standard of the draft Nomination. To ensure a successful nomination and avoid the disappointment and ignominy of a rejection by the World Heritage Committee, the Committee believes strongly that the boundary chosen by Government needs to best represent the four World Heritage criteria. With the range of scientific information presented to it, the Committee feels compelled to recommend the optimal boundary to Government. Throughout the process the Committee has been aware of local hostility to the proposal, due in large part to ignorance of the international significance of the natural values of the area. The Committee has found this ignorance is due to a combination of poorly publicly articulated science, deliberate dissemination of misleading information and lack of understanding of the World Heritage listing and its processes. Consequently to ensure the support of the local community it is vital that a strong and comprehensive communication and consultation process be put in place. An integral part of building trust in the proposed nomination is for the community to see transparent commitment to the on-going management of the area by both Australian and State Governments. It will be essential for the Western Australian Government to make an early commitment to an adequately resourced and workable management structure acceptable to all levels of the community. One of the challenges for Government will be to address the apparent conflict between development of the mineral resources in the area and potential World Heritage listing. The Committee has had difficulty in accurately quantifying the economic significance of the mineral resources that are contiguous with the natural values of the area. Nevertheless, given the scientific data presented we conclude that the area has values of outstanding natural significance and, in our opinion, presents a strong case for World Heritage listing.

Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the assistance given to the World Heritage Consultative Committee by all those who participated in the consultation process. Also, we would like to acknowledge the scientific and technical advice provided to the Consultative Committee by the World Heritage expert consultant Dr Warren Nicholls, and the contribution of Angas Hopkins from the Department of Conservation and Land Management, who provided outstanding executive support under difficult circumstances.

122 11. References Cawthorne, P. (1963) Discovery of subterranean freshwater fauna on the eastern side of North West Cape. Western Australian Naturalist 8, 129-132. Crostella, A. (1996) North West Cape Petroleum Exploration — Analysis of Results to Early 1995. Geological Survey of Western Australia Record 1996/3. Crostella, A. and Lasky, R.P. (1997) Structural interpretation of hydrocarbon potential of the Giralia area, Carnarvon Basin. Geological Survey of Western Australia Report 52. Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM)(1996) Shark Bay Marine Reserves Management Plan 1996 – 2006. Developed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management for the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority. Management Plan No 34. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth. Denman, P.D. and van de Graaff, W.J.E. (1982). Geological Survey of Western Australia. 1:250,000 Geological Series – Map and Explanatory Notes. Quobba, Western Australia. Sheet SF49-4. Department of Mines, Western Australia, Perth. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (1975) Conservation Reserves for Western Australia as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. Systems 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (1999). Environmental Protection of Cape Range Province. Position Statement No. 1. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2000). Guidance for the assessment of environmental factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986). Guidance Statement for Assessment of Development Proposals in Shark Bay World Heritage Property. Guidance Statement No. 49. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2001). Guidance for the assessment of environmental factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986). Guidance Statement for protection of tropical arid zone mangroves along the Pilbara coastline. Guidance Statement No. 1. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2003). Guidance for the assessment of environmental factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986). Consideration of Subterranean Fauna in Groundwater and Caves during Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. Guidance Statement No. 54. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth. Flinders, M. (1814) A Voyage to Terra Australis; Undertaken for the Purpose of Completing the Discovery of that Vast Country, and Prosecuted in the Years 1801, 1802, 1803, in His Majesty’s Ship the Investigator. 2 Vols & Atlas. G. & W. Nicol, London. Flint, D.J. and Abeysinghe, P.B. (2000) Geology and mineral resources of the Gascoyne Region. Geological Survey of Western Australia Record 2000/7. Hamilton-Smith, E., Kiernan, K. and Spate, A. (1998) Karst management

123 considerations for the Cape Range Karst Province Western Australia. A report prepared for the Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection. Department of Environmental Protection, Perth. Hocking, R. M., Williams, S. J., Lavaring, I. H. and Moore, P. S. (1985). Geological Survey of Western Australia. 1:250,000 Geological Series – Map and Explanatory Notes. Winning Pool – Minilya, Western Australia. Sheets SF/49-16, SF/50-13. Department of Mines, Western Australia, Perth. Hocking, R. M., Moors, H.T. and van de Graaff, W.J.E. (1987) Geology of the Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia. Geological Survey of Western Australia Bulletin 133. Humphreys, W. F. (editor) (1993) The biogeography of Cape range, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement No. 45. (Proceedings of a Symposium held under the auspices of the Western Australian Museum on 21 November 1992 at the Art Gallery of Western Australia. Lasky, R.P., D’Ercole, C., Ghori, K.A.R., Mory, A.J. and Lockwood, A.M. (2003) Structure and petroleum prospectivity of the Gascoyne Platform, Western Australia. Geological Survey of Western Australia Report 87. Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group (MPRSWG) (1994) A Representative Marine Reserve System for Western Australia. Report of the Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group. June 1994. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth. Mees, G.F. (1962) The freshwater fauna of Yardie Creek Station, North West Cape, Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 45, 24- 32 Morse, K. (1993) Who can see the sea? Prehistoric Aboriginal occupation of the Cape Range peninsula. In W. F. Humphreys (editor) The biogeography of Cape range, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement No. 45. pp 227-242. Semeniuk, V. (1997). Selection of Mangrove Stands for Conservation in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia – A Discussion. Unpublished Report to the Environmental Protection Authority. Richards, A.M. (1963) The subterranean freshwater fauna of North West Cape, Western Australia. Helicite 1963, 78-82. State Planning Commission (SPC) (1988) Shark Bay Regional Plan. State Planning Commission and the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth Sutton, D. (1999), The Cape Range Region, Western Australia: Natural and Cultural Heritage Values. Unpublished Report to the Australian Conservation Foundation. van de Graaff, W. J. E., Denman, P. D., Hocking, R. M. and Baxter, J. L. (1980). Geological Survey of Western Australia. 1:250,000 Geological Series – Map and Explanatory Notes. Yanrey – Ningaloo, Western Australia. Sheets SF49-12, SF50- 9. Department of Mines, Western Australia, Perth. van de Graaff, W. J. E., Denman, P. D., and Hocking, R. M. (1982). Geological Survey of Western Australia. 1:250,000 Geological Series – Map and Explanatory

124 Notes. Onslow, Western Australia. Sheets SF49-8, SF50-5. Department of Mines, Western Australia, Perth. Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) (1997) Shark Bay Regional Strategy. A review of the 1988 Shark Bay Region Plan. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth. Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) (2004), Ningaloo Coast Regional Strategy Carnarvon to Exmouth. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth. Whitley, P.G. (1945) New sharks and fishes from Western Australia. Part 2. The Australian Zoologist 11, 1- 45.

125 Attachment 1. World Heritage Criteria and Requirements under Conditions of Integrity (Extracted from Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention WHC02/02 July 2002)

D. Criteria for the inclusion of natural properties in the World Heritage List 43. In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the following is 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." 44. A natural heritage property - as defined above - which is submitted for inclusion in the World Heritage List will be considered to be of outstanding universal value for the purposes of the Convention when the Committee finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria and fulfills the conditions of integrity set out below. Sites nominated should therefore: (a) (i) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of land forms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features; or (ii) be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals; or (iii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance; or (iv) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; and (b) also fulfill the following conditions of integrity: (i) The sites described in 44(a)(i) should contain all or most of the key interrelated and interdependent elements in their natural relationships; for example, an "ice age" area should include the snow field, the glacier itself and samples of cutting patterns, deposition and colonization (e.g. striations, moraines, pioneer stages of plant succession, etc.); in the case of volcanoes, the magmatic series should be complete and all or most of the varieties of effusive rocks and types of eruptions be represented. (ii) The sites described in 44(a)(ii) should have sufficient size and contain the

126 necessary elements to demonstrate the key aspects of processes that are essential for the long-term conservation of the ecosystems and the biological diversity they contain; for example, an area of tropical rain forest should include a certain amount of variation in elevation above sea-level, changes in topography and soil types, patch systems and naturally regenerating patches; similarly a coral reef should include, for example, seagrass, mangrove or other adjacent ecosystems that regulate nutrient and sediment inputs into the reef. (iii) The sites described in 44(a)(iii) should be of outstanding aesthetic value and include areas that are essential for maintaining the beauty of the site; for example, a site whose scenic values depend on a waterfall, should include adjacent catchment and downstream areas that are integrally linked to the maintenance of the aesthetic qualities of the site. (iv) The sites described in paragraph 44(a)(iv) should contain habitats for maintaining the most diverse fauna and flora characteristic of the biographic province and ecosystems under consideration; for example, a tropical savannah should include a complete assemblage of co-evolved herbivores and plants; an island ecosystem should include habitats for maintaining endemic biota; a site containing wide-ranging species should be large enough to include the most critical habitats essential to ensure the survival of viable populations of those species; for an area containing migratory species, seasonal breeding and nesting sites, and migratory routes, wherever they are located, should be adequately protected; international conventions, e.g. the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), for ensuring the protection of habitats of migratory species of waterfowl, and other multi- and bilateral agreements could provide this assurance. (v) The sites described in paragraph 44(a) should have a management plan. When a site does not have a management plan at the time when it is nominated for the consideration of the World Heritage Committee, the State Party concerned should indicate when such a plan will become available and how it proposes to mobilize the resources required for the preparation and implementation of the plan. The State Party should also provide other document(s) (e.g. operational plans) which will guide the management of the site until such time when a management plan is finalized. (vi) A site described in paragraph 44(a) should have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional or traditional protection. The boundaries of that site should reflect the spatial requirements of habitats, species, processes or phenomena that provide the basis for its nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List. The boundaries should include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the area of outstanding universal value in order to protect the site's heritage values from direct effects of human encroachment and impacts of resource use outside of the nominated area. The boundaries of the nominated site may coincide with one or more existing or proposed protected areas, such as national parks or biosphere reserves. While an existing or proposed protected area may contain several management zones, only some of those zones may satisfy criteria described in paragraph 44(a); other zones, although they may not meet the criteria set out in paragraph 44(a), may be essential for the management to ensure the integrity of the

127 nominated site; for example, in the case of a biosphere reserve, only the core zone may meet the criteria and the conditions of integrity, although other zones, i.e. buffer and transitional zones, would be important for the conservation of the biosphere reserve in its totality. (vii) Sites described in paragraph 44(a) should be the most important sites for the conservation of biological diversity. Biological diversity, according to the new global Convention on Biological Diversity, means the variability among living organisms in terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part and includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. Only those sites which are the most biologically diverse are likely to meet criterion (iv) of paragraph 44 (a). 45. In principle, a site could be inscribed on the World Heritage List as long as it satisfies one of the four criteria and the relevant conditions of integrity. However, most inscribed sites have met two or more criteria. Nomination dossiers, IUCN evaluations and the final recommendations of the Committee on each inscribed site are available for consultation by States Parties which may wish to use such information as guides for identifying and elaborating nomination of sites within their own territories.

128 Attachment 2. Copy of the paper with background information provided to stakeholders during the consultation process.

Proposed Cape Range – Ningaloo Reef World Heritage Nomination

Background Information July 2004

1. The Western Australian Government made policy commitments to nominate the North West Cape and Ningaloo Marine Park area for inclusion in the World Heritage List. 2. This commitment has been confirmed on several occasions over the past 2 years. 3. The Premier and the Minister for the Environment have written to their respective Federal Government counterparts to initiate the process. The responses from the Federal Government have been positive. 4. In order to assist progressing the nomination, the Government has established a Consultative Committee. The Committee has a membership of three: Mr Doug Bathgate (Chair) Ms Sue Jones Mr Neil Blake 5. The Consultative Committee has the following Terms of Reference: Specific questions that the Consultative Committee should address are: • What are the main issues and concerns of the key stakeholders, and to what extent are those issues generic versus specific to a particular area? • Are there responses to concerns that can be accommodated without compromising the nomination? This should include concerns about the impact of World Heritage listing on the town of Exmouth. • What is the preferred boundary for the World Heritage nomination that meets the World Heritage criteria including integrity, and requirements for on-going management? 6. The Committee is required to consult with key stakeholders in the area, including Government agencies, local governments, industry and community organizations (including Indigenous organizations and groups) in the course of considering options for the World Heritage area boundary. 7. The Committee has an advisory role to the Minister for the Environment. State Cabinet will make the final decision on the boundary of the World Heritage area nomination to be put to the Australian Government. 8. The procedures established by the World Heritage Committee require that the State Party (in this case, the Australian Government) will lodge no more than one new nomination by the deadline of 1 February each year. The nomination would be considered by the World Heritage Committee in June/July the following year. The intervening period is used by the Secretariat to undertake the necessary independent assessments.

129 9. The World Heritage Committee has expressed a preference that the State Party submit a draft nomination by 30 September in the year before the nomination is lodged, as preliminary advice. 10. The present timetable is for the nomination to be lodged by the Australian Government by 1 February 2005, for decision by the World Heritage Committee in mid-2006. 11. To meet this timeline, the processes of developing the nomination by the Western Australian Government would have to be completed by 1 December 2004. 12. The Government has retained the services of an expert consultant to assist in the preparation of the nomination. Dr Warren Nicholls has been involved in the development or assessment of all of Australia’s World Heritage Properties, and in assessments and nominations in North Korea, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil. 13. Dr Nicholls is also advising the Committee. 14. The Committee will seek access to all the available information about the specific values of the Cape Range – Ningaloo Reef area. 15. A single study area that includes both North West Cape and Ningaloo Marine Park has been endorsed by the Minister for the Environment as a starting point for the consultation process. This study area is shown on Attachment 1. 16. The final boundary for the nomination could include part or all of the study area, or could (with Government agreement) extend beyond it. 17. In making its recommendations on the preferred boundary for the World Heritage nomination, the Committee will consider the values of the area in relation to the World Heritage Criteria, and the requirement that the nominated area satisfies conditions of authenticity (cultural heritage nominations) and/or integrity (natural heritage nominations). The criteria, including requirements for authenticity and integrity, are attached (Attachment 2). 18. The Committee will also give consideration to the ways in which the proposed World Heritage listing may affect the people living in and adjacent to the nominated area, local governments, other people and organizations with interests in the area, and issues such as the potential for World Heritage listing to promote tourism and regional development. 19. A summary of implications of World Heritage listing is given in Attachment 3. A key issue is that World Heritage listing cultivates local and national pride, aids in the development of sense of place, and contributes to the development of feelings of national responsibility to ensure that the area is well managed. Other benefits to the local and regional community include increases in national and international tourism with flow-on effects to regional development. 20. World Heritage listing does not affect ownership – this remains as it was prior to nomination, and State and local laws still apply. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) will also apply where and when the specific values for which the property has been nominated are likely to be damaged. In the case of development proposals that may affect the nominated values, environmental impact assessment would be undertaken by the Western Australian EPA on behalf of the Commonwealth Government in accordance with a bilateral agreement on assessment.

130 21. Experience in Australia’s World Heritage Properties shows that a range of activities can be carried out in a property. For example, pastoral activities, commercial and recreational fishing, and basic resource extraction occur in a number of World Heritage Properties. In most properties, activities associated with tourism have increased substantially since listing. 22. In Australia, management arrangements vary from property to property: more than half the Australian properties are managed by State/ Territory Government agencies, two have specially established management authorities (the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Property includes Commonwealth waters), two are largely owned by Indigenous communities and leased to a Commonwealth Government Department for management as a National Park and one is an Australian Territory and is managed by a Commonwealth Government Department. 23. For the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, with a range of land tenures and supporting a range of activities, management oversight of the property as a whole is provided by a Ministerial Council (two Commonwealth Ministers, two State Ministers). Supporting the Ministerial Council are two committees: a Community Consultative Committee and a Scientific Advisory Committee. The Department of Conservation and Land Management has a lead management agency role for the Property, as well as responsibility for on-ground management of the CALM estate (lands and waters), and additional planning and management within the Property is provided by the Shark Bay Shire. 24. It should be noted that the Cape Range – Ningaloo World Heritage Property may include a mix of Commonwealth and State lands and waters. 25. An essential requirement for each World Heritage Property is that a management plan be developed. The primary management objectives for World Heritage Properties are: • to protect, conserve and present the World Heritage values of the property; • to integrate the protection of the area into a comprehensive planning program; • to give the property a function in the life of the Australian community; • to strengthen appreciation of and respect for the property’s World Heritage values, particularly through educational and information programs; • to keep the community broadly informed about the condition of the World Heritage values of the property; and • to take appropriate scientific, technical, legal, administrative and financial measures necessary for achieving the foregoing objectives. In achieving the objectives, due regard is given to: • ensuring the provision of essential services to communities within and adjacent to a property; and • allowing and recognising the involvement of the local community in the planning and management of a property.

131 26. The Consultative Committee has identified a series of questions that should be considered by the stakeholders wishing to provide additional input to the decision- making process. These questions are: 1. Does the stakeholder support a nomination based on the defined study area boundary? 2. If not, what are the issues of concern? Does the stakeholder have any suggestions as to how these concerns might be accommodated within a nomination based on the defined study area? 3. Are there known values outside the defined study area that should be included in the nomination? 4. Does the stakeholder have concerns about the nomination of a larger area? If so, what are those concerns? If they relate to a specific area, please identify that area. 5. Are there other issues that the stakeholder would like to draw to the attention of the Consultative Committee?

Additional input should be provided by 15 July 2004. The contact details for providing this additional information are: World Heritage Consultative Committee, C/o Department of Conservation and Land Management, Cnr Hackett Drive and Australia II Drive, Crawley WA 6009.

