DOCSLIB.ORG

90451 Jabiluka

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

World Heritage 23BUR Distribution limited WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.9B Paris, 17 May 1999 Original : English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Twenty-third session Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, Room X 5 - 10 July 1999 Information Document: Australia’s Kakadu – Protecting World Heritage. Response by the Government of Australia to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee regarding Kakadu National Park (April 1999) Background This Information Document contains the response of the Government of Australia to the report of the UNESCO mission to Kakadu National Park, Australia (WHC/99/CONF.204/INF.9A) as requested by the twenty-second session of the World Heritage Committee (Kyoto, Japan 30 November – 5 December 1998) Other relevant documents WHC-99/CONF.204/5 Reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List (see section concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia) WHC-99/CONF. 204/INF.9A Report on the mission to Kakadu National Park, Australia, 26 October to 1 November 1998 WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.9C Assessment of the Jabiluka Project: Report of the Supervising Scientist to the World Heritage Committee WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.9D Written independent expert review of the advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM) concerning the mitigation of threats posing ascertained and potential dangers to Kakadu National Park by the Jabiluka mine. WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.9E Review of an Independent Scientific Panel of the scientific issues associated with the proposed mining of uranium at Jabiluka in relation to the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park. Undertaken between 22 April and 13 May 1999 AUSTRALIA’S KAKADU PROTECTING WORLD HERITAGE RESPONSE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE REGARDING KAKADU NATIONAL PARK APRIL 1999 Environment Australia, part of the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage © Commonwealth of Australia 1999 This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part for study, research or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and no commercial usage or sale results. Reproduction for purposes other than those listed above requires the written permission of the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Corporate Relations and Information Branch, Environment Australia, GPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. ISBN 0 642 54622 3 Photography: Mark Hallam Michael Preece Parks Australia, Environment Australia Science Group, Environment Australia Copies of this document are available on the internet at www.environment.gov.au CONTENTS Australian Government Position: Summary v Summarises Australian Government case that Kakadu Park is protected not endangered Chapter One: World Heritage Values and Attributes of Kakadu National Park 1 Defines and describes the natural and cultural values which give Kakadu National Park its World Heritage signficance. The criteria for World Heritage Listings are outlined and, from these, the specific values and attributes of Kakadu are identified. These defined attributes are an important starting point in evaluating claimed threats to these values. Chapter Two: Kakadu National Park – The Place and its People 13 Background to the Park, providing a picture of the place and its people. A necessary context to understand the multiple interests and uses for which the Park is managed. Chapter Three: Protecting Natural & Cultural Values: The Australian Framework 31 The range of legislative mechanisms in place under Australian law to protect World Heritage values. The Jabiluka project has had to meet strict environmental, cultural scientific and economic requirements, as well as satisfy legislation relating specifically to the World Heritage values of the region. Chapter Four: Australia’s World Heritage Record 43 Outlines Australia’s consistently excellent record of achievements in the nomination, promotion, and management of World Heritage Properties. Australia asks that this record be considered when evaluating claims of potential threats to the values of a World Heritage property. Chapter Five: Protecting the Values of Kakadu – The Jabiluka Process 51 A review of the extensive, thorough and accountable steps of assessment and monitoring of the Jabiluka project. The values of Kakadu have been protected from potential impacts from outside the World Heritage property. Chapter Six: Response to the Mission’s Report and Recommendations 75 Details Australia’s response to the UNESCO Mission Report. Areas where the Mission’s perceptions of threats to World Heritage values differ from those of the Australian Government are addressed. After careful consideration, those recommendations in accord with Australia’s policy framework are being implemented. Chapter Seven: List of World Heritage in Danger: Criteria and Benchmarks 103 This chapter outlines the criteria for placing a property on the World Heritage in Danger List, drawing benchmarks from recent State practice. It analyses the threats outlined by the UNESCO Mission, concluding that it would not be consistent for Kakadu National Park to be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Chapter Eight: Managing Values into the Future 125 Appendices 129 References Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Glossary List of Appendices References 131 Appendix 1 Further examples of Agreements and programs 132 Appendix 2 Extracts relating to mining operations from the Kakadu nomination documents 134 Appendix 3 Analysis of properties included on the List of World Heritage In Danger 135 Appendix 4 Kakadu Statistical Data 138 Glossary 139 List of Figures Figure 1: Relative size and location of Kakadu National Park, Jabiluka and 5 Ranger Mineral leases Figure 2: Kakadu National Park showing major features and lease areas 16 Figure 3: Aboriginal Land Trusts in Kakadu National Park 20 Figure 4: Clans in Kakadu National Park 30 Figure 5: Ranger and Jabiluka Lease Area—Landsat Image 55 Figure 6: Jabiluka Mine Site within Jabiluka Lease Area 57 Figure 7a: 65 Figure 7b: Chronology of Boiwek and Almudj sites* 66 Figure 7c: } 67 Figure 8: Catchment of the East Alligator River 92 Figure 9: Koongarra, Ranger and Jabiluka Leases, and the township of Jabiru 99 * Note that the orthography used in spelling place and people names varies considerably. ‘Boiwek’ is generally accepted spelling for the site ‘Boyweg’ referred to in the Mission report. SUMMARY OF REPORT Australian Government Position: Summary v Australian Government Position: Summary KAKADU NATIONAL PARK: PROTECTED NOT ENDANGERED INTRODUCTION At the twenty second Session of the World Heritage Committee in Kyoto, Japan, it was decided that: SUMMARY ‘the Australian authorities be requested to provide, by 15 April 1999 a detailed report on their efforts to prevent further damage and to mitigate all the threats identified in the UNESCO Mission report, to the World Heritage cultural and natural values of the Kakadu National Park, Australia.’ • This report is the Australian Government’s response to the claims made in the mission report. • After independent, expert international review, the report will be discussed by the World Heritage Committee in an extraordinary session in Paris in July 1999. • The Committee will then decide whether Kakadu National Park could be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. • This report in response to the UNESCO Mission should be read in conjunction with the Supervising Scientist Report, available separately. While being responsive to the views of the UNESCO Mission, the Australian Government strenuously opposes placing the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Should the Committee choose to do so, it would be without State Party consent, and also in circumstances where the State Party fundamentally disagrees with the view that the values of the property are endangered and provides objective evidence to that effect. In this situation, it is necessary to ensure that all decisions taken are consistent with the Convention and that the highest standards of objectivity, transparency and consistency are applied. It is necessary not only to establish that ascertained or potential dangers exist, but also that the threats are of such scale and impact that they will endanger the value of the area as a World Heritage property. To be effective, the Convention needs to be applied consistently across World Heritage properties, and consistently over time in relation to particular properties. This need becomes especially serious when considering placing a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Therefore, the State Party believes it appropriate for the Committee to consider the evidence very carefully. Australia has gone to great lengths to present the evidence in full and wishes to continue to be fully transparent in reporting on its actions in protecting World Heritage values. This report is presented in that spirit. THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S REPORT The Australian Government’s report provides evidence that the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park are protected, not endangered. The report defines in objective terms the values and attributes of the World Heritage property; describes the history and context of Kakadu National Park; analyses the legislative framework in place in Australia to protect natural
Recommended publications
  • The Rock Art of Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II)

