North West Cape— Ningaloo Reef Area for Inscription on the World Heritage List
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 ............................................