132 Attachment 1 [to Attachment 2 of this report]. Map of the World Heritage study area.

133 Attachment 2 [to Attachment 2 of this report]. World Heritage Criteria (From Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. WHC02/2 July 2002)

Criteria for the inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List

To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must satisfy the selection criteria. Criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in the World Heritage List 23. The criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in the World Heritage List should always be seen in relation to one another and should be considered in the context of the definition set out in Article 1 of the Convention which is reproduced below: "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 of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view." 24. A monument, group of buildings or site - as defined above - which is nominated for inclusion in the World Heritage List will be considered to be of outstanding universal value for the purpose of the Convention when the Committee finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria and the test of authenticity. These criteria are defined by the Committee in its Operational Guidelines.

Each property nominated should therefore:

a. i. represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; or ii. exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; or iii. bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; or iv. be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; or v. be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement or land-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; or

134 vi. be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance (the Committee considers that this criterion should justify inclusion in the List only in exceptional circumstances and in conjunction with other criteria cultural or natural); and b. i. meet the test of authenticity in design, material, workmanship or setting and in the case of cultural landscapes their distinctive character and components (the Committee stressed that reconstruction is only acceptable if it is carried out on the basis of complete and detailed documentation on the original and to no extent on conjecture). ii. have adequate legal and/or traditional protection and management mechanisms to ensure the conservation of the nominated cultural properties or cultural landscapes. The existence of protective legislation at the national, provincial or municipal level and/or a well-established contractual or traditional protection as well as of adequate management and/or planning control mechanisms is therefore essential and, as is clearly indicated in the following paragraph, must be stated clearly on the nomination form. Assurances of the effective implementation of these laws and/or contractual and/or traditional protection as well as of these management mechanisms are also expected. Furthermore, in order to preserve the integrity of cultural sites, particularly those open to large numbers of visitors, the State Party concerned should be able to provide evidence of suitable administrative arrangements to cover the management of the property, its conservation and its accessibility to the public. 25. Nominations of immovable property which are likely to become movable will not be considered. 26. With respect to groups of urban buildings, the Committee has furthermore adopted the following Guidelines concerning their inclusion in the World Heritage List. 27. Groups of urban buildings eligible for inclusion in the World Heritage List fall into three main categories, namely: towns which are no longer inhabited but which provide unchanged archaeological evidence of the past; these generally satisfy the criterion of authenticity and their state of conservation can be relatively easily controlled; historic towns which are still inhabited and which, by their very nature, have developed and will continue to develop under the influence of socio-economic and cultural change, a situation that renders the assessment of their authenticity more difficult and any conservation policy more problematical; new towns of the twentieth century which paradoxically have something in common with both the aforementioned categories: while their original urban organization is clearly recognizable and their authenticity is undeniable, their future is unclear because their development is largely uncontrollable. 28. The evaluation of towns that are no longer inhabited does not raise any special difficulties other than those related to archaeological sites in general: the criteria

135 which call for uniqueness or exemplary character have led to the choice of groups of buildings noteworthy for their purity of style, for the concentrations of monuments they contain and sometimes for their important historical associations. It is important for urban archaeological sites to be listed as integral units. A cluster of monuments or a small group of buildings is not adequate to suggest the multiple and complex functions of a city which has disappeared; remains of such a city should be preserved in their entirety together with their natural surroundings whenever possible. 29. In the case of inhabited historic towns the difficulties are numerous, largely owing to the fragility of their urban fabric (which has in many cases been seriously disrupted since the advent of the industrial era) and the runaway speed with which their surroundings have been urbanized. To qualify for inclusion, towns should compel recognition because of their architectural interest and should not be considered only on the intellectual grounds of the role they may have played in the past or their value as historical symbols under criterion (vi) for the inclusion of cultural properties in the World Heritage List (see paragraph 24 above). To be eligible for inclusion in the List, the spatial organization, structure, materials, forms and, where possible, functions of a group of buildings should essentially reflect the civilization or succession of civilizations which have prompted the nomination of the property. Four categories can be distinguished: i. Towns which are typical of a specific period or culture, which have been almost wholly preserved and which have remained largely unaffected by subsequent developments. Here the property to be listed is the entire town together with its surroundings, which must also be protected; ii. Towns that have evolved along characteristic lines and have preserved, sometimes in the midst of exceptional natural surroundings, spatial arrangements and structures that are typical of the successive stages in their history. Here the clearly defined historic part takes precedence over the contemporary environment; iii. "Historic centres" that cover exactly the same area as ancient towns and are now enclosed within modern cities. Here it is necessary to determine the precise limits of the property in its widest historical dimensions and to make appropriate provision for its immediate surroundings; iv. Sectors, areas or isolated units which, even in the residual state in which they have survived, provide coherent evidence of the character of a historic town which has disappeared. In such cases surviving areas and buildings should bear sufficient testimony to the former whole. 30. Historic centres and historic areas should be listed only where they contain a large number of ancient buildings of monumental importance which provide a direct indication of the characteristic features of a town of exceptional interest. Nominations of several isolated and unrelated buildings which allegedly represent, in themselves, a town whose urban fabric has ceased to be discernible, should not be encouraged. 31. However, nominations could be made regarding properties that occupy a limited space but have had a major influence on the history of town planning. In such cases, the nomination should make it clear that it is the monumental group that is to be listed and that the town is mentioned only incidentally as the place where the property is located. Similarly, if a building of clearly universal significance is located in severely degraded or insufficiently representative urban surroundings, it should, of course, be listed without any special reference to the town.

136 32. It is difficult to assess the quality of new towns of the twentieth century. History alone will tell which of them will best serve as examples of contemporary town planning. The examination of the files on these towns should be deferred, save under exceptional circumstances. 33. Under present conditions, preference should be given to the inclusion in the World Heritage List of small or medium-sized urban areas which are in a position to manage any potential growth, rather than the great metropolises, on which sufficiently complete information and documentation cannot readily be provided that would serve as a satisfactory basis for their inclusion in their entirety. 34. In view of the effects which the entry of a town in the World Heritage List could have on its future, such entries should be exceptional. Inclusion in the List implies that legislative and administrative measures have already been taken to ensure the protection of the group of buildings and its environment. Informed awareness on the part of the population concerned, without whose active participation any conservation scheme would be impractical, is also essential. 35. With respect to cultural landscapes, the Committee has furthermore adopted the following guidelines concerning their inclusion in the World Heritage List. 36. Cultural landscapes represent the "combined works of nature and of man" designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal. They should be selected on the basis both of their outstanding universal value and of their representativity in terms of a clearly defined geo-cultural region and also for their capacity to illustrate the essential and distinct cultural elements of such regions. 37. The term "cultural landscape" embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment. 38. Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land-use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land-use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued existence of traditional forms of land-use supports biological diversity in many regions of the world. The protection of traditional cultural landscapes is therefore helpful in maintaining biological diversity. 39. Cultural landscapes fall into three main categories, namely: i. The most easily identifiable is the clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man. This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles. ii. The second category is the organically evolved landscape. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features. They fall into two sub-categories: • a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came

137 to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form. • a continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time. iii. The final category is the associative cultural landscape. The inclusion of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent. 40. The extent of a cultural landscape for inclusion on the World Heritage List is relative to its functionality and intelligibility. In any case, the sample selected must be substantial enough to adequately represent the totality of the cultural landscape that it illustrates. The possibility of designating long linear areas which represent culturally significant transport and communication networks should not be excluded. 41. The general criteria for conservation and management laid down in paragraph 24.(b).(ii) above are equally applicable to cultural landscapes. It is important that due attention be paid to the full range of values represented in the landscape, both cultural and natural. The nominations should be prepared in collaboration with and the full approval of local communities. 42. The existence of a category of "cultural landscape", included on the World Heritage List on the basis of the criteria set out in paragraph 24 above, does not exclude the possibility of sites of exceptional importance in relation to both cultural and natural criteria continuing to be included. In such cases, their outstanding universal significance must be justified under both sets of criteria.

Criteria for the inclusion of natural properties in the World Heritage List 43. In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the following is 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." 44. A natural heritage property - as defined above - which is submitted for inclusion in the World Heritage List will be considered to be of outstanding universal value for the purposes of the Convention when the Committee finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria specified by Operational Guidelines and fulfilling the conditions of integrity set out below. Sites nominated should therefore:

138 a. i. be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features; or ii. be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals; or iii. contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance; or

iv. contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; and b. also fulfil the following conditions of integrity: i. The sites described in 44(a)(i) should contain all or most of the key interrelated and interdependent elements in their natural relationships; for example, an "ice age" area should include the snow field, the glacier itself and samples of cutting patterns, deposition and colonization (e.g. striations, moraines, pioneer stages of plant succession, etc.); in the case of volcanoes, the magmatic series should be complete and all or most of the varieties of effusive rocks and types of eruptions be represented. ii. The sites described in 44(a)(ii) should have sufficient size and contain the necessary elements to demonstrate the key aspects of processes that are essential for the long-term conservation of the ecosystems and the biological diversity they contain; for example, an area of tropical rain forest should include a certain amount of variation in elevation above sea-level, changes in topography and soil types, patch systems and naturally regenerating patches; similarly a coral reef should include, for example, seagrass, mangrove or other adjacent ecosystems that regulate nutrient and sediment inputs into the reef. iii. The sites described in 44(a)(iii) should be of outstanding aesthetic value and include areas that are essential for maintaining the beauty of the site; for example, a site whose scenic values depend on a waterfall, should include adjacent catchment and downstream areas that are integrally linked to the maintenance of the aesthetic qualities of the site. iv. The sites described in paragraph 44(a)(iv) should contain habitats for maintaining the most diverse fauna and flora characteristic of the biographic province and ecosystems under consideration; for example, a tropical savannah should include a complete assemblage of co-evolved herbivores and plants; an island ecosystem should include habitats for maintaining endemic biota; a site containing wide-ranging species should be large enough to include the most critical habitats essential to ensure the survival of viable populations of those species; for an area containing migratory species, seasonal breeding and nesting sites, and migratory routes, wherever they are located, should be

139 adequately protected; international conventions, e.g. the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), for ensuring the protection of habitats of migratory species of waterfowl, and other multi- and bilaterial agreements could provide this assurance. v. The sites described in paragraph 44(a) should have a management plan. When a site does not have a management plan at the time when it is nominated for the consideration of the World Heritage Committee, the State Party concerned should indicate when such a plan will become available and how it proposes to mobilize the resources required for the preparation and implementation of the plan. The State Party should also provide other document(s) (e.g. operational plans) which will guide the management of the site until such time when a management plan is finalized. vi. A site described in paragraph 44(a) should have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional or traditional protection. The boundaries of that site should reflect the spatial requirements of habitats, species, processes or phenomena that provide the basis for its nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List. The boundaries should include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the area of outstanding universal value in order to protect the site's heritage values from direct effects of human encroachment and impacts of resource use outside of the nominated area. The boundaries of the nominated site may coincide with one or more existing or proposed protected areas, such as national parks or biosphere reserves. While an existing or proposed protected area may contain several management zones, only some of those zones may satisfy criteria described in paragraph 44(a); other zones, although they may not meet the criteria set out in paragraph 44(a), may be essential for the management to ensure the integrity of the nominated site; for example, in the case of a biosphere reserve, only the core zone may meet the criteria and the conditions of integrity, although other zones, i.e. buffer and transitional zones, would be important for the conservation of the biosphere reserve in its totality. vii. Sites described in paragraph 44(a) should be the most important sites for the conservation of biological diversity. Biological diversity, according to the new global Convention on Biological Diversity, means the variability among living organisms in terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part and includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. Only those sites which are the most biologically diverse are likely to meet criterion (iv) of paragraph 44(a). 45. In principle, a site could be inscribed on the World Heritage List as long as it satisfies one of the four criteria and the relevant conditions of integrity. However, most inscribed sites have met two or more criteria. Nomination dossiers, IUCN evaluations and the final recommendations of the Committee on each inscribed site are available for consultation by States Parties which may wish to use such information as guides for identifying and elaborating nomination of sites within their own territories.

140 Attachment 3 [to Attachment 2 of this report]. Implications of World Heritage Listing (from Australia’s World Heritage Properties published by the Department of the Environment and Heritage 2002)

Implications of World Heritage Listing Benefits Inscription of a property on the World Heritage List can produce many benefits for Australia, and in particular, for local communities. Australia's World Heritage properties are a clearly identifiable part of our heritage. In the case of properties such as the Tasmanian Wilderness, Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks and the Great Barrier Reef, World Heritage listing has featured in promotions which have resulted in greatly increased tourist visitation from overseas and within Australia. In addition to possible increases in employment opportunities and income, local communities could also expect benefits from improved planning and management of the region. A major focus for Australian Government assistance for World Heritage properties has been the provision of resources for strengthening management and improving interpretation and visitor facilities. World Heritage listing also cultivates local and national pride in the property and develops feelings of national responsibility to protect the area. Ownership and Control World Heritage listing does not affect ownership rights. Ownership remains as it was prior to nomination, and State and local laws still apply. World Heritage properties in Australia do not become Commonwealth property. Nor does ownership of these World Heritage properties pass to any international body or foreign power. Australia's World Heritage properties comprise a wide variety of land tenures including freehold, perpetual lease, pastoral lease, town reserve, State forest, national park, nature reserve, Aboriginal reserve and recreational reserve. Land Uses The Australian Government has an international obligation to protect and conserve World Heritage properties, but there is no impediment to existing land uses unless they threaten the outstanding universal natural and cultural values of the property. Experience in Australia's World Heritage properties shows that listing does not necessarily limit the range of activities which can be carried out on a property. For instance, grazing occurs in the Willandra Lakes Region, NSW, and Shark Bay, Western Australia, and there is recreational and commercial fishing in the Great Barrier Reef. Management In Australia management arrangements vary from property to property: Willandra Lakes Region, the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia), Lord Howe Island, Shark Bay, the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh/Naracoorte), the Tasmanian Wilderness, Macquarie Island, the Greater

141 Blue Mountains Area and Fraser Island are managed by government agencies in their respective States. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics of Queensland, joint State/Commonwealth management arrangements apply. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is the Commonwealth agency responsible for overall management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the World Heritage Area, and the Queensland Government, particularly the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, provides day-to-day management to the Authority. The Wet Tropics Management Authority was formed to develop policy and carry out planning for the World Heritage Area with day-to-day management being carried out by State government agencies. Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is owned by the Aboriginal community, who leases it to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The Director manages the property as a national park. Parts of Kakadu National Park are Aboriginal land and the remaining Commonwealth-owned land is currently subject to land claims. The Director of National Parks and Wildlife is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Park. The Heard and McDonald Islands Group is an Australian Territory with day-to-day management being the responsibility of the Australian Antarctic Division. For each Australian property, management plans have been produced or are planned. The Commonwealth considers such plans as vital in implementing Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention. The primary management objectives for World Heritage properties are part Australia's general obligations under the World Heritage Convention: • to protect, conserve and present the World Heritage values of the property; • to integrate the protection of the area into a comprehensive planning program; • to give the property a function in the life of the Australian community; • to strengthen appreciation and respect of the property's World Heritage values, particularly through educational and information programs; • to keep the community broadly informed about the condition of the World Heritage values of the property; and • to take appropriate scientific, technical, legal, administrative and financial measures necessary for achieving the foregoing objectives. In achieving these primary objectives due regard is given to: • ensuring the provision of essential services to communities within and adjacent to a property; • allowing provision for use of the property which does not have a significant impact on the World Heritage values and their integrity; • recognising the role of current management agencies in the protection of a property's values; and • the involvement of the local community in the planning and management of a property.

142 Attachment 3. Report on Stakeholder comment on the proposed nomination

The World Heritage Consultative Committee, appointed by letter on 3 June 2004, commenced its consultative phase on 22 June 2004, and concluded this initial phase on 17 September 2004. There was a small number of occasions when one or other of the Committee members was unable to attend stakeholder meetings however comprehensive notes were taken on every occasion to ensure stakeholders’ views were adequately represented in the State’s consideration of the matter. On some occasions the Consultative Committee was able to draw upon the vast experience of Dr Warren Nicholls to answer questions, which assisted considerably in negating the stakeholders’ perceptions that the Committee was advocating the nomination, when any member attempted to provide the desired information. Generally the process followed the provision to every stakeholder meeting of a Powerpoint presentation which sought to explain the genesis of the nomination, the nomination process, various parties’ roles, timeframes, the criteria and values required to sustain a nomination and the Consultative Committee’s responsibilities to report faithfully to the Minister for the Environment all stakeholders’ opinions. The Consultative Committee acknowledged that there was an array of views on the area and values to be included in the nomination, the boundaries and gave some non-attributable views to demonstrate the Committee was according all input the same level of respect. The parallel activities of the Carnarvon-Ningaloo Coast Regional Scheme and the 2015 Excision process, the Marine Sanctuary Extension and extension of the Ningaloo Marine Park were acknowledged but emphasis was made that the World Heritage nomination process was completely independent of that. A key tracking strategy employed was to provide all stakeholders with five key questions to be answered in whatever manner and reasonable timeframe was convenient to them. These questions were: 1. Does the stakeholder support a nomination based on the defined study area boundary? 2. If not, what are the issues of concern? Does the stakeholder have any suggestions as to how these concerns might be accommodated within a nomination based on the defined study area? 3. Are there known values outside the defined study area that should be included in the nomination? 4. Does the stakeholder have concerns about the nomination of a larger area? If so, what are those concerns? If they relate to a specific area, please identify that area. 5. Are there other issues that the stakeholder would like to draw to the attention of the Consultative Committee? Prior to the first meetings with stakeholders, the Consultative Committee was briefed on the values of the North West Cape - Ningaloo Reef area by a number of eminent scientists with a sound knowledge of the area. This briefing served to provide members of the Consultative Committee with a common understanding of the area and its values.