    The Rock Art of Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II)

    5 The rock art of Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II) Sally K. May, Paul S.C. Taçon, Duncan Wright, Melissa Marshall, Joakim Goldhahn and Inés Domingo Sanz Introduction The western Arnhem Land site of Madjedbebe – a site hitherto erroneously named Malakunanja II in scientific and popular literature but identified as Madjedbebe by senior Mirarr Traditional Owners – is widely recognised as one of Australia’s oldest dated human occupation sites (Roberts et al. 1990a:153, 1998; Allen and O’Connell 2014; Clarkson et al. 2017). Yet little is known of its extensive body of rock art. The comparative lack of interest in rock art by many archaeologists in Australia during the 1960s into the early 1990s meant that rock art was often overlooked or used simply to illustrate the ‘real’ archaeology of, for example, stone artefact studies. As Hays-Gilpen (2004:1) suggests, rock art was viewed as ‘intractable to scientific research, especially under the science-focused “new archaeology” and “processual archaeology” paradigms of the 1960s through the early 1980s’. Today, things have changed somewhat, and it is no longer essential to justify why rock art has relevance to wider archaeological studies. That said, archaeologists continued to struggle to connect the archaeological record above and below ground at sites such as Madjedbebe. For instance, at this site, Roberts et al. (1990a:153) recovered more than 1500 artefacts from the lowest occupation levels, including ‘silcrete flakes, pieces of dolerite and ground haematite, red and yellow ochres, a grindstone and a large number of amorphous artefacts made of quartzite and white quartz’. The presence of ground haematite and ochres in the lowest deposits certainly confirms the use of pigment by the early, Pleistocene inhabitants of this site.
  • Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation Speech

    Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation Speech

    Medical Association for Prevention of War www.mapw.org.au Archived Resource: Paper from IPPNW XIIIth World Congress 1998 Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation Speech Author: Jacqui Katona Date: 1998 I speak here today on behalf of the Mirrar people, my family and my countryman who oppose the development of Jabiluka. I'd like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri people, traditional owners of this area, for their liberation is linked to our own and although is takes place in other forums we know their experienced is intimately linked with Aboriginal people across Australia. My people come from Kakadu. One of the best known destinations for many international visitors because of the important and visible connection between my people and the land, Kakadu is our home. It is the place which nurtures our families, and provides us with obligations to protect and maintain our heritage, our future, and our past. For us the threat of Jabiluka is an issue of human rights. Kakadu's unique cultural and natural properties are not only recognised by our people but also by the rest of the world in its inscription on the world heritage list. Even the World Heritage committee recognises that human rights are connected with it's own Convention. It has said: that human rights of indigenous peoples must be taken into account in the protection of world heritage properties; that conservation of country must take place with direction from indigenous people, and; that the continuing violation of human rights places properties in danger because of our integral relationship with the land. The continuing dominance of government and industry organisation over the authority of our people erodes our rights on a daily basis.
  • Wildlife Damage in Australia: Constructive Contrasts with the United States

    Wildlife Damage in Australia: Constructive Contrasts with the United States

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center Proceedings for December 1985 WILDLIFE DAMAGE IN AUSTRALIA: CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRASTS WITH THE UNITED STATES Terrell P. Salmon Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis, CA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Salmon, Terrell P., "WILDLIFE DAMAGE IN AUSTRALIA: CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRASTS WITH THE UNITED STATES" (1985). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. 317. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/317 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. WILDLIFE DAMAGE IN AUSTRALIA: CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRASTS WITH THE UNITED STATES Terrell P. Salmon, Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 Abstract: There are numerous wildlife damage problems in Australia. The major pests include rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculusl, foxes (Vulpes vulpes/, starlings (Sturnus vulgarisl, feral cats (felts catus/, donkeys (Equus asinusl, goats (Capra hircusl, buffalo (Bubalus trutralisl, pigs (Sus scrofal, all of which have been introduced. The dingo ICanis familiaris dingo/, classified as being a native species by most people, is the primary native animal causing problems, although others, such as kangaroos and several native bird species, are pests in some areas. The Australians spend considerable amounts of money on wildlife damage control research. The people of Western Australia take a regulatory approach to most of their wildlife problems.
  • Margarula V Rose [1999] NTSC 22 PARTIES

    Margarula V Rose [1999] NTSC 22 PARTIES

    Margarula v Rose [1999] NTSC 22 PARTIES: YVONNE MARGARULA v SCOTT ROSE TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION FILE NO: JA79 of 1998 (9810168) DELIVERED: 12 March 1999 HEARING DATES: 15, 22 and 23 February 1999 JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J REPRESENTATION: Counsel: Appellant: D. Dalrymple Respondent: R. Webb; J. Whitbread Solicitors: Appellant: Dalrymple & Associates Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Judgment category classification: B Judgment ID Number: ril99005 Number of pages: 36 ril99005 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN Margarula v Rose [1999] NTSC 22 No. JA79 of 1998 IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against conviction and sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin BETWEEN: YVONNE MARGARULA Appellant AND: SCOTT ROSE Respondent CORAM: RILEY J REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered 12 March 1999) [1] On 1 September 1998 the appellant was found guilty of having trespassed unlawfully on enclosed premises, namely a large storage container owned by Energy Resources of Australia (herein ‘ERA’), contrary to s5 of the Trespass Act. She was convicted and ordered to pay a $500 fine and $20 victim levy. She appeals against both conviction and sentence. The grounds of appeal, which were amended at the beginning of the hearing, appear in the document filed on 16 February 1999. 1 [2] At the hearing before the learned Magistrate many facts were agreed and the only witnesses called were Mr Holger Topp, an employee of ERA, and the appellant.
  • Australian Conservation Foundation

    Australian Conservation Foundation

    SUBMISSION NO. 8 TT on 12 March 2013 Australian Conservation Foundation submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates on Co- operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy May 2013 Introduction: The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is committed to inspiring people to achieve a healthy environment for all Australians. For nearly fifty years, we have worked with the community, business and government to protect, restore and sustain our environment. ACF welcomes this opportunity to comment on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. ACF has a long and continuing interest and active engagement with the Australian uranium sector and contests the assumptions under-lying the proposed treaty. ACF would welcome the opportunity to address this submission before the Committee. Nuclear safeguards Uranium is the principal material required for nuclear weapons. Successive Australian governments have attempted to maintain a distinction between civil and military end uses of Australian uranium exports, however this distinction is more psychological than real. No amount of safeguards can absolutely guarantee Australian uranium is used solely for peaceful purposes. According the former US Vice-President Al Gore, “in the eight years I served in the White House, every weapons proliferation issue we faced was linked with a civilian reactor program.”1 Energy Agency, 1993 Despite successive federal government assurances that bilateral safeguard agreements ensure peaceful uses of Australian uranium in nuclear power reactors, the fact remains that by exporting uranium for use in nuclear power programs to nuclear weapons states, other uranium supplies are free to be used for nuclear weapons programs.
  • AIATSIS Guidelines for Ethical Publishing 5