143 The first briefing was by Dr. Barry Wilson on the natural history of the broader Cape Range, Ningaloo Reef area and beyond, its evolution, biodiversity and biological significance. Dr Wilson was emphatic that this area provided a clear demonstration of evolutionary and geographical change, and provided a unique example of the world’s climate change record and geological evolution.

Dr Vic Semeniuk provided persuasive information on the geo-evolutionary history and heritage of the globally significant arid coastline that is North West Cape, advising that only one lesser global example was on the North Western Indian coast. He provided scientific information on the tectonic plate shift systems (anticlines and synclines in the Carnarvon Basin which are still active), climate history, and the area’s claim as the axis of aridity within four different systems found in Shark Bay, Lake MacLeod, Eastern Exmouth Gulf and Cape Range. His advice was that the following areas should be included because of their geoheritage values and their contribution to understanding the geoevolutionary history of the western margin of the Australian plate: Lake McLeod, eastern Exmouth Gulf’s mangrove, delta and dune systems, their river delta systems (Yanrey, Ashburton, Minilya and Lyndon), the active Ningaloo Reef and adjacent wave cut platforms into the limestone ridges and karst systems of the Cape Range.

Dr Chris Simpson provided the Committee with significant information to underline the uniqueness of the Ningaloo Reef, which is well documented and recognized already in its Marine Park status. Ningaloo Reef is the largest fringing reef in the world, located on the eastern edge of the Indian Ocean, and containing over 300 species of fish, as well as protecting an incredible benthic and pelagic community beyond the 50 metre depth line. Dr Simpson, noting that the Reef hosts two ecosystems (sub tropical and temperate) and is influenced two major currents (Leeuwin and Ningaloo), raised expectations that a greater research effort in the deeper waters in the Commonwealth Waters section of the Reef will yield significantly greater biodiversity information. His information in respect of the Exmouth Gulf region centred on the extremely high biodiversity of the Muiron Islands (over 120 species of corals), the Gulf’s role in transitioning from macro tidal to micro tidal and the influence of the turbid water on the clear waters of the reef.

Dr Bill Humphreys provided a good overview of the uniquely bio-diverse systems hosted by the Cape Range and adjacent plains. His research of the subterranean fauna and the immense significance of the taxonomy indicate a global uniqueness and the area provides a key site in understanding global evolution of anchialine fauna.

Resources Sector Department of Industry and Resources – 9 July 2004 represented by Ian Briggs, Ivor Roberts and Victoria Jackson. The first issue raised concerned the maps being used for the consultation process –

144 attention was drawn to that fact that much of the area was covered by mineral and petroleum tenements that weren’t shown. It was pointed out that they must be taken into account, and that GIS data layers are available. (Belief that the Straits Resources area is a Temporary Ministerial Reserve, with some discussion re question of whether or not there is an existing State Agreement Act for the Straits Resources Project) The second issue raised was about exclusions - where areas within any nomination are of zero or little value, could those areas be excluded? There was a general discussion regarding boundaries for the proposed World Heritage nomination, during which time the question was raised of who has provided the information for the nomination? DoIR gave a Powerpoint presentation highlighting existing mineral & petroleum tenements activities, high level of prospectivity for a wide range of resource types Note that the Geological Survey of Western Australia can provide access to the comprehensive information on the area, including the results of the drilling that has been done. This presentation indicated the following:

Key concerns were potential threats to resources and industry development, citing the various Acts (Mining, Petroleum, Dampier and Onslow Solar Salt) Minerals and Petroleum of economic significance to the State in the Study Area:- • High industrial grade limestone Cape Range • Solar salt production at Onslow and Lake McLeod • Proposed solar salt production Eastern Exmouth Gulf area • Oil and gas provinces (land and offshore) • Current oil production Rough Range (Empire Oil) The area is also considered prospective for gold, silver, copper/lead/zinc, diamonds, tungsten, gypsum and gemstones. The Consultative Committee was aware of a divergence of views as to the significance of the resources described in the last two points. • Ongoing access to these resources is essential to the State’s strategic economic base • Rights under the Mining and Petroleum Acts must be acknowledged • Threatens legally binding obligations under State Agreement Acts • Restrictions on future industrial development in the region has economic growth impacts • Restriction would increase reliance on imported crude oil and condensate • Associated EPBC Act trigger creates another layer of uncertainty and threat

A further meeting was held with the Departmental representatives on 16 September 2004 where their concerns on having any World Heritage listing impede the ability

145 to access and develop “significant and quite exceptional resources” e.g. high grade limestone to support a potential steel industry in WA, was reiterated. There was no additional information to that included in their written submission and alluded to in the Minister’s letter on this matter. DoIR provided several resource maps to emphasise the resource reserves within the broader study area, and gave an undertaking to provide further scientific and technical information shortly.

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association attended their first meeting on 5 July with members, Helen Hale A/Dir APPEA; Sophie Williams EA Shell; Don Poynton Mgr Expl & Enviro Strike Oil; Myles Hyams Enviro Mgr Apache Energy; Francis Baronie and Diana Russell-Coote Ext. Affairs Adviser BHP Billiton; Graham Harmon Woodside. They commenced a lively discussion on: • the Committee’s credentials and their willingness to consult with stakeholders longer term; • considerable concerns on the coordination of the boundaries and the selection criteria;, • the industry’s contributions to the State and national economy; • their significant exploration and production rate in the general area, but particularly adjacent to the Study Area; • the contemporary developments in identification of hydrocarbon deposits; • Strike Oil’s test drilling in Exmouth from November 2004 which has an EMP; • Apache and Strike permits around the Muirons; • development of the Rivoli Gas field in Exmouth Gulf for use in Exmouth’s power generation requirements; • difficulty in sharing boundaries with the Commonwealth section of the Ningaloo Marine National Park; • contention that the Petroleum Industry already exercises a level of protection and support in the area; • insistence that World Heritage adds another level of impact on the petroleum industry, both direct e.g. exclusion from areas and indirect e.g. proximity to WH has impacts in managing peoples’ perceptions; • World Heritage listing triggers EPBC automatically; • Claimed inconsistencies in governance of the Marine Parks and National Parks (Barrow Island cited); raised their concerns in the way WH listing in Shark Bay was managed and the industry’s exclusion from there; • Argued strongly that each case for development of resources should be evaluated independently and the availability of new technology should be factored in to such considerations; and • Environmental legislation and EPA oversight is comprehensive and able to protect the area so World Heritage listing is not necessary to further protect. The APPEA members posed a number of questions to the Committee which were answered wherever possible, including: • What values are there in following the Commonwealth Waters boundary, as it appears you are following a convenient boundary line and our industry understands the offshore values very well? • On the timing of this nomination which appears rushed and ill-considered, how do you propose to engage everyone in the process?

146 The group indicated that member companies would all be submitting written material to the Committee; submissions from APPEA, Apache Energy, Woodside, Strike Oil, BHP Billiton, Empire Oil and Gas, Victoria Petroleum and Sun Resources are attached to this Report.

Sun Resources submitted a document, attached to this Report, which paraphrased states: • Does not support a nomination based on the study area boundary but gave qualified support for nomination of the Ningaloo Marine Park and Cape Range National Park, subject to o majority support by the Exmouth and Cape Range community o provision for continuation of petroleum activities o provision for future energy infrastructure including shore crossings and pipelines o to be subject under the normal environmental approval and management procedures existing under the Petroleum Acts • Considers nomination of a larger area an “ambit claim” • Rights of petroleum and production companies working within the study area will be adversely affected • Cites the ‘blanket refusal’ approach to exploration in the Shark Bay World Heritage Area as a broken promise, noting the “multi-purpose use designation there • Sun Resources would seek compensation for exclusion outside of the extant ‘Parks”, particularly in respect of EP 325 Gas field expected to yield gas for the local market • Cannot provide any scientific comment on any area outside the ‘Parks’ • Objects strongly to any “buffer zone” designated to support the ‘Parks’ nomination • Claims WH status will severely restrict growth and activities within the Exmouth community, as in the experience of the Shark Bay community • Insists that the State Government and CC explain to the community and stakeholders the potential impacts, citing (erroneously) the Nathan Dam case precedent • Claims a very good safety record and excellent environment (management) record for the industry in general and their company in particular.

On 6 September 2004 APPEA asked to see the WHCC again to get an update on our consultation process, find out what feedback they could glean from the stakeholder consultation process to date and establish the CC’s future plans. The Committee was aware that the national APPEA body had an appointment with the WA Environment Minister in the weeks just prior and that APPEA members were continuing to engage various Cabinet Ministers and the CALM Executive Director to place their position on the proposed listing into as many forums as possible. The group were advised by the WHCC, that the CC had an ongoing role to continue to engage with the stakeholders through to February 2005 when the national nomination process would take over, and to continue to provide factual information

147 on the listing as it comes to the Committee’s attention. APPEA again took up the matter of WH preventing mining of any type and claimed Governments were using WH as the mantra to prevent such activity, citing the example of Shark Bay and stating “multi purpose user area but permit holders who can’t satisfy EP 406 can’t explore and no mining”. The Committee took the opportunity to have Dr Warren Nicholls talk the group through his work to date, the criteria and values, the need for integrity of the listing and therefore clear management plans, the possibility of the area being listed on all 4 natural criteria as rarer than most, using Fraser Island and Purnululu as other examples of lesser values. He stressed that the one constant between all World Heritage areas, and all conserved areas under other Acts or Agreements i.e. CAMBA/JAMBA is management of the values, whether you are inside or outside the World Heritage area. The question was posed about any values identified in the deeper Commonwealth Waters off North West Cape (adjacent to Woodside and BHP gas fields) and the Committee was able to respond that marine experts had provided some evidence of a rich biodiversity beyond the 50 metre bathymetric line but whether it would stand the values test is yet to be determined. The Victoria Petroleum representative raised their obligation to drill in Exmouth Gulf by November 2004 under Exploration Permit 325 – if it is proven up it was suggested they would not be permitted to develop it. The Victoria Petroleum representative also insisted that he could provide lots of examples of greater geological significance than this area and demanded to know who was writing our geological reports, and that Victoria Petroleum had done significant research on stygofauna. When advised of the scientific assistance being provided to the Committee he appeared to be somewhat mollified; another member indicated great respect for the research source. The matter of the Rivoli gas field in Exmouth Gulf was raised and the Committee was advised that there were imminent developments to use the gas for Exmouth’s new Power Station and for the Navy Base (separate advice indicates this is not correct and that the Power Station(s) are still planning to used trucked compressed LNG from an off-take point on the North West Coastal Highway). However there is obviously potential for local use of this gas reserve at some stage in the Cape’s future. The final view expressed was “that World Heritage listing would still be used against the petroleum producers”.

Chamber of Minerals and Energy represented by Andy Munro (Rio Tinto), Shannon Keane, Phil Davidson, Dave Readett and Trevor Naughton of Straits Resources. There were various queries throughout the Committee’s presentation concerning boundaries, current land uses, time frames for the report, access by stakeholders to the Committee’s report to the Minister, followed by: • All the mangroves on the east coast of the Gulf are subject to State Agreement Act

148 • Lake MacLeod is also UCL overlaid by State Agreement Act • Need to identify all land uses, vesting, tenements • We will make a separate submission to cover the following • We have been granted solar salt exploration licenses in the Gulf (mangroves) • Ministerial Temporary Reserve TR70/3530 is involved • Salt production falls under the Mining Act • EIA/feasibility requires Exploration licenses • Then the specified area for the project is converted to a mining lease (extents identified on the provided maps) • Need to speak to DOIR who are likely to be negative on tying up large areas for non-productive uses • Proposed RAMSAR listing (includes 3 or 4 WH criteria) covers the whole lease area but will pose a management issue for the outer areas, noting Dampier Salt can provide a scientist to brief the Committee on that • It would be helpful to have DOIR’s input on the various mining leases in the complete study area • There is rehabilitation activity in the old Tubridji area • Straits plan to use a barge, a dredged channel or jetty out to the 15 metre line to load the ships • Straits would have a footprint behind the mangroves and algal mats to minimize the environmental impacts • This is one of the premier salt production areas in the world • Straits are subject to an ERMP level assessment and scoping studies document • Straits have undertaken substantial research by AIMS, CSIRO and others on the marine and terrestrial systems, mangroves, algal mats, in fact the entire ecosystem • Straits plan a staged 3 million to 10 million tonnes pa salt production • Requests provision of criteria under which the mangroves would be considered for nomination • Straits’ discharge of bitterns, sodium, manganese into the Gulf will be managed • WH listing sends reputation management up a couple of notches but 20% of Rio Tinto’s operations are in WA • Straits Resources has a strong international reputation but we would make a strong connection and commitment to protect our area The Chamber expressed a concern that their next Executive Council meeting was 13 July 2004 and there was insufficient time to have them consider the information and answer the questions from the Committee. Straits Resources reiterated their concerns about the boundaries being considered and inability to see the report before it goes to the Minister. Written submissions would be provided. Subsequent to that meeting, the Chairman of the WHCC, the Government’s consultant and the Committee’s Executive Officer met with senior management of Dampier Salt. Dampier Salt later wrote to the Committee and advised of a change of position on their support, namely that they would support the proposed nomination based on the defined study area provided by the Committee, but do not support any extension of the boundary to include any part of Lake MacLeod. A copy of their submission is

149 attached to this Report. The Chamber held further discussions with the Committee on 16 September 2004 with a view to being updated on what the Committee intended to include in their Report to the Minister. A full and frank discussion of the Committee’s intention in respect of the options for a boundary consistent with the verified values, the science to support the values advised to the Committee and the schedule of events after the report’s submission was held.

Department of Fisheries, represented by Colin Chalmers and Eve Bunbury, opened their discussions with four similar statements that stressed that the World Heritage nomination process must recognize that trawling within the Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) process was an acceptable activity that is part of the cultural fabric of the Exmouth Gulf and North West Cape area. The Committee addressed this quickly noting that the fishery and all formal current activities would be covered within the commitment to manage the Fishery and its accreditation, and the research and demonstrated ability to sustain were consistent with World Heritage values protection. A concern stated was that should WH values change over time, then the incremental efforts to improve the export licences would cause the fishery to become unsustainable. A statement was made that listing of the area was supported but re-iterated concerns that nomination/listing documentation should clearly state that trawling is an ongoing activity and a guarantee is necessary to ensure that no further assessment process should be endured by the fishery or the operators. There was evidence of a deep suspicion that the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage were using/would use the EPBC Act to drive changes in State Fisheries. When asked by the Committee about the Exmouth Gulf area, it was stated that the Fish Habitation Protection Area (FHPA) in the Gulf has divided support within Fisheries. It was suggested that limited resources and time to develop the FHPA proposal meant another 2 years before finalization. The Gascoyne Fisheries Management Plan (GFMP) will apparently stipulate the FHPA as a goal for environmental protection of the area, and when asked about the currency of the Exmouth Aquaculture Plan it was agreed it was out of date when published. The Committee was advised that more Fisheries Officers were planned for Coral Bay. Subsequent to that meeting the Executive Director Dept of Fisheries supplied written material to answer the Committee’s questions, a copy of which is included with this Report.

WA Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) - 3 members (Guy Leyland, Mathew Lilly and Stephen Hood) spoke to the Committee on 6 July 2004, opening their presentation with a statement “we got excited about your description of the Eastern Gulf as Unallocated Crown Land”, noting that M.G. Kailis has appealed against one of Straits Resources Mining Exploration licenses (EO 81420). Kailis representative Mathew Lilly indicated that his company was seeking certification with the Marine Stewardship Council which would considerably enhance the environmental marketing power of their product; their prawn product was accredited for the US

150 market due to their turtle release program, indicative that the self regulation (Kailis only use 11 of 15 licenses), VMS monitoring, industry operated closures and seasonal activity were consistent with a sustainable fishery. Kailis indicated that they support retention of the Eastern Gulf as a prawn habitat, and the intrusion by Straits Resources for barge loading survey work into Kailis’ pearling lease, coupled with the ERMP issued by EPA for the proposed land based salt operations concerned them (See EPA S1). WAFIC stated that the Shark Bay experience has benefited commercial fishing operations and noted that integrity of the fisheries’ management would be the key to a successful nomination that contained the Exmouth Gulf or Eastern shores. MG Kailis noted that management of the Eastern Gulf is crucial to the sustainability of the prawn fishery, acknowledged by their successful use of by-catch hoppers. Kailis asked whether their factory and leaseholds near Learmonth Airport would be excised from any listing and queried whether there would be any changes to their DEP licence provisions in discharging nutrients into the Gulf from their processing site. The group was asked to ensure they provided the Committee with any further input by written submission. Subsequently, MG Kailis wrote to the Minister for the Environment reiterating previously discussed (with the Minister) concerns and confirming that the company had changed their position of support. The possible inclusion of Exmouth Gulf in the State nominated boundary and the incongruity of the working title name for the proposed nomination ‘Cape Range Ningaloo World Heritage Area’ with the location and public perception of the company’s North West Cape operations dominate the concern. Kailis are supportive of the inclusion of the Exmouth Gulf area, if the science supports the values and if the entire listed area is given a name that does not contain the word Ningaloo. A further meeting with a Kailis representative of 15 Sept 04 clarified the concerns as being “the name of the proposed World Heritage listing, specifically ‘Ningaloo’ is not representative of where the company trawls under licence, and the perceptions likely to be drawn in the future with respect to a company fishing on an iconic reef is not where our company wishes to be considered in the market place and in the public’s mind.”

RECFISHWEST were represented by Frank Prokop, Des Wood and Norman Halse – they immediately referred to the Shark Bay and the excision of Shark Bay Joint Venture Salt Resources and the impact that had on trawling for prawns and scallops, and the consequent dredging impact on tuna farming. It was considered that Ningaloo was a very special place, one of the most recognized recreational fishing places n Australia and it had very few terrestrial threats. They claimed that the Recreation fishing sector had been singled out for increased management due to concern on the biodiversity conservation. Stated that CALM had demonstrated gross inadequacy in Ningaloo management and there had been a lack of consultation with stakeholders and a gross misrepresentation of the Recreation Fishers impact and their role; essentially there were inadequate risk management plans in place. They articulated a suspicion that WH listing will embolden the State to further restrict recreational fishing access. Also considered the proposed Marine Management Area for the Muirons failed to

151 comprehend the complexities and traditional activities and the self-management by fishermen to ensure biodiversity protection. They were of the opinion that CALM had a poor relationship with Fisheries WA and CALM consistently failed to give adequate recognition to fisheries management on the Ningaloo Reef, but insisted that Ningaloo had the most restrictive fisheries management regimes but that RECFISH had a high achievement record in managing species conservation. Would be prepared to give precautionary support but insisted that sanctuary zones are being used to “control”. On Coral Bay, claimed that they were very disappointed with the Moncke’s Head versus Bill’s Bay decision, and would continue to raise the decision with DPI. They drew attention to: • Coral systems need good protection but the example of 30% of Great Barrier Reef is not necessarily correct and merely reflects influence by the conservationists; • Harboured deep suspicions that World Heritage will, in itself, force even greater restrictions and exclusions; • Snorkellers new-found reputation for “not taking” is undeserved; they are actually doing far more damage (by dropping/dragging anchors on coral) than recreational fishers trolling for Wahoo; • Ningaloo Reef was contiguous with Cape Range nomination; • Requested continuous engagement and consultation; • Strongly supported protection of the mangrove habitat as diverse species, including barramundi identified there; • Insisted that Ningaloo offers the paramount fishing experience and quality was the rationale, not quantity, claiming pressure on the area is not high; • Protection and conservation is best done through Fisheries Management and that temporal restrictions work better than permanent sanctuaries; • Stated that top-down management does not work but bottom-up does; • Recreational fishers are the life blood of Exmouth and the quality of fisher is much improved and takes responsibility; • Expressed concern about Committee’s membership who have desire to see no access; • Reiterated Recfishwest’s desire for appropriate representation, and management appropriate to the area and activity levels; and • Recfishwest’s relationship with Minister Edwards meant she was increasingly aware of their difficulties in dealing with the various Government agencies. Recfishwest indicated that they would support listing, subject to: • The rationale for the northern boundary to be further reviewed; • Resourcing must be acknowledged as critical and must be at a similar level to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park funding cycles; • Management arrangements include restructuring to address the current

152 dysfunction between CALM and Fisheries, perhaps by MOU for a co-operation on-ground; • Issue cross-authorisations to CALM and Fisheries with prosecutions undertaken by owning organization; • Instigate a Bioregional Marine Planning Process to ensure that public criticism and perceptions are addressed Subsequently Recfishwest made a written submission which is attached to this report.

The Department of Agriculture indicated that their representative for the consultation process would be Mr Mark Lewis, Regional Manager in Carnarvon and responsible for policy matters across the rangelands. However, when the Consultative Committee first met with Mr Lewis, he appeared unaware of this responsibility. That first encounter was at the meeting convened by the Pastoralists and Graziers Association at Bullara Station on 21 July 2004. Mr Lewis subsequently attended a part of the meeting in Carnarvon organised to consult with the Carnarvon Chamber of Commerce on 23 July 2004. At the meeting on Bullara, Mr Lewis gave every appearance of supporting the pastoralists in their opposition to the proposed World Heritage nomination. He drew attention to the complaints and concerns raised by residents within the Shark Bay World Heritage Property and pastoralists adjacent to the property, summarising them under the banner of preventing or obstructing development. “A development application goes through a number of processes to assess impacts on World Heritage values. The fact is that these are stifled or delayed whether they are in or outside the World Heritage area, and that includes tourism development of pastoral leases. This will affect legitimate operations and I see complications for the aquaculture projects using the artesian water.” Mr Lewis agreed to provide specific examples of pastoral activities being obstructed by the World Heritage listing in Shark Bay. The Consultative Committee has not received this material. Later in the meeting, Mr Lewis put forward the proposition that a business case be developed for the World Heritage listing, and that all aspects be evaluated against the triple bottom line. Mr Lewis reinforced the comments made by pastoralists by stating that it is very difficult to comment on the proposal for World Heritage listing when the specific values underpinning the nomination are not put on the table. Some of the values were presented to the representatives of the Carnarvon Chamber of Commerce in Carnarvon at the time when Mr Lewis was present, and he challenged the validity of the specific scientific information. For example, in response to the information on the significance of the wave cut platforms along the west coast of Cape Range, he stated “that core samples of the reef can be taken to get dating, and you don’t need to list all that for a climate change record.” Mr Lewis seemed intent on undermining the group’s information-gathering by demanding that the Committee answer the question “If you wanted to put a development on the beach at Shark Bay you would not be allowed, because the extra

153 levels of environmental compliance come into play.” He seemed reluctant to accept contrary advice offered by Ms Sue Jones, which was based on her experience as Chair, Shark Bay World Heritage Property Community Consultative Committee. Mr Lewis stated he would only be happy if there are valid criteria for the process of assessment of each development application and not just philosophical opinion. He committed to providing examples of how this did not work in Shark Bay and left the meeting, indicating to the Consultative Committee he had another commitment. The Department of Agriculture has not provided a written submission or response to the five questions.

The Pastoralists and Graziers Association met with the Committee on 9 July 2004. PGA representatives were Edgar Richardson, Dr Henry Esbenshade. Questions and issues raised in response to the Powerpoint presentation included: • The time lines for the consultation and nomination processes are very tight; • Will there be a buffer zone and, if so, what will that compromise? • There appears to be no strong evidence for the inclusion of pastoral leases within the study area; • What are the likely impacts on pastoral activity? Points made by the PGA representatives were: • There is a need for transparency and full disclosure of information throughout this process; • The PGA is a representative organisation, and so will need to consult with its members in the region; • The Consultative Committee should contact all leaseholders in the region, and provide as much information as possible on the values and what is proposed in the World Heritage nomination, what is it likely to mean for pastoralists. The PGA subsequently organised a meeting of pastoralists (and others) at Bullara Station on 21 July 2004. This meeting was attended by Paul Barron (Cardabia), Tim Shallcross (Bullara), Tim Hyde (Quobba), David Steadman (Wooramel), Brian Wake (Hamelin), Mark Lewis (Dept of Agriculture), Leonie Horak (Warroora), Lefroys (Ningaloo) and Jamie Alston (Yanrey). Mr Edgar Richardson PGA, and Mr Mark Lewis, Department of Agriculture, were also present. The group had convened at Bullara Station earlier in the day and had been addressed by Brian Wake and David Steadman who have or had leases adjacent to the Shark Bay World Heritage Property; they clearly were agitated and non-receptive to the Committee’s mission, as they had prepared a definitive statement claiming ‘absence of consultation, justification and explanation’ prior to the Committee even arriving for the meeting. The following comments transcribed from the meeting demonstrates high level of angst: • “your title misrepresents the area reflected in the Study Area’ • “We have only had 7 days notice and now you tell us Cabinet are to get a

154 progress report on 26 July” • “How many more stakeholders will you see?” • “You come here with very little information, there are massive questions to be answered” • Why didn’t we get all the scientific and technical information so we could go away and study it?” • “Don’t you understand that cutting away pieces of our leases with special flora could make a lease unsustainable?” • “There is nothing on Warroora worthy of listing” • “What I don’t understand is if the areas are not accessible to the pastoralists who own them why is so important to put restrictions on it?” • “These are compromised areas with the buffel grass, so the area is already devalued.” • “If there is an impact on the day to day pastoral activities, what measures and arrangements can be made?” • “The rushed aspect of this worries us. Stakeholders have been affected by listings in the Eastern states. We respect the values of the place but pastoral and mining leases are affected and we need to be careful. Brian Wake has suffered side effects even though he is outside the Shark Bay World Heritage Area”. The Dept of Agriculture Regional Manager stated that the examples heard from Shark Bay clearly indicated that development is the issue. He agreed to provide specific evidence to support his comments. “A development application goes through a number of processes to assess impacts on WH values. The fact is that these are stifled or delayed whether they are in or outside the WH area, and that includes tourism development of pastoral leases. This will affect legitimate operations and I see complications for the aquaculture projects using the artesian water.” • “Tourism is one of the very interesting aspects – it puts pressure on the very values you are listing –Shark Bay and Coral Bay have been damaged since listing – that is our enemy!” • “The Carnarvon Ningaloo Coast Regional Strategy is already stifling development but increasing tourism. WH listing will not allow infrastructure development so tourism will not grow and it’s not sustainable.” • “What happens if I want to develop a new bore on Cape Range to the west of Bullara – I wouldn’t be allowed. I currently have one process to go through, under WH I have 20 processes and 3 years to move forward, just to get water access for our stock.” • “We have been kicked in the arse so many times, but WH is one big boot and we do not know what our future is.” • “You said indirectly that CALM, through the Environment Minister are the driver of this – CALM operates all of Shark Bay so they have a vested interest. You should finalise our concerns with CALM’s takeover of our land with the

155 excision process and strategy before we go into this.” • “Have you consulted with the Indigenous people – Cardabia, Yamatji Land and Sea Council, the Gnulli and have you asked Defence about their Bombing Range yet?” • “Notwithstanding the current consultation group, there must be a lot more representation of the community; we must not repeat the mistakes of Shark Bay.” • “I think there is panic in this. The timeline says Australian Government must nominate by Feb 05 but there is no scientific or technical information available to the stakeholders. Down at Shark Bay the World Heritage the signs at the Highway turnoff infer that environmental management is at that point but the boundary is some way in so I am constantly dealing with complaints from people about the goats as the public perceives there is a lack of management on my part and criticizes me. All of this takes time and effort answering letters.” • “All of this impacts on pastoralists’ time - city folks have no understanding of pastoral management.” • The Department of Agriculture representative reiterated that it is “very difficult to make comment when we don’t know what values are being considered.” • “There’s a lot of bureaucrats involved in this – everyone, including academics, comes in here threatening us and our right to make a living.” • “Pastoralists are an endangered species! Who actually advised the Government to list this area?” • “We have a 40 metre buffer zone to protect the reef.” • “Who is going to pay for all of this – are there any resources committed – what news do you have on that?” • “CALM only cares about the environment. Are they going to put their money where their mouth is and who is going to fund the social and economic aspects of this?” • Dept of Agriculture representative asked “Would the Government support an arrangement where a business case is developed for World Heritage listing and reviewed against the triple bottom line?” • “Dampier Salt initiated a RAMSAR listing so it’s possible to co-operate and operate legitimately within or adjacent to a WHA”. • “The sticking point in Shark Bay is NO MINING despite the fact that prior advice from EPA was somewhat different.” “We have a motion to be tabled – “That this meeting of Exmouth/Carnarvon pastoralists accepts the right of the State Government to seek nomination for World Heritage listing of Ningaloo Reef/Cape Range. However in the absence of adequate consultation, justification and explanation, the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association be asked to formally oppose the inclusion of their pastoral leases in the case for nomination until a comprehensive consultation and information strategy has been completed to the satisfaction of pastoralists and other stakeholders.” There were several other general comments and side discussions on perceptions that

156 CALM were only concerned with the environmental bottom line but community and pastoralists had to carry the load on the other two dimensions of the triple bottom line policy. There was another suggestion that business case for World Heritage should be undertaken. Comments were also made that the Committee, (in providing explanations to some of the quite strident questions and addressing some myths), appeared to be advocating listing. Committee did give a commitment to the PGA group that information would be provided on: • The values and where they lie • Implications for pastoralists of the listing • Any potential benefits

The WA Farmers Federation declined the invitation to meet with the Consultative Committee. Presumably WAFF have no members in the general area and so have no specific interest in the proposed World Heritage nomination.

Tourism WA represented by David Etherton and Barry O’Sullivan Advised that the TWA’s Destination Development Research canvassed from consumers, Reference Groups and tourism operators had identified Ningaloo as its No 1 important iconic attraction in WA. Quoted visitor numbers as comprising 82% WA, 9% interstate and 9 % international tourists. Ningaloo required an extremely high brand effort and he stated that the Exmouth Visitor research material would be made available (later supplied a copy of Destination Development Strategy An Action Approach 2004 to 2014 for Australia’s Coral Coast) which is included with this Report. Tourism WA representatives made the following statements: • Need to have clear articulation of objectives for listing • Supports listing of an area that carries importance to protect values that people aspire to experience • Suggested cautious treatment of boundaries as destination confusion if people see activities they perceive not consistent with their vision of WH • Caution on going bigger rather than smaller • Unsure of inclusion of any area south of Coral Bay • Marketing demands for WH are different • Ignorance may disrupt people’s desire to visit the area i.e. no fences • From developer’s perspectives, they tend to think “ too hard, too many regulations’ but development to boost tourism is needed • It may be prudent for the proposed World Heritage Area to have a dedicated management organisation Tourism WA agreed to provide relevant data and information on tourism trends etc for Shark Bay and the Exmouth area.

157 Mr. Etherton subsequently supplied a written submission on to the Committee’s questions which is enclosed with this report.

Environmental Sector

Department of Conservation and Land Management Executive Director Kieran McNamara had two meetings with the Consultative Committee, the first of which was to deal specifically with the work of the Committee in his capacity as CEO of the agency responsible for managing that process. The subsequent meeting was organised specifically as a formal consultation with the Department of Conservation and Land Management. In the consultation process, Mr McNamara provided the following information: • Make full use of all CALM experts to ensure good information, and ensure Committee’s Executive Officer liaises with the Director, Parks & Visitor Services, Jim Sharp, on plans for community consultation in Carnarvon and Exmouth • The map shows a study area, not a boundary. The reality is that the boundaries will give rise to conservation throughout the area • He has a history of involvement with World Heritage listing, notably Shark Bay and Purnululu • There is policy there for Ningaloo and Cape Range and integrity is the key • There is a ‘no drilling’ policy in the Ningaloo Marine Park and it is inevitable that new extensions will also be covered by the “no drilling” policy • It is currently unclear if the Commonwealth will extend their Marine Park boundary in line with the State’s extensions • Advised that Shark Bay is a multi tenured WH property covering multiple use activity e.g. pastoralism, tourism but is silent on petroleum exploration, with an understanding that, notwithstanding EPA’s presumption against oil exploration in the SBWHP each application would be dealt with on a case by case basis; however, it has not been tested yet • The Shark Bay Regional Plan contains exclusions for salt production • The petroleum industry has genuine concerns that any extension to the Ningaloo Marine Park and for activities outside but nearby, the EPA will invoke the EPBC to review the impact in “buffer” zones to ensure protection of values • Suggested APPEA is not sharing their views with IUCN • Decision would be made by Environment Minister whether the Committee’s report would stand alone or is available for stakeholders to satisfy public perceptions that consultation is being faithfully reported. • Noting that this is a Government election commitment, and the Government may be prepared to push harder to achieve implementation. Mr McNamara’s answers to the five posed questions were:

158 • Yes • Not Applicable • No • Yes • Maybe

Conservation Commission of Western Australia represented by John Bailey and Peter Baldwin (7 July 2004) indicated they were unlikely to be able to provide additional technical information and clearly supported at least the Study Area boundary but suggested there was compelling reasons for additions consistent with the criteria (‘viewed through the lens of’) and not just due to being adjacent to a large scale addition to the area. Suggested that if the values of the entire Exmouth Gulf were marginal then what should be listed is the Eastern Gulf mangrove area, and for the remainder examine the cost of including beside the cost of excluding i.e. what are the environmental and biological consequences? He recommends the following for consideration: • Do not exclude the Commonwealth Waters • Seek inclusion of Lake McLeod, which has greater values than Exmouth Gulf; • Strongly supports the inclusion of Giralia; • Identify an area with sufficient land to manage as a single entity, but must include water flows, geomorphologic influences and biological presences • Don’t discard the notion of having “outliers” i.e. satellite areas to main property; • Management of the property includes retention of vesting in the Conservation Commission and CALM to ensure Joint Management in that respect but not Joint Management of these groups with another body set up for the WH listing; • In the longer term, the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and the Conservation Commission are likely to be merged to ensure entire marine and terrestrial holdings are under uniform management and vesting; • World Heritage properties have interesting jurisdictional processes and he would support the area being placed under a special authority (bigger statutory superstructure) which could drive better access to NRM funding and encourage joint vesting and management in Commission, Local Government, even freehold with a jointly agreed Management Plan (example of Regional Parks Authority used); • Examine Agency Facilitated Community Based Decision Making processes for use in this listing. Subsequently a comprehensive set of answers and explanations/justifications were supplied in answer to the Committee’s questions.

159 Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. The Consultative Committee met with the Authority on 16 September 2004. The Authority noted the overlapping processes associated with the revision of the Ningaloo Marine Park management plan and the potential that this had to reinforce the negative responses to both processes. There was general discussion about management of these negative perceptions. Specific points regarding the values associated the marine environment were provided. A question asked was whether the success of the World Heritage nomination was reliant on the level of protection of those values ie the success of proposals in the draft management plan to substantially increase the sanctuary zones. It was pointed out that overall management arrangements would be considered, but the particulars of the percentage of the marine park in sanctuary zones was not critical. There was also discussion regarding possible sources of data/ information on economic impacts of conservation proposals on the local community, suggesting that evidence actually pointed to economic benefits eg all building blocks at the new marina have now sold out, indicating a strong interest in investment in the local economy. There was an indication of general support for the World Heritage nomination. A written submission has been received and is summarised in Attachment 4.

The Environmental Protection Authority was represented by Dr Cameron Sim, EPA Services Unit (5 July 2004). He advised the Committee of several recent assessments done in the study area, and of an NHT Grant for the values and objectives for the waters of the Pilbara (Eastern Gulf area to Port Hedland) to commence in July 2004. Indicated that Department of Fisheries had recently used a Grant to undertake a Management Framework i.e. Risk of Pollution at Sea (Dr David Blythway) and the scope was to be broadened to North West Cape to Cape Naturaliste, suggesting that the ecological criteria was very similar to a World Heritage assessment. He advised that EPA Guidance Statement No 1 for the Arid Zone Mangroves showed that the mangroves of the eastern Exmouth Gulf area to have the highest value and that no development should occur there at all. Dr. Sim was questioned on the evidence led to the Committee that all petroleum exploration and mining was banned in the SBWHA and he was able to advise that there was “a presumption against” but each case would be considered on its merits. His only comment on the questions raised was “choose a boundary that recognizes the key environmental and ecological values.” Subsequent to that meeting the Chairman of the EPA provided additional information and written confirmation of answers to the Committee’s questions, which are included in this report.

Department of Environment represented by Ron Shepherd 23 July 2004. The Committee was briefed on the Water Management Plan for North West Cape; a number of highlighted concerns were advised (in addition to a comprehensive written submission). These are: • One of the prime values i.e. criteria (i) involves the aquifer and it is very likely that the management regimes are inadequate

160 • Water Corp are already overdrawing from their top reserves • There is already on North West Cape an intellectual debate that the current Management Plan may be stymieing development there • The Waters and Rivers Commission have a policy of a sustainable draw and should exercise authority over Water Corp to review water management regimes • There is a question whether multiple users on NWC are sustainable at the current level of drawing • Referred the Committee to Part 5 of the EPA as a Specified Sensitive Area • Advised Committee on the new policies regarding clearing of native vegetation that would impact on pastoralists within the proposed World Heritage boundary and noted that flora included marine algae and kelp as well.

WA Museum, represented by Dr Fred Wells, Dr Jane Fromont and Dr Barry Hutchins met with the Consultative Committee on 5 July 2004. The WA Museum is considered to be a key scientific stakeholder. Information was provided on vertebrates, anthropology and maritime archaeology of the study area. Of special significance was their recommendation that the Muiron, Tent, and Surrurier Islands be included due to the biodiversity of fish species (156 known and ranked second in global diversity). Follow-up material to support this recommendation was promised; additional data and information has been provided to the consultant responsible for preparing the draft nomination, but information on the sponges etc of Exmouth Gulf has not been provided. The Museum representatives gave the following responses to the posed questions: • Yes – support at least the defined Study Area as a boundary • Issues of concern were non-inclusion of the mangroves found if a line was drawn from the Muiron (proposed Marine Management Area boundary) to Tent Island. • Known values outside the area would include Serrurier Islands, Rosalie Cove. • They had no concerns with a larger area than depicted in the Study Area. No other issues were raised.

Coral Coast Parks Advisory Committee – Exmouth 31 July 2004 represented by the full membership, Dept. of Industry and Resources representative and CALM staff. The Chair of CCPAC is also Chair of the World Heritage Consultative Committee, and this overlapping responsibility was noted. There was a noticeably higher level of awareness of environmental issues, values etc. amongst the members of CCPAC. Following the Powerpoint presentation, there were general questions on excision processes, boundary genus, mining tenements, Lake MacLeod’s proposed RAMSAR listing and Coral Bay/Maud’s Landing. The following questions highlight the main issues:

161 • It would be useful if this World Heritage process caused a cancellation of the Maud’s townsite, and recommended that the excised area of Coral Bay be stopped at the Sanctuary boundary line • If Exmouth townsite is excised, must ensure that Cameron’s Cave area is included in the World Heritage property • Will it stop Defence using the Bombing Range because presumably the Range activities would not stand the test of integrity? • This listing process is duplicating other activities such as Marine Park and National Park which means duplication of plans and committees • This briefing constitutes a transparent process and it is nice to be consulted and you are to be congratulated • The Eastern Gulf area must be included, that goes for Yanrey Delta area and Tent Island; those are Gnulli land claim areas • Should note the presence in the Shire of Ashburton of a uranium mine owned by Palladin on Mindaroo Station, so it would be important to know that this cannot be used as a dumping ground in the future • There is substantial angst in the community over the Marine Sanctuary so the Consultative Committee should organise a communications strategy to cover the World Heritage nomination processes [advised that a public meeting scheduled for 19 August] There was general support for a boundary including the Eastern Gulf, northern sector of Lake McLeod, Marine Parks and Cape Range with excision of Coral Bay and Exmouth, and appropriate management of mining activities based on the information currently available. One member (Coral Bay) abstained and indicated he would submit a separate submission; this has not been received.

Conservation Council of Western Australia was represented by Denis Beros, Paul Gamblin, David McKenzie, David Sutton, Nic Dunlop, Richard McLellan and Cameron Poustie. The opening question was “Who selected the initial study area?” which led to a lengthy discussion on the East Coastal area of Exmouth Gulf, noting it is the breeding ground for the marine species that finish their life cycles on the Ningaloo Reef; sediment and nutrients are regularly interchanged between the Gulf and the Reef; the mangal areas are catchments for the Gulf and the Reef and it is essential that WH listing ensure the integrity of the system. The Committee was told that the study area boundaries suggested administrative ease, and did not reflect the scientific detail present in the area. Thereafter followed a series of questions on governance, extraction activity and what capacity there was for organizations to continue their mining, prawning and salt activities. It was stressed that for the listing to have integrity all systems that support and maintain the core values of the stygofauna, climate connections, anchialine systems, invertebrates and unique mollusc species must be included. The following statements were made to the Committee, without any verifying material: • Stygofauna occurs East and West side of the Cape Range peninsular, and the

162 aquifer moves as do the marine waters so the Gulf and eastern mangrove areas must be included; • Cave systems contain evidence that the climate on Cape Range is modified by water on both sides (aquatic systems) and cannot be separated so the Gulf must be included; • The biodiversity of Exmouth Gulf is greater than Shark Bay but there are less endemic species – we must establish why; • A case can be mounted that the Muirons are an inextricable part of the Gulf, containing the largest wedgetail shearwater population (referenced Kurt Jenner and Bob Prince), substantial fish biodiversity, is a significant loggerhead recruitment area and they are geologically part of the Cape Range; • The Gulf is a whale resting and calving area, and thereby contributes to the protection and survival of the endangered species; • There are around 1000 dugong in the Gulf, 1000 dugong on Ningaloo Reef and there is clearly a migratory path from Shark Bay for this endangered species; and • Tent Island was worthy of further research, as its values were likely high. • Lake MacLeod was cited as a situation whereby the system there has actually been enhanced by salt production i.e. switched from a less predictable area for food to a highly predictable food source for the migratory birds, 26 of the 58 species located there are listed under the CAMBA/JAMBA Treaties. Seven (7) species are said to breed there and there was a suggestion that there is one species of fish unique to Australia that breeds in the inland mangrove area, which in itself is most unusual. It was further stated that Lake McLeod should be included as it connects to the ocean and reef through subterranean tunnels. References were made to Wyrwoll’s study of Sandalwood Peninsular, and the analysis of World Heritage values by Peter Hitchcock, and the Hanoi Statement which were to be provided to the Committee by Dennis Beros. Mention was also made about the congregation of whale sharks and coral spawning but the group was reminded of the values necessary for listing. The group gave in-principle support for a listing and suggested that careful attention needed to be paid to buffer zones to ensure protection of the values and the supporting systems. Subsequent to the meeting the group provided a written submission confirming and enhancing the foregoing information, and providing reference points and information purporting to establish a prima facie case for inclusion of Exmouth Gulf and Lake McLeod within the boundary. A copy of that submission is included with this Report.

The Rangelands NRM Coordinating Group has not been consulted at the time of writing. Efforts are being made to arrange a meeting.

163 Other Government agencies

Department of Planning and Infrastructure, represented by David Nunn (6 July 2004) advised that in his capacity as the designated NSDO his Department was receiving many questions on “what World Heritage listing means, who is in charge, what effect will it have on us, what is NSDO’s role in the process”. He advised of the imminent Regional Interim Development Order (RIDO), noting that the State, through the Western Australia Planning Commission and its designated NSDC, is the planning/decision maker and will control land use for the next 5 years. He was very aware of the plethora of conservation and recreation issues, the environmental refuge area of Lake MacLeod and the management methods to cover land use, access, vesting, low key low impact, and ecologically sustainability in the area. He highlighted responsibility, accountability and adequate resourcing as critical and believed that integration and coordination of the many activities and issues would address the various Conservation organisations’ desire for an overarching body similar to GRMPA.

Department of Premier and Cabinet, represented by Andrew Higham and Geoff Klem was seen on two occasions (6 and 9 July) and participation mainly centred on providing advice: • Premier is taking a keen interest in this issue which is top of the Government’s consideration list, and he would be receiving regular updates during sittings of the Cabinet Standing Committee on Regional Policy; • Area to be nominated area should be minimum that is supported by science. The systems that might be included are the Muirons, mangroves of Exmouth Gulf and the Gulf itself, Lake MacLeod; • Committee needs to be mindful of a recommending an area of manageable size and inclusions and the mechanisms to manage the core area as there is a question on the Government’s capacity to manage this area once listed; • Values protection and integrity requirements, particularly for adjacent areas to the final boundary will impact on the land uses; • Pastoral and Gulf country impact is critical as if the geological criteria supports then the “buffer zone” issue comes into play; • Be aware of the various Instruments at the Government’s disposal i.e. Statutory Regions Scheme (NSDA), Regional Interim Development Order; • Notification of extra State and Federal funding required is essential; • Cape Range - Ningaloo is of such significance that it is to go as a nomination to the World Heritage Committee without going on the National Heritage List; however, even being on the national list would still trigger the EPBC; • European and Indigenous history might be a trigger to do more with Heritage listing; • In respect of Coral Bay, the sewerage and water scoping are ready, power supply still unresolved, an infrastructure audit on safety, fuel storage, wind/diesel

164 options is necessary, the boat launch facility should be ready by the end of 2005; and • Exmouth Structure Plan allows for growth to 10,000 people.

Heritage Council of WA, represented by Stephen Carrick (5 July 2004), indicated that his concerns were with build heritage in the area, but was of the opinion than none of the built heritage would in itself sustain a nomination. Inclusion of the Navy Pier, the Very Low Frequency Communications Array and Helix House, and the Operation Potshot site would certainly complement the cultural history and interpretive significance of the area, once listed.

Water Corporation (12 August 2004) represented by Dr Bob Humphries and Ms Sarah Goates told the Consultative Committee that Water Corporation took the issues associated with the supply of water to the town of Exmouth very seriously, and was investing in a range of environmental monitoring and management practices. They described the work being done to monitor the borefield, begun in 1995, including leaving 3 or 4 of the ~40 bores along the eastern side of Cape range as reference bores, the impacts on the fresh water lens and the fresh water/ sea water interface, and the stygofauna. Indications are that abstraction increases numbers of stygofauna through a process of biostimulation – pumping causes weak currents that increase supply of food & nutrients. The Water Corporation representatives indicated that they were working closely with Dr Bill Humphries and also offered to provide access to data if necessary, to support the preparation of the nomination. Water Corporation strongly supports the proposed World Heritage nomination provided that it doesn’t affect Water Corporation’s activities.

Gascoyne Development Commission. The Commission was briefed on the proposal to nominate the North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef area at its meeting 0n 8 September 2004. The response was as follows. The Gascoyne Development Commission is committed to the broadest development of the Gascoyne Region, ensuring all initiatives and proposals achieve the economic, social and environmental gains for the communities. The GDC is critically involved in the Shark Bay World heritage Property administration. Based on the ongoing difficulties of that property’s management, the GDC commissioned a “Lessons learned” project to ensure the shortcomings, from nomination in the late 1980s that endure today, are not repeated for the North West Cape Province nomination and listing. The Lessons Learned report, an extract of which is included at Attachment 5 of this report, emphasises inter alia the immediate need for: • an effective communications strategy; • on-going engagement with the community; • up-front commitment to an effective management structure; • clear definition of the World Heritage property boundaries; and • immediate commitment to resource the management of the property. This World Heritage nomination process has divided the broader regional

165 community, and refreshed the long-standing angst in Shark Bay. All measures available to manage this issue property must be deployed if this policy commitment is to be delivered, embraced and managed positively over the next five years. The GDC recommends that, unless the foregoing list of needs can be achieved, the nomination be delayed for 12 months or until such time as comprehensive strategies and commitments can be given by the Western Australian Government.

Local Government and Community

Department of Local Government & Regional Development has not been consulted at the time of writing. Efforts are being made to arrange a meeting.

WA Local Government Association represented by Dale Newsom on 9 July 2004. He queried the relationship with DPI and the Carnarvon Ningaloo Coastal Strategy and about synergies between all the activities. Stated he had a watching brief only; only 3 out of 124 LGAs and just need to be assured there would be a comprehensive consultation process. Asked for details on the Commonwealth Marine Park. Then indicated he had no real issues but conceded this could have an enormous impact on small Shires and stated that LGAs are increasingly being forced to focus on much bigger administration loads, often with limited skills and knowledge to do so. He believed that it was incumbent upon Government to ensure that the capacity and expertise to fruitfully participate in the consultation and implementation process, including funding the costs of providing training. He was advised that it may be prudent for WALGA to access appropriate grant funds e.g. RIF to educate LGAs and staff on environmental matters.

Shire of Exmouth (22 July 2004) represented by Ted Motsell, Keith Woodward, Robert Todd, Doreen Blum, Rob Manning, Ronnie Fleay, Peter Green (NRM), John Cooper, Larry Burkett, Lynn Martin, Kerry Graham, Mark Lucas (GDC), Ned Haywood. The standard Powerpoint presentation was given; the Chairman was able to elaborate on the range of stakeholders’ views to date and assured those present that their views and comments would be reported to the Minister. The group was invited to make written submissions to clarify their position. • “I have thousands of questions – saying it doesn’t stop things doesn’t quite gel. • Does the EPBC Act impose layers of impact on us? • What is the difference between the Federal Act and listing for National Heritage and what input from local Committees are you taking? • How many local people are on the Committee? • What about the indigenous component? • My concerns are about the community and when are they to be consulted?

166 • CALM receives funding for all of this but in Shark Bay all development has been stopped. • How will World Heritage listing fit in with the NSDA’s work? • How do the proposed tourists’ nodes fit within the World Heritage listing process? • Is it possible that buildings here may be listed later? • We need to understand how much Federal money goes into World Heritage management - $1.25 billion is allocated for NRM and a portion of that is quarantined for World Heritage management. The Coastal nodes management strategy will be released in 3 weeks and it is a myth that World Heritage listing impacts on commercial activity – you need to look at how Shires can benefit. • We need to go other World Heritage places and see which systems work and which don’t for instance which Shires have 4% or less not in the World Heritage area. • Who will meet the Shire costs e.g. re-alignment of roads, building new gravel roads – the residents will just end up paying more rates for this. • Will the limestone and aquaculture businesses be able to develop?” • It seems Local Government authorities have less and less authority when all Government agencies are seen to have far more clout. Local Government opinion or requirements are being ignored by the State Government – these are the Exmouth Shire’s early concerns. • Our overriding concerns are that the State Government is not listening to us and it is difficult for us. • We are concerned that you (Committee) are pro-World Heritage! • Obviously the scientific community wants this area listed but my understanding is that a much larger area is now the requirement. • We are still concerned about the lack of time to consult with the community. • Previously the Shire was in favour of listing of Cape Range and Ningaloo Marine Park but it is now difficult to identify what we should be considering given the scope of your Study Area. • We have included in our Town Planning Scheme everything conceivably able to be identified for development but our Aquaculture Plan needs to be revised so potential areas are available to us. That would be OK if you follow the western side of the road (Minilya- Exmouth). • Mining activity is forbidden in World Heritage areas. • We need a public presentation to dispel the myths and explain why they are not true • And we need lots more time! • It will be easier for you and for the Councillors to go back to the public with a reasonable approach – yes the Government will nominate but the Exmouth community will have strong input into definition of boundaries, management, and

167 resourcing and ongoing community consultation”. The Committee agreed to supply information to the Shire to promulgate to the community and offered the Shire the opportunity to convene a public meeting for residents and ratepayers to conduct a briefing and provide such information as the Committee can reasonably give. Subsequent to the meeting the Shire supplied a one page statement of their resolutions in respect of the proposed listing (enclosed) but paraphrased is: • generally supportive of CR National Park and Ningaloo Marine Park only • more time for consideration – process is too rushed • very little community support • better definition of boundaries to promote better understanding within the community • get the scientists in first rather than last • a guarantee of funding and ongoing commitment to fund by both Federal and State Governments is required before proceeding further • too much ‘peppering’ of the community with all of the strategies/studies/Management Plans etc. • diversification of industry to reduce reliance on tourism is necessary – WH likely to complicate • Appreciates the efforts of the Consultative Committee but considers more consultation is necessary.

Shire of Carnarvon (23 July 2004) attended by CEO Clinton Strugnell; no Councillors accepted the invitation to attend the briefing. The following questions of clarification post the presentation were posed: • Deadlines and timelines for submissions and reports • Process followed within Exmouth Town Planning Scheme and the Exmouth Structure Plan • Queried development applications considered case-by-case or over the whole Town Planning Scheme as information available was that Shark Bay Region Plan and Town Planning Scheme were ignored in the World Heritage process. • Multi questions on the role of the EPA process in Carnarvon’s long term planning management • Thought Coral Bay, within the new Planning Scheme, should be fine in respect of EPA’s ongoing scrutiny of developments there but wondered whether it was likely that Coral Bay would be included in the listing or excised. • Acknowledged the various other activities and that WH was separate to those considerations • Indicated that some over arching management model to ensure a level of continuity and consistency would be welcomed and he would be interested in

168 providing additional information on that in due course. The Committee offered the opportunity for a public meeting if it was considered the interest level was sufficient; agreed to provide briefing material to the Shire; and a copy of the GDC contracted “Lessons learned on WH listing of Shark Bay” would be made available when published. A later briefing was conducted with Shire’s new Town Planner who indicated submission of a response to the questions by 10 Sep – this was not forthcoming.

Shire of Ashburton At the time of writing, there has been no face-to-face consultation with the Shire of Ashburton because of logistic constraints.

Coral Bay Progress Association 22 July 2004 represented by Sandra Lymbery, Doug Hunt, Vin O’Sullivan, Rick French. (Apologies from Graham Murphy) • “I have been told by Shark Bay to resist this all the way and to a person they have said not to touch this because if you think CALM are bad now, wait until World Heritage gets hold of you!” • “Can we learn any lessons from Shark Bay’s experience?” • “We are frustrated – I was the Shire representative on the CNRCS but removed due to perceptions of conflict of interest. It is disappointing that someone who makes their livelihood in this area and depends on the viability of the area cannot participate in such forums. CALM and I do not get on but the Committee process needs to be clear and transparent.” • “Pastoralists are most concerned on this 2 kilometre strip; the stations are no longer viable and they are now concerned about World Heritage will do to them.” • “Coral Bay survives on tourism. The terrestrial activities are critical to our survival – the quad bikes on the beach – it means more trouble with CALM, not to mention we will be accountable and fighting now with the Shire, CALM, Fisheries, NSDA and then World Heritage.” • “I agree – we are over-governed now – why do we need this?” • “Let us look at the positives and the advantages –perhaps there will be tourism gains.” followed by general discussion on this point. • “My view is that the Commonwealth promises all this money for these things but it never comes.” There was a discussion on the offer to conduct a public meeting of Coral Bay residents and tourism operators and provision of information. Those present were asked to make written submissions to ensure their considered viewpoint was included in the submission to the Minister.

Carnarvon Community Peak Body Groups 23 July, including Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Northern Guardian, Tourism WA, Dept of Agriculture. The group immediately wanted to discuss the comparison with Shark Bay, suggesting that they needed to be convinced the long standing non-acceptance by the

169 Shark Bay community was not going to be repeated with this nomination. Questioned what botanical and biological diversity would support terrestrial listing – when explanation of the science of the geological values provided to the Committee was made, the Dept of Agriculture Regional Manager refuted with a statement “that core samples of the reef can be taken to get dating, and you don’t need to list all that for a climate change record.” An explanation of the unique geological platforms in the Cape Range provoked further discussion with mention of management plans and “what if “scenarios posed. The Dept of Agriculture representative seemed intent on undermining the group’s information gathering by demanding that the Committee answer the question “If you wanted to put a development on the beach at Shark Bay you would not be allowed and the extra levels of environmental compliance come into play.” He got very agitated with the Committee’s explanation that such a scenario would not necessarily involve a World Heritage protection action and would likely be excluded by the State’s current Environmental policy well before it required the relevant WH management consideration. He then stated he would only be happy if there are valid criteria for the process of assessment of each development application and not just philosophical opinion. He committed to providing examples of how this did not work in Shark Bay and left the meeting, indicating to the Committee he had another commitment. He has provided no further input to the Committee, despite the fact that his Department’s constituents have carried one of the louder and most vigorous anti-listing campaigns throughout the Committee’s work. The Tourism WA representative indicated that an education process on World Heritage values was the key to clarifying the diverse opinions. The Chamber of Commerce & Industry representative suggested that community leaders need to be aware of the processes and what it means for commercial and industrial development. One Chamber of Commerce & Industry representative told that group that he thought this process was similar to giving a Quality Assurance tick to the area listed. The Carnarvon Chamber of Commerce and Industry provided a written submission (enclosed with this Report) advising of conditional in-principal support of the nomination paraphrased as: • Management arrangements are enshrined in appropriate Federal, State and local government legislation; • Resourced recognition of Carnarvon as the southern gateway to the World Heritage Area ie. Provision of underlying infrastructure and support for local businesses to cater on a best practice approach; • Immediate grass roots education to reveal the World Heritage values and attributes to local communities to create a sense of pride, ownership and direction; • Boundary captures the unique attributes but recognizes commercial realities and provides for a loss mitigation strategy for those adversely affected by the listing; and • Continual communications with Carnarvon Chamber of Commerce & Industry to update on developments.

170

Residents and Ratepayers of Exmouth - 19 August 2004 - Exmouth. Between 150 and 170 people attended this public meeting; notably there appeared to be less residents than there were visitors, and many single interest groups including several pastoralists briefed prior, and the presence of the President and CEO of the Shire of Shark Bay (funded by local Dive operators) was noted. The Committee, having viewed the inflammatory written material authored by Shire of Shark Bay, placed in shop windows around the town centre, took the precautionary step of contracting a local video cameraman to tape the proceedings to ensure all views could be properly represented in this report. Unfortunately, due to equipment failure a critical 20 minute portion of the public meeting, ironically containing the most inflammatory statements and mis-information, was lost. The Committee took extra efforts to provide an enhanced brief, containing technical and scientific information garnered from previous consultations, to ensure the meeting was advised of the special values and features of the area to drive better understanding of the Listing’s rationale. The Committee assessed that the audience was largely hostile and many had been attracted there by the misleading material distributed prior by Shark Bay residents and North West Cape pastoralists. Almost all of the questions raised were aggressive in their posture, and were read from a pre-prepared list of questions that about 50% of the audience used. The following is a list of some of the questions to indicate the sentiments of the meeting: • We are told we will be subjected to 2 Management Committees, science and community • Where does CALM sit in the World Heritage system? • Are the two CALM activities (Marine Sanctuaries and National Park Management Plans) parts of this process? • What opportunities will the Shire and the people have to see the Report before it goes to the Minister? • Do we have to trust you? What is the point of consulting us if we don’t get to see what you say about us? (then asked for a show of hands for support for his requirements) • World Heritage is politically motivated. I’d like youse [sic] Committee members to tell this meeting what your political ambitions are. • The President of Shark Bay is here and he has never been consulted about anything in his part of the world. • I would like to hear from Mr. Moss to talk about his experiences with World Heritage listing Councillor Les Moss of Shark Bay then addressed the audience reading from the publicly displayed document and elaborating on points to emphasise his points of view, the more misleading statements being: “I have been Shire President for 12 of my 15 years on Council; we get 80% turnout at elections and the bureaucrats don’t like me, in fact they hate me but I must be doing something right. People who have got all the land [CALM] have got all the

171 power. The levels of bureaucracy when you become a World Heritage property are unbelievable. CALM keep grabbing land off us despite my Regional Plan. It is a 1 way street and the community does not matter. Tourism operators cannot develop. I am not here to tell you what to do but I can tell you we have the wrong management regime in Shark Bay and my message to the Government is to sort out Shark Bay before you try this sort of thing up here. The GDC’s survey on Lessons Learned doesn’t prove anything. Not one cent has been provided by the Government for World Heritage listing”. Statements to support the local CALM staff who were said to be accessible and working hard were made by one long term resident, who then suggested he smelled a rat and that the Government was trying to appease the Greenies over the Barrow Island decision and it may be better to delay this until after the next election so democracy can be seen to be working. There were repeated question on “deregulation” – in essence the person was asking whether the area could be de-listed, or the boundaries reduced at a later time, presumably with a change of Government. The Committee were advised that our ability to answer that and other questions was inadequate and that the Government is to be told to inform the community of the de-listing process. A pastoralist who had been well represented at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting at Bullara demanded provision of the scientific evidence to include 75% of Bullara Station in the Study Area, adding that this would destroy the lives and livings of all those people. There were repeated questions and comments on the timing of the consultation and nomination/reporting process and there appeared to be strong support for a more considered approach with the scientific rationale well debated by all before the WA Government proceeded with the nomination. Several quite passionate audience members tried to force votes on a series of issues, including who in the audience had been personally consulted on whether they wished the area to be listed, what message the Committee should be instructed to take back to the Government, and who wished the nomination process to be stayed until after the next election. There were numerous comments such as not being able to own dogs in Exmouth, not being able to camp anywhere in the World Heritage property, ‘buffer zones will be huge and stop everything around the boundary anyway’, and that developers for the Minilya Burkett Road Roadhouse had withdrawn their application the minute they were told about World Heritage listing. A Shire Councillor advised the Committee that Exmouth was ‘regulated out’ and there is a strong resentment here that only CALM can manage these areas. Indicated that the Shallcross family would be driven off Bullara as there was this mentality by CALM to take over and take control when in fact there were other people and organizations quite capable of managing the conserved estate. CEO Shark Bay Shire addressed the meeting and corrected a misleading statement his President had made earlier re funding, and reiterated his view that it was time to get it the management right in Shark Bay before tackling Exmouth. He suggested caution by any property owners that shared a boundary with WH as he asserted, you

172 are deemed to be in the WH area. (See tape for details of his presentation). One tour operator asked to be told about the disadvantages and there were several questions about the impacts of listing on the tourism operator’s ability to expand. A local Dive Operator, self confessed combatant with CALM over licence issues, advised that CALM staff on the ground do a great job but it was Marine Parks and Reserves Authority that were the faceless group and no matter what the Consultative Committee told them they would do with the information, it was clear that higher level bureaucrats would ensure that none of the criticism and negative opinions would get through to the Minister. It was clear that the majority supported a position: • Seek the nomination after the State election • They want more time to consider the implications • They do not want the process rushed as it currently is • People want answers provided to them on the information they sought

Sarah Lukeman GDC Consultant “Lessons learned from World Heritage Listing of Shark Bay” 23 July 2004 The Committee discussed the scope of the consultant’s undertaking, on behalf of the Gascoyne Development Commission, to record any lessons learned from the listing of the Shark Bay World Heritage Area as it may apply to the proposed listing of the North West Cape area. While this report is not a historical record of the process, it does provide good insight into the lingering ill-will and perceptions in the Shark Bay community and the antagonistic attitude by the Shire of Shark Bay, which was very evident to the Committee as it consulted groups. The recommendations the consultant has made with respect to managing the nomination, listing, resourcing, communications strategies and management of the proposed North West Cape Province listing are relevant and accord with views expressed throughout the consultation process. This is at Attachment 5.

Indigenous Organisations and Communities

Department of Indigenous Affairs (12 August 2004) represented by Madge Schwede. Following the powerpoint presentation, the following points were made: The area is important for the Aboriginal people, and has been for a very long time – archaeological evidence suggests a population living along the coast off the marine resources eg middens etc, and possibly retreating to the caves of Cape Range etc, reference to the shell necklace fund by Kate Morse and the work of a range of archaeologists; The information in the Register of Aboriginal Sites is not necessarily complete, but available for the purposes of the nomination if required (map tabled); includes sites on Tent Island, burial sites around Exmouth & Learmonth uncovered during

173 earthworks The Department would almost certainly be supportive. Subsequent to meeting with the Consultative Committee, DIA provided a response to the CC’s questions, which is attached to the Report, paraphrased: • The Heritage and Cultural Branch supports the defined study area; • Concerns would be held if the area was restricted to Aboriginal people visiting the for cultural and ceremonial purposes; • Belief that there are probably unrecorded Aboriginal sites that would enhance the cultural value of the area; • No concerns about nominating a larger area; and • There are many unrecorded Aboriginal sites throughout the area and it is hoped that listing will provide protection, thereby benefiting both the Aboriginal and broader community with development of a planning and management program.

Gnulli Working Group and Yamatji Land and Sea Council (20 August 2004) at Carnarvon – represented by Syd Dale (Thalanji), John Dale (Thalanji), Ruby (Baiyungu), Ann Preest (Thalanji), Raf Melerski (YL&SC). There were few items raised by the group, which was significantly depleted due to absences by the Chair (Ingaarda) and several mixed language group members e.g. Thudgerri. The following constitutes the total queries raised with the CC: • Were we aware of the number of species in Cape Range • Does Cardabia really need to be included in the World Heritage area? • What restrictions will World Heritage listing place on us – will we still be able to hunt and do the traditional things we do up there? • If it is World Heritage listed, will we get the funds to manage? • If you decide to include the Yanrey delta system and Giralia can we ensure the whole Gulf is included as that is Thalanji country and the dugongs used to be a traditional food source?

174

Attachment 4. Summary of written submissions on the proposed World Heritage nomination. Stakeholders were asked to address five questions when making written submissions. The questions were: 1. Does the stakeholder support a nomination based on the defined study area boundary? 2. If not, what are the issues of concern? Does the stakeholder have any suggestions as to how these concerns might be accommodated within a nomination based on the defined study area? 3. Are there known values outside the defined study area that should be included in the nomination? 4. Does the stakeholder have concerns about the nomination of a larger area? If so, what are those concerns? If they relate to a specific area, please identify that area. 5. Are there other issues that the stakeholder would like to draw to the attention of the Consultative Committee?

Stakeholder Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Other Comments Resources Sector • Department of Industry and The Department supports the The Department’s view is that The Department is not Yes. There are lands in the It is important that the • The Department Resources intent of establishing a World the terrestrial portion of the convinced that locations outside broader area discussed at the Committee recognise that, apart continues to be concerned Heritage area in this region but defined Study Area does not the defined Study Area have meeting as being considered for from the existing statutes about the apparent lack of is concerned that the proposed include natural properties of outstanding universal natural or inclusion in the World Heritage formally setting aside mineral consultation. Study Area could threaten key “outstanding universal value.” cultural values that are worthy nomination set aside for and petroleum tenements, State • The Department is resources and industry The area does not contain of inclusion in a World resources development Agreement Act areas and willing to provide additional development interests within examples of World class, Heritage nomination. activities: industrial developments, and information on the geology and nearby to it. outstanding geology or The Department understands • Temporary Ministerial the rights created, many of the and resources of the region. The location of boundaries geomorphology. that the Government Policy Reserve for Solar Salt resources covered by the Study • The Department expects should be based only on In addition, there are already commitments include only • Temporary Ministerial Area are of strategic that in the development of protecting the World Heritage lands in the Study Area set North West Cape and Ningaloo Reserves for limestone significance to the State and the the proposed listing, the values in the area. aside formally under the Reef, and that a nomination resources well being of the community. Committee will also The Department accepts the Mining Act 1978 and the based on these areas alone may • Dampier Salt Industry For example, the high grade implement the State Study Area as a basis for full Petroleum Act 1967, Petroleum not meet World Heritage Agreement Act 1967 industrial limestone deposits in Sustainability Strategy and discussion and negotiation (Sub Merged Lands) Act 1982. criteria for integrity. The • Petroleum Act tenements Cape Range, salt production process principles to ensure towards the development of a The Study Area encompasses Department would not support for exploration and and oil and gas production. access to resources and World Heritage listing significant onshore and a nomination that sought to production Australia’s consumption of oil industrial development are proposal. The basis for this offshore oil and gas provinces increase the area of the • Current oil production at and condensate is increasing appropriately accounted for support is that the World over which there are no active nomination without a sound Rough Range (Empire significantly and now exceeds in decision making. Heritage values are those tenements but that may contain scientific basis. oil) self- sufficiency. This will • Triggering of the within the Ningaloo Marine significant hydrocarbon Other areas may be required for increase dependency on Commonwealth’s Park (excluding the proposed resources. seabed pipelines and associated imported fuels and has negative environmental legislation is Muiron Islands Marine The Department is concerned petroleum industry implications for Australia’s contrary to the Management Area) and the that the EPA’s advice on infrastructure. security and balance of recommendations of the Cape Range National Park petroleum industry activities payments. The Exmouth Sub Review of Project (including the proposed within the Shark Bay World basin of the Carnarvon Basin is Development Approvals extensions to both parks). The Heritage Property set a recognised as a significant oil System of timeliness and the security of granted mining and precedent for the Ningaloo province that could make it of removal of overlap and petroleum tenements and Cape Range proposal. greater strategic importance to duplication. holders’ rights to full access to the State and Commonwealth. explore for and mine the resources contained therein must be quarantined from the effects of the World Heritage nomination.

175

Australian Petroleum • Note importance of the petroleum sector to the national and State economies; Production and Exploration • Supports appropriate management arrangements to protect special values such as found at Ningaloo, but note that simplistic management mechanisms fail to recognise ability of industry to Association operate with minimal impact on the environment; • Concern about impacts of listing on industry activities; EPA’s advice on petroleum industry activities in Shark Bay creates a difficult precedent; • Concern about public perceptions of industry activities in or near a World Heritage property, and the potential for this to impact adversely on industry activities; • Boundary should be designed to protect World Heritage values; case for the inclusion of the northern part of the Ningaloo Marine Park not strong; • Concern about the brief time for consultation; • Concern that World Heritage listing will bring a requirement for additional approvals, including under the Commonwealth legislation BHP Billiton Petroleum • Concern regarding inclusion of Commonwealth waters - • Concerns over the • Existing high level of of the Ningaloo Marine Park because of proximity to possible inclusion of environmental protection & company’s permit areas WA-155_P and WA-255-P: not Exmouth Gulf as this may controls through Cwlth & convinced of values of outstanding universal significance in constrain activities in these State legislation; these off-shore waters. waters including • Industry has a very • Preferred position not to include Commonwealth waters movements of service good record and a vessels: not convinced of responsible approach; values • Concern about Implications of EPA’s advice on petroleum industry activities in Shark Bay Woodside • Background to Woodside’s activities off North West Cape and, in particular, discovery and commitment to develop the Enfield Project resources; • Woodside has been working with local communities since the first off-shore oil discovery, believes that partnerships with local communities is an integral part of the company’s business and that consultation forms the key to a mutual understanding and respect of each stakeholder’s aspirations; • Decision to seek World Heritage listing is commendable, and company acknowledges the Government’s interest in proceeding; • Recommends that an appropriate consultation program be established to progress the World Heritage nomination; • Offer to make results of research undertaken for Commonwealth Environmental Impact Assessment process available. • No. Apache does not support a nomination that includes the existing Ningaloo Marine Park, and believes that any nomination should align with the reef itself; • Company supports the use of conservation systems that define conservation values of a particular ecosystem or biological community; • Note that the company has a good environmental record, including winning DoIR’s Golden Gecko award in 2003; • Note that the industry suffers an adverse public perception associated with media images of oil spills from international shipping, and give the example of recent prohibition from seismic survey 50 km east of the Great Barrier Reef, the present Federal and State Government position on exploration and drilling in Commonwealth and State waters of the Ningaloo Marine Park, and the EPA’s advice on petroleum industry activities in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property; • Company is concerned that adverse community sentiment may increase once an area near their existing operations is nominated for World Heritage listing, also it will trigger the Commonwealth environment legislation; • Company is concerned about the present stakeholder consultation process, and contrasts that to the process used in planning the proposed Montebello/Barrow islands Marine Conservation Reserve; • Inadequate information provided to stakeholders on the values or the process by which they are determined or evaluated.

176

Victoria Petroleum • No. Victoria Petroleum • Considers a nomination • Not aware of any • Inclusion of Exmouth • Company objects • Reiterate that a does not support the of an area larger than values; Gulf would impact vigorously to inclusion of nomination of the existing nomination of any of the existing parks would be a • Reiterates position that adversely on company’s additional/ larger area as a parks should not proceed defined Study Area; very cynical abuse of the only the existing parks interests, including interests buffer zone for the existing unless majority local • Company would process; should be included if the in EP 325 with Rivoli parks; community and stakeholder support a nomination for • Concerns regarding the local community supports Deposit; • All company’s approval is gained; the existing Cape Range rights of existing tenement the nomination • Could result in a operations have • Reference to the recent National Park and holders outside the existing blanket ban on petroleum environmental approvals; High Court decision on the Ningaloo Marine Parks parks would be adversely industries in the Gulf (and • Local community in Nathan Dam case and the only if the nomination affected, based on the other sectors); Exmouth not supportive; likely implications for any were supported by a precedent of the EPA’s • Would result in • Company has been activities in the vicinity of majority of the local advice on Shark Bay; increased level of environmentally the proposed World community supported it. • Notes interests in environmental assessments responsible; eg with a self- Heritage property. permit areas EP 41, EP and controls imposed ban on seismic 359, EP 325 – would seek activity in September, compensation if excluded October while Humpback by virtue of World Heritage whales resting in the Gulf; listing • Industry has a good safety and environmental record • Geology of Exmouth Gulf does not pose any environmental risks; shallow depths suitable for jack-up rigs for drilling Sun Resources • No. Sun Resources • Concern if a large areas • Not aware of any • Inclusion of Exmouth • Company objects • Reiterate that a does not support the of lesser value were values; Gulf would impact vigorously to inclusion of nomination of the existing nomination of any of the included simply to make • Reiterates position that adversely on company’s additional/ larger area as a parks should not proceed defined Study Area; drawing of boundaries only the existing parks interests, including interests buffer zone for the existing unless majority local • Company would easier for UN approval; should be included if the in EP 325; parks; community and stakeholder support a nomination for • Considers a nomination local community supports • Could result in a • All company’s approval is gained; the existing Cape Range of an area larger than the nomination blanket ban on petroleum operations have • Reference to the recent National Park and existing parks would be an industry activities across all environmental approvals; High Court decision on the Ningaloo Marine Parks ambit claim and an abuse areas outside existing • Local community in Nathan Dam case and the only if the values were of the process; parks, as has happened in Exmouth not supportive; likely implications for any proven and the nomination • Concerns regarding the Shark Bay World Heritage • Company has been activities in the vicinity of were supported by a rights of existing tenement Area; environmentally the proposed World majority of the local holders outside the existing • Would result in responsible; eg with a self- Heritage property; community supported it. parks would be adversely increased level of imposed ban on seismic • Government and the • There is presumably a affected, based on the environmental assessments activity in September, Consultative Committee clear scientific basis for the precedent of the EPA’s and controls – has effect of October while Humpback have an obligation to environmental values and advice on Shark Bay; slowing and deterring whales resting in the Gulf; explain to the local protection of the “park • Notes interests in exploration and • Industry has a good community and to areas” compared to the permit areas EP 359, EP development. safety and environmental stakeholders the potential lesser or unknown values 325, legitimately allocated record impacts on them, in view of the remainder of the by the Designated • Geology of Exmouth of the Nathan Dam High defined study area. Authority. Asks whether Gulf does not pose any Court ruling. WA Government is environmental risks; proposing to “carte shallow depths suitable for blanche’ dishonour their jack-up rigs for drilling

177

obligations to permit holders? Strike Oil • No. Strike Oil supports • Strike Oil would be • Strike Oil is not aware • Strike Oil is concerned • Strike oil would object • The petroleum industry a nomination based on the concerned if large areas of of any values outside the that the nomination could strenuously to any attempt in Australia has a very boundaries of the current lesser cultural or natural defined study area; include Exmouth Gulf: this to nominated Exmouth good safety record and an Ningaloo Marine Park and significance were included • Company believes that would severely impact on Gulf solely on the grounds excellent environment the proposed addition to simply for administrative the World Heritage the company’s ability to that it is a resting ground record; the marine park, Cape convenience; nomination should be explore for petroleum in for Humpback whales – • The geology of Range National Park and • Company is concerned restricted to preserving the existing legally-granted this occurs only for a few Exmouth Gulf does not the area designated about adverse impacts on iconic values of the tenements; weeks each year and the pose any risks for drilling; “proposed 2015 rights of petroleum Ningaloo Reef and Cape • Concern that a blanket petroleum industry has so • The shallow water exclusion”, subject to exploration and production Range National Park, and ban could be placed on far worked around this depths of Exmouth Gulf provision being made for: companies, especially not be used as a mechanism petroleum related activities event. allows use of jack-up • the continuation of noting the precedent to exclude access to large as appears to be the case for drilling rigs which have a existing petroleum related established by the WA areas traditionally available Shark Bay World Heritage minimal environmental activities; and Minister for the for oil exploration and for Property as a result of the impact; • the installation of Environment’s blanket other purposes beneficial to EPA’s advice; • The sea floor of the future energy infrastructure refusal to approve further the community. • Note that the EPBC Gulf has been seriously including shore crossings exploration in the Shark Bay Act (Cwlth) is triggered, impacted by trawling; the and pipelines. World Heritage Property; introducing another tier of magnitude of this is much • A nomination of the environmental assessment; greater than any entire study area would • Concern over the foreseeable impact of adversely impact on the increased environmental drilling. company’s existing rights scrutiny when only a • Strike Oil has interests and interests in permits EP- portion of ant World in permits EP-325, EP-342 325, EP-342 and EP-41, Heritage property actually and EP-41. EP-325 which includes the Rivoli has the values of includes the Rivoli Gas Gas Field; outstanding universal Field, with an estimated • In the event that the significance. gas resource on 14 billion study area is nominated, cubic feet, potentially up- request that the eastern gradable through additional boundary be moved to the drilling to 20 bcf. EP-325 western side of the highway and EP-41 are estimated to and to exclude the town of contain total recoverable Exmouth and the Naval oil of 47 million barrels. Base and facilities; • As a last resort, request that easements for shore crossings and pipelines be agreed in principle to allow for supply of gas to Exmouth. Empire Oil & Gas • No. World Heritage listing should be large enough to protect the Ningaloo reef but should not encroach on areas where other users have valid leases; • Company has interests in five large on-shore permit areas: EP-41, EP-359, EP-412 and applications 13/00-1, 16/00-1 (EP-359, 412 & 41 overlap into Exmouth Gulf); • Main identified prospects in EP-41 are Parrot Hill, Roberts Hill and Rough Range East, which could conceivably produce as much as 5.5 million barrels; the company plans to recommence production at Rough Range Oilfield; • Prospects in EP-359 are Cape Range East, Paterson East and Trealla North, with estimated recoverable reserves of 46.5 million barrels; • Prospects in EP-412 are Victoria, Yolanda and Jubilee, with estimated recoverable reserves of 80 billion cubic feet of gas and possibly several hundred million barrels of oil; • World Heritage listing of the study area would effectively deny the company access to drill prospects within, and deny the company the right to produce from the Rough Range Oilfield; • Concern about the lack of consultation with the company with its valid permits, suggesting that this may constitute a breach of contract, and that the State Government has complete disregard for the contribution of petroleum exploration to the State, and the role of DoIR in effectively administering the conditions of the permits.

178

Chamber of Minerals & Energy Inferred: respect Government’s Chamber requests that it be • Note importance of right but rights of all tenement consulted on any proposed minerals & energy sector to holders must also be respected additions State’s economy; • Potential for WH listing proposal to threaten key resources & industry development interests in and near proposed nomination • Opportunity for Government to apply a pragmatic approach to implementing sustainability principles Dampier Salt Dampier Salt has no objection - - • Dampier Salt does not support the inclusion of any part of Lake MacLeod within the area to be to the proposed World nominated. The reasoning for this position is: Heritage nomination based on • The study area satisfies the requirements of State Government’s policy commitments; the defined study area. • Dampier Salt and WWF are currently investigating designation of Lake MacLeod as a RAMSAR wetland. The process is well advanced, and has reached a point where a first draft Management Plan is about to be circulated for comment. The RAMSAR convention seeks conservation of wetlands of special ecological significance through wise use. This is consistent with the primary use of the lake system for production of salt. • The existence of mining operations and the mining lease over Lake MacLeod makes it incompatible with the listing criteria for a World Heritage property. The inclusion of all or a part of Lake MacLeod would jeopardise the success of the proposed World Heritage nomination. • The ecological value of Lake MacLeod is as a unique wetland environment. It will require different knowledge and management to the defined study area. • Dampier Salt would not support dual listing of the lake (RAMSAR wetland AND World Heritage property) as this would create an unacceptable and complex management arrangement with competing priorities and wastage of resources. Straits Resources, Straits Salt Supports in principle the • Concern regarding Company is not aware of any Straits would have significant • Some concern about the nomination of the defined uncertainty wrt additional values, and note that concerns re nomination of a consultation process; study area if it has the environmental & World available published information larger area especially if that • Maps used for the necessary World Heritage Heritage values of east indicates that mangroves & included the Ministerial process do not show all the values and will not affect Exmouth Gulf region; geomorphological values on Temporary Reserve TR70/5350 interests in the area, including Straits’ approval or operating • Clarify proposal, and east side of Gulf are not of and/or Straits’ Exploration the Ministerial Temporary conditions consider that the proposal World Heritage status. Licences E08/1393-1402, Reserve and Exploration will not compromise a E08/1418-1419 and 1421 Licences. nomination based on the study area. Association of Mining and In a letter to the Minister for the Environment, AMEC referred to the Government’s policy commitment to nominate the Ningaloo Reef for World Heritage listing, and noted that a much larger area was being Exploration Companies considered including a substantial area of land. AMEC advised that the organisation is supportive of World Heritage listing of the marine reserve, in accordance with the Governments policy commitment. However, AMEC would oppose strongly the extension of the area to be listed, particularly if it would include any areas under mining or mineral exploration tenements or applications, and the organisation strongly opposes inclusion of any areas with mineral potential. The inclusion of the additional area is unnecessary for the World Heritage listing. The widespread expansion of the area would have a detrimental impact on the mining and mineral exploration industry in the State, and is inconsistent with the State Sustainability Strategy given that listing will deny future economic and social benefits apart from those arising from tourism.

179

Department of Fisheries • The Department • Some commercial and • The documents attached No additional concerns. No additional issues to raise. • supports the nomination recreational fishing occurs to the submission identify all However, the nomination of a However, the department based on the defined study within the study area; fishing activity and larger area is likely to overlap would appreciate being kept area, provided that the • Area A of the Exmouth environmental considerations areas of interest to the informed of progress with the nomination and ultimate Gulf prawn fishery overlaps within the Gascoyne Region. Department and should be nomination. inscription does not the defined study area; In particular, Fisheries referred for comment. jeopardise commercial & • The Exmouth Gulf Management Paper No. 142 recreational fishing in the prawn fishery is the most identifies the mangal, sandflat area. significant commercial and mudflat environments on • Do not support an fishery in the Exmouth Gulf the eastern shore of Exmouth extension into Exmouth region. The fishery is Gulf as significant to a range Gulf, because that would confined to a relatively small of coastal and marine flora encompass the Gulf prawn area of the Gulf, is phasing in and fauna including prawns, fishery and other fisheries. by-catch management turtles, seabirds, dugong and While these fisheries are procedures, and has been epi-benthic and burrowing operating in an accredited by the fauna. A portion of the area environmentally sustainable Commonwealth for export has been identified as a manner, on-going approval. potential Fish Habitat commercial fishing may not • The assessment of the Protection Area. The be compatible with Exmouth Gulf prawn fishery Department plans to progress conservation objectives has been exhaustive and the nomination of the FHPA associated with World expensive. as soon as practical. Heritage listing. • It would be useful to refer to the sustainable fishery achievements in the nomination. MG Kailis MG Kailis supports the The mangroves and algal flats • The option of extending • MG Kailis has a long • In a subsequent letter nomination based on the on the eastern and southern the World Heritage association with the Exmouth addressed to the Minister for defined study area. shores of Exmouth Gulf are nomination area to include Gulf area; the Environment, the significant drivers of the Exmouth Gulf was mooted by • The Exmouth Gulf company indicated that it ecology of Exmouth Gulf as a the Consultative Committee. Managed Prawn Fishery has would not support a World whole. This is recognised by The company is not aware of been operating since 1964; Heritage nomination that previous studies including the values that would warrant • The company has been includes its fishing grounds Wilson Report and the this, and would like to have supportive of enhanced and has a name that may give Department of Fisheries in the access to any relevant management to ensure rise to the perception that the proposal to create a Fish information. sustainability of the fishery, company is fishing on the Habitat Protection Area. • The company has no and is now recognised as a reef. objections to this extension potential candidate for being considered. environmental certification by both the Marine Stewardship Council and WWF. Recfishwest • Recfishwest in general supports the nomination of the Cape Range – Ningaloo area for World Heritage listing, with the provisos listed below; • Recfishwest does not support the inclusion of the Muiron Islands, because of concerns that World Heritage listing will be used as leverage to increase sanctuary zones within the marine park; • Recfishwest supports the inclusion of both the southern extension to the Ningaloo Marine Park and the mangroves of the east and south of Exmouth Gulf; • Recfishwest has no comment to make regarding Lake MacLeod; • Recfishwest has concerns about the undue reliance on use of sanctuary zones as a surrogate form of fisheries management, and would prefer to see other methods adopted more widely. Appropriate fisheries management has far greater potential for the long-term conservation of fish than simply closing areas to fishing.

180

Pastoralists & Graziers In a letter to the Minister for the Environment the PGA reported a resolution adopted by the pastoralists who met at Bullara Station on 9 July 2004. The resolution is” Association “That this meeting of the Exmouth / Carnarvon pastoralists accepts the right of the State Government to seek nomination for World Heritage listing of Ningaloo Reef/ Cape Range. However, in the absence of adequate consultation, justification and explanation, the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association be asked to formally oppose the inclusion of their pastoral leases in the case for nomination until a comprehensive consultation and information strategy has been completed to the satisfaction of pastoralists and other stakeholders.” •

Tourism WA Tourism WA generally • One area of concern is The northern end of lake The area within the defined • The consultation process for the World heritage listing has supports a nomination based the inclusion of large MacLeod is filled by study area boundary should be been lacking in both time and information. This will on the defined study but has portions of the coastal subterranean aquifers and has reduced by bringing the inland undoubtedly affect the way that it is received by the some concerns (see point 2 pastoral leases that been nominated as a Ramsar boundary closer to the coast – stakeholders in the region. This was shown clearly by the below). would seem to have little wetland; this will mage future nomination process for the Shark Bay World Heritage area, value in terms of World The Muiron Islands should be management more feasible. where the lack of information and community consultation Heritage listing. included; led to a general feeling of ill will and lack of positive • The eastern boundary The eastern side of Exmouth acceptance by the stakeholders living within the region. should be realigned more Gulf should be included. Therefore, instead of embracing World Heritage listing as a closely with the coast. positive thing they have continued to blame any problems • The Muiron Islands arising on the classification. should be included • The perception by developers is that investing in a World because they have the Heritage area is harder or too hard. Management highest diversity of fish arrangements for the proposed World Heritage property anywhere in the world. should ensure that sufficient commercial representation is • The eastern side of the included to ensure that scientific and academic intellect and Gulf should be included decision making are tempered y commercial realities because of the biological values found there. • There is concern about the location of Coral Bay wrt the proposed nomination: regardless whether it is included or excluded, the Commonwealth’s legislation will apply.

Environmental Sector Conservation Commission The Conservation Commission It is considered that the logic of The Conservation Commission The inclusion of Exmouth Gulf As a general principle, the • supports the proposed the nomination could be recommends consideration of may jeopardise the nomination. conservation estate should be nomination but would like to questioned if the eastern the following areas/ values for Consideration should be given vested in the Conservation see refinement of the proposed boundary line running from the inclusion: to incorporating outlying areas Commission, with management boundaries and additions to the southern end of Exmouth Gulf • Lake MacLeod, after the style of a serial site provided by the Department of nominated area on the proviso to the northern tip of Lake connected to the reef and nomination Conservation and Land that this does not jeopardise MacLeod cannot be justified in providing habitats for Management. It is the overall nomination. terms of its relationship to the waterbirds; recommended that this general primary reason for the • The proposed marine principle be followed with this nomination. The present Management Area nomination. boundary appears arbitrary. If around the Muiron The Conservation Commission an appropriate justification Islands; recognises that a range or cannot be provided then the • Mangroves and saline tenures with be covered by the boundary should be refined to a wetlands on the eastern nomination, that the

181

more appropriate wetlands on the eastern Commonwealth Government biogeographical boundary. coast of Exmouth Gulf will have an increased interest because of their in the area, and that improved contribution to the coordination will be required. adjacent marine The Conservation Commission ecosystems; believes that any additional, • Exmouth Gulf marine coordinating body not become areas which form the another level of governance linkage between the that creates inefficiencies and producer communities of diverts resources from the east coast and the management. The functions of marine and coastal areas the coordinating body should of Cape range; not include any of the functions • Areas in Quobba pastoral that are currently the lease proposed for responsibility of the exclusion in the 2015 Conservation Commission of processes, the adjacent CALM. areas to Lake MacLeod, and the adjacent marine environments. Marine Parks and Reserves Strongly supports & _ Exmouth Gulf and associated Adequate resourcing for No Authority recommends inclusion of mangrove habitats management Exmouth Gulf & mangrove ecosystems of east coast Environmental Protection The nomination of the Exmouth Gulf and the • Attention is drawn to a number of existing EPA position Authority Ningaloo-Cape Range region mangrove communities along statements and similar documents, including Position State No 1 is supported. the eastern shores of the Gulf on Environmental Protection of Cape Range Province, Guidance have identified values: EPA Statement No 1 on protection of tropical arid zone mangroves of Guidance Statement No 1 the Pilbara coast, the EPA Red Book recommendations, and a identifies the tropical arid zone number of assessment reports for development proposals in the mangroves on the Giralia Bay region. to Yanrey Flats along the • The EPA anticipates consideration of the proposed regional eastern shore as warranting the planning strategy for the Carnarvon – Ningaloo coast, and work highest level of protection, and to establish environmental values and objectives for Pilbara the Marine Parks and Reserves coastal waters including Exmouth Gulf. Selection Working Group The EPA notes parallels between identifying environmental values identifies similar areas to be for the World Heritage nomination and developing a proposal for considered for reservation. The the creation of Particular Sensitive Sea Areas off the Western EPA would encourage the Australian coast (including Ningaloo Reef) under international Committee to consider a World maritime law. Heritage property boundary that contributes to the protection and maintenance of these mangrove formations

182

Conservation Council of WA, • Boundary of the World Heritage area should not be defined by administrative arrangements eg the location of the existing conservation estate, nor should it be limited by the spatial extent of identified The Wilderness Society, values or assets. The ecological integrity of the World Heritage area will depend, ultimately, on encapsulating and managing the natural processes that maintain the values we seek to protect. Australian Marine Conservation • Exmouth Gulf is an indivisible part of the Cape Range karst system – the marine waters interact with the underlying aquifer to form the anchialine habitat critical to the existence of the stygofauna. The Society, World Wider Fund for reef system is also an extension system. The entire karst system, including all its component parts, is fundamental to the integrity and ongoing protection of the subterranean fauna. Nature • Exmouth Gulf is a climatic determinant of the Cape Range peninsula. The Gulf contributes significantly to the climatic and microclimatic conditions of the entire peninsula, thus to the microclimate of the interstices of the karst with their unique fauna, and to the survival of the range of plant species, especially those at the their range limits. Further, nutrient and energy flows into the interstices of the karst system are mediated by the particulars of the native vegetation on the surface of the system. • The ecosystems of Exmouth Gulf are linked with the Ningaloo Reef systems. The Gulf is a warm, shallow, high productivity environment adjacent to the oligotrophic waters of Ningaloo Reef. It should be expected that these waters are physically and biologically integrated. Of particular importance are the mangrove ecosystems on the eastern and southern shores and the associated algal mats. • The mangrove ecosystems of Exmouth Gulf also intercept nutrients and sediments from the run-off into the Gulf, thus reducing their potential adverse impacts on Ningaloo Reef. • The Yanrey River delta is a high value feature on the eastern shores of Exmouth Gulf. • An area of Exmouth Gulf has been identified as a site for a marine park because of the known and anticipated biological and other environmental values. • Exmouth Gulf supports internationally significant biodiversity: the endangered dugong which are dependent on the seagrass beds, and Humpback whales on their southern migration. Given that the Gulf represents restricted habitats on the west coast of Australia, it is likely that the Gulf will contain restricted and endemic species of marine organisms. • Exmouth Gulf islands are biodiverse and important habitats for terrestrial and marine biodiversity. The islands are geologically part of Cape Range peninsula. The islands and adjacent waters support migratory birds protected under the JAMBA and CAMBA treaties, endangered turtles, a high diversity of fish and coral species, and new species of fish. The habitats of the Islands add an additional element to the reef system because they lie at the interface of the high productivity waters of Exmouth Gulf and the North West Shelf, and the oceanic waters to the west. • Lake MacLeod contributes to internationally important ecological processes. It is one of the most important non-tidal stop-over sites for migratory wading birds, some of which are listed under JAMBA and CAMBA. The lake also has other biodiversity values, including the inland occurrence of mangroves. The Lake system is an extension of the Ningaloo Reef system as a consequence of the hydrological connections which bring waters from the reef into the Lake. • Other values that exist in the area that should be reflected in the decision on the boundary include the geo-evolutionary processes evidenced in the southern Exmouth Gulf area, fossil deposits in Giralia (and further south) and the waters of the Commonwealth portion of the Ningaloo Marine Park with deeper water habitats, and which are frequented seasonally by whale sharks. • Draw attention to the Hanoi Statement generated by 62 coastal and marine scientific experts who attended a World Heritage conference in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2002. The statement includes the following point: • “Wherever feasible, marine World Heritage sites and other MPAs must be large enough to include the source of larvae needed to replenish populations of organisms depleted by disturbances, to encompass important migration routes, and to fully protect breeding stocks of species that are endangered or crucial to ecosystem integrity.” • Local Government & • Community Shire of Exmouth Council supports a nomination • Process is being rushed based on Cape Range National & back-to-front; Park & Ningaloo Marine Park • Appreciates effort of the only Consultative Committee but considers that more consultation is required; • Need more information & better definition of boundary so community can make an informed decision; • Appears to be little community support at present; • Shire needs a diversified economy; • Provision of adequate funding critical and a matter to be resolved first.

183

Carnarvon Chamber of In principle support for a World Heritage nomination over the area subject to: • Commerce & Industry • That “management arrangements” are already enshrined in existing federal, State and local government legislation & policies; • Recognition that Carnarvon is the southern gateway, leading to adequate provision of infrastructure and support so that local businesses can meet needs of the area; • Consultative Committee must undertake “grass roots” education to sell the area’s unique attributes to the local communities and seek buy-in of all stakeholders to create a sense of ownership, pride and direction. This will ensure that the benefits and risks are shared equitably, and commercial reality is respected; • That the boundary takes full advantage of the proposed World Heritage area’s unique attributes, both visible and hidden, whilst recognising the commercial realities and mitigating any adverse consequences.

• Indigenous • Organisations Department of Indigenous The Heritage and Culture The Department would have The DIA is not aware of other The DIA does not have The Committee needs to be • Affairs Branch within the Department concerns is the area was known values outside the concerns about the nomination aware that, while over 100 of Indigenous Affairs supports restricted to Aboriginal people defined study area, with the of a larger area. Aboriginal sites have been the defined study area for the visiting the coast for cultural exception that there are registered on the DIA register, proposed World Heritage and ceremonial purposes. probably other Aboriginal sites there are many more that have nomination. The Department that have not been recorded, not been recorded. Many of the notes the available supporting which could add to the recorded sites are coastal information that indicates that prehistory of the region. middens and artefact scatters. the Aboriginal people in the Further inland the limestone area had a rich and active ridges of Cape Range Peninsula culture. The peninsula is an contain hundreds of caves and excellent example of a rock shelters, some of which “cultural landscape” that contain evidence of occupation Aboriginal people adapted to and rock art on the walls. It is over 30,000 years, reflected in hoped that the World Heritage the archaeological record. listing will provide protection to this important area and, through the development of a planning and management program, benefit the local Aboriginal and wider community. •

184 Attachment 5. Recommendations on future management of World Heritage Properties, extracted from the Report prepared by Ms Sarah Lukeman for the Gascoyne Development Commission Extracted from S. Lukeman’s Report – “Lessons Learned – World Heritage Listing Shark Bay” commissioned by the Gascoyne Development Commission

The Western Australian Government has indicated its intention to propose North West Cape Province (NWCP) as a World Heritage Property. Western Australia is already home to two World Heritage Properties - Shark Bay listed in 1991 and Purnululu listed in 2003. If the NWCP nomination is successful, the Gascoyne region will include two World Heritage Properties, encompassing the majority of its coastline.

This report was commissioned by the Gascoyne Development Commission to determine if any lessons could be learnt from the process followed to inscribe Shark Bay on the World Heritage List. Recommendations made are based upon these lessons, to improve the process for NWCP World Heritage nomination.

Based upon extensive interviews with many people, both at the time of listing and today, involved with the Shark Bay World Heritage property, a number of lessons can be applied to the proposed nomination of NWCP as a World Heritage area.

The following recommendations have been drawn from the research, for consideration by those tasked with responsibility of nominating the North West Cape areas for listing, in the belief that before listing occurs, these issues should be agreed by all levels of government and the scientific and local communities.

1. Engage the Community and Stakeholders Community engagement must be broad-based, ongoing and two-way. Consultation must be seen by residents to be inclusive, representative and honest. This requires time, resources and a commitment to negotiation that was, and is, not perceived as sufficient during Shark Bay’s nomination. Imposing World Heritage on a reluctant community creates long term problems for the management of the property and reduces the benefits that might have otherwise accrued to the community if World Heritage had been embraced.

External mediation will help develop positive, working relationships in the area; any process that disenfranchises the local population and major stakeholders cannot be condoned. Acts of good faith on the part of the State Government during the nomination process would assist e.g. commit to providing the land on which the Shire of Exmouth desires to locate the Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre and announcing an annual (say) $1 M grant for WH research; instigate an early education and accreditation program for tourism operators in the area, all of which implies sustainability, jobs, better education products in a poorly serviced town.

The process of nomination must engage the local community, even be ‘sold’ to the locals to give them a feeling of ownership and pride in the World Heritage property. The form this takes and its extent must be satisfactory to the residents to be successful e.g. drawbacks of World Heritage should not be whitewashed in this process.

In any community consultation process it must be clear what is negotiable and what has already been decided. Attention must be given by all parties to how promises

185 will be delivered, as once a promise has been broken it is very hard to regain the trust of the community.

All communications must be understandable to the general population and be two- way. The local community concerns regarding World Heritage must be determined and information sessions developed to discuss them. Feedback to the community indicating how their concerns have been accommodated is critical.

The perception of greater ‘red tape’ associated with development proposals in World Heritage properties can be minimised by good working relationships and communications between Government Departments and adherence to approval procedures i.e. good governance.

A delegation of local stakeholders, including the Shire, Chamber of Commerce and Tourism operators should travel to other World Heritage properties to see things first hand, and report back to the community on their return.

2. Determine Values Measurable, repeatable World Heritage values will be defined following advice from the scientific community in the first instance, and then should be agreed by as many stakeholders as possible, noting there are organisations with vested interests that will never accept such information. The World Heritage values will provide the basis for the boundary and the ongoing management of the property.

Promoting World Heritage listing to local residents should involve the monitoring of effectiveness of the language used and the level of comprehension in the community. Not being able to understand the science does not invalidate the views of local residents.

3. Determine a Boundary There must be a clear justification for the location of the boundary based on the World Heritage values and a commitment to maintaining their integrity. Other practicalities that must be considered in determining a workable boundary include: • Minimising the different types of tenure within the boundary; • Utilising existing boundaries where possible; • Clearly identifiable boundaries with GPS coordinates; • Clear description of the proposed boundary negotiated with the community before nomination, and clarification prior to inscription, using maps at an appropriate scale, particularly around any excised areas.

4. Develop a Management Plan The North West Cape Province World Heritage Management Plan should be developed before inscription and should be made statutory once the property is inscribed on the World Heritage list. The plan will outline how the World Heritage values will be maintained, in accordance with the Australian World Heritage Management Principles. This would include • Monitoring of World Heritage values • Communication and interpretation plan • Staffing levels to conduct management, monitoring and ranger work • Budget, identifying sources of financial support

5. Develop the Management Structure The Australian World Heritage Management Principles require bilateral agreements to be reviewed every 5 years. The 1997 State/Commonwealth Shark Bay agreement

186 has no expiry date; this is inconsistent with the principles and must be renegotiated before finalisation of the North West Cape Province listing.

Administration and management of the World Heritage property should be determined during nomination so it can be enacted on inscription. The establishment of a statutory management body, with ideally an independent chairperson is recommended e.g. North West Cape Province World Heritage Management Board or Trust (or suitably empowered Decision Making Authority [DMA]). This would be an overarching, impartial body that has ultimate authority within the World Heritage property. It should be: o accountable to all levels of government and to the local community; o responsible for the maintenance of the World Heritage values of the property; o assist development that is consistent with these values; and o capable of administering the North West Cape Province World Heritage Fund.

It would report to the Ministerial Council, comprising the State and Commonwealth Environment Ministers. The Ministerial Council must meet at least annually to provide strategic direction for the management of the World Heritage property and to review the performance of the management body. There is the further option that WA State Government may wish to include all WA World Heritage Properties in the Charter of the Ministerial Council and DMA, thereby achieving one style of management and decision making for all properties under its control and any future nominations.

The management body would be advised by the Scientific Advisory Committee and a local residents group, with such latter appointments not political – it must be seen to be the voice of the local population. The local residents group must have mechanisms in place to canvas the concerns of locals and put these to the management body; and to feedback information from the management body. Mechanisms may need to be developed to provide input from the wider ‘community’ as well.

6. Determine Funding and Resources There must be an immutable and World Heritage specific Commonwealth funding agreement i.e. quarantined from NRM bulk funds, both for establishment activities, development activities in accordance with the Property’s management plan or IUCN directions, day to day operational management and interpretation and administration for the World Heritage area. Similarly the State Government must give a non- retractable commitment to adequately fund and resource this Property.

A financial plan and budget must be prepared and Commonwealth funding must be available the day the Listing is created; State funding is required from commencement of the nomination process.

The feasibility of a World Heritage Property Management Fund should be investigated, noting that funding commitments at listing are delivered and annual deposits thereafter by the Federal and State Government are mandatory obligations; if there is any deviation from such obligations, the property should not be nominated.

187

7. Tourism Operator Development Initiatives A tourism development plan for the Property would be appropriate, given TWA’s reluctance to market World Heritage properties in WA, and to address misconceptions that developers can’t/won’t invest in the area.

The voluntary guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism development (Convention on Biological Diversity) may be of assistance to the tourism operators on North West Cape and a robust education, even accreditation program would assist them in positioning themselves for a positive future.

8. Communications Strategy The Shark Bay World Heritage Area Communications Strategy and Interpretation Action Plan 2003 – 2006 (Kelly Chapman 2002), has excellent application for the North West Cape nomination. It will provide guidance for North West Cape Province and should be developed during the nomination process, not ten years after inscription, as was the case in Shark Bay.

It is strongly recommended that people involved with public relations and community consultation be involved with developing and implementing a communications strategy. This strategy should adhere to a number of principles, including: • transparency • consistent, reliable, continuous stream of information • egalitarian participation • feedback mechanisms, • two-way information flows, • appointment of a locally based community education coordinator (for ongoing community education of the World Heritage values and interpretation) during the nomination process.

The following non-exhaustive items should be addressed by the strategy: • How World Heritage operates; who can do what • What will be the benefits and drawbacks of World Heritage listing • The management structure and administrative control • How the Community Consultative Committee (or like body) will be constituted and how it will communicate with the community it is representing. • The strategic plan for the site including staffing and funding • Marketing plan for the new World Heritage property. • Indication of any new planning approval requirements

Following these steps will enable the benefits of World Heritage nomination to be clearly articulated. This can in turn provide the basis for an effective communication strategy that proactively addresses the concerns of the local population and other stakeholders through timely eduction. In association with local involvement at every step of the process, this should help to persuade residents that World Heritage listing can be positive for them, as well as for the environment.

188 Attachment 6. List of submittors on the proposed North West Cape – Ningaloo Reef World Heritage nomination

Department of Industry and Resources 23 July 2004 Department of Industry and Resources 23 September 2004 Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association 19 July 2004 Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association 10 September 2004 Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association 23 September 2004 BHP Billiton 20 July 2004 Woodside 16 July 2004 Apache Energy 23 July 2004 Victoria Petroleum 26 August 2004 Sun Resources 1 September 2004 Strike Oil 15 July 2004 Empire Oil and Gas 13 July 2004 The Chamber of Minerals & Energy 23 July 2004 Association of Mining and Exploration Companies 7 October 2004 Dampier Salt 30 July 2004 Straits Exmouth Salt 15 July 2004 Department of Fisheries 16 July 2004 MG Kailis Group 22 July 2004 MG Kailis Group 26 August 2004 Recfishwest 19 July 2004 Pastoralists & Graziers Association 29 July 2004 Conservation Commission of WA 14 July 2004 Marine Parks & Reserves Authority 1 October 2004 Environmental Protection Authority 15 July 2004 Coalition of conservation NGOs 16 July 2004 Shire of Exmouth 9 September 2004 Carnarvon Chamber of Commerce 15 August 2004 Department of Indigenous Affairs 25 August 2004

189 2004530-0405-200