    AIATSIS Guidelines for Ethical Publishing 5

    Guidelines for the ethical publishing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander authors and research from those communities Aboriginal Studies Press The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies First published in 2015 by Aboriginal Studies Press © The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10 per cent of this book, whichever is the greater, to be photocopied by any educational institution for its education purposes provided that the educational institution (or body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act. Aboriginal Studies Press is the publishing arm of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. GPO Box 553, Canberra, ACT 2601 Phone: (61 2) 6246 1183 Fax: (61 2) 6261 4288 Email: [email protected] Web: www.aiatsis.gov.au/asp/about.html Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this publication contains names and images of people who have passed away. Guidelines for ethical publishing 3 Welcome (from the AIATSIS Principal) I’m pleased to have the opportunity to welcome readers to these guidelines for ethical publishing. As the Principal of AIATSIS, of which Aboriginal Studies Press (ASP) is the publishing arm, I’ve long had oversight of ASP’s publishing and I’m pleased to see these guidelines because they reflect ASP’s lived experience in an area in which there have been no clear rules of engagement but many criticisms of the past practices of some researchers, writers, editors and publishers.
  • Australia's National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Marine

    Australia's National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Marine

    Chapter 7 Other threats to the reserve system 7.1 This chapter will discuss a number of threats identified during the inquiry as matters of considerable community concern. Foremost amongst these was climate change. Land clearing, neighbours' management practices and mining are also discussed. Climate change 7.2 Climate change was identified as a threat to protected areas in submissions by government authorities in every jurisdiction. Queensland, like others, noted the 'potentially serious impacts of climate change on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity', while NSW rated it as a 'key threat' to conservation.1 The WA Government acknowledged that climate change may require a strategic response informed by research: It is particularly important in the light of global changes, such as climate change, to also invest in the science base to gain a better understanding of changes and effective management actions.2 7.3 A number of submissions supported the call for more research into climate change. Professor Ralf Buckley told the committee: [Climate change] has not had a significant effect yet on protected areas in Australia or anywhere else. When it does, it will be through subtle mechanisms that will be hard to recognise at first. Research on those things is really only beginning. It is not at all well understood.3 7.4 The Department of the Environment and Water Resources noted that Parks Australia recognises the importance of climate change as a key management risk, and is proposing to prepare a discussion paper on the potential implications of climate change for the management of Commonwealth Reserves.4 The Department has since advised the committee that they have entered into contracts for the assessment of potential impacts of climate change on the national reserve system and the Australian Government's protected areas (other than the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park), and the implications of these impacts for development and management of these areas.5 1 Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet, Submission 175, p.
  • Uranium Mining in the Alligator Rivers Region Fact Sheet

    Uranium Mining in the Alligator Rivers Region Fact Sheet

    Uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region Kakadu National Park © Department of the Environment and Energy The Alligator Rivers Region (ARR) is located about 220 km east of Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia. The ARR includes Kakadu National Park which is a World Heritage area and listed under the Ramsar convention on wetlands. It is also is internationally recognised for more than 60,000 years of continuous human habitation, prolific rock art, outstanding diversity of flora, fauna and landscape, and expansive areas of pristine wilderness. Uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region The ARR of northern Australia is a geologically unique and highly prospective area for minerals, particularly uranium. The uranium deposits of the South Alligator Valley were first discovered in 1953 when the Coronation Hill site was identified. In the seven years following, more than 20 potential uranium deposits were found, of which thirteen were exploited between 1959 and 1965. The total production for this field was Former uranium mill, South Alligator Valley © approximately 840 tonnes of U308. There Supervising Scientist were no formal environmental regulations throughout this period and mining legislation 1 was essentially concerned with the tenure of the leases and some aspects of mine safety. In addition, there was no requirement for complete rehabilitation of any of these sites and they were generally just abandoned. This included infrastructure ranging from a small mill and solvent extraction plant, to contaminated process ponds, roads and tracks as well as open cut mines and mineshafts. Mining in the ARR between 1956 and 1964 The 1960s brought a renewed demand for uranium for nuclear generated electricity and exploration activity rose sharply.
  • Understanding Mulga

    Understanding Mulga

    UNDERSTANDING MULGA This proposal details a three year multidisciplinary study of Mulga (Acacia aneura and its relatives) to resolve the complex PROJECT PROPOSAL patterns of variation within this large and important group or Wattles. The benefits derived from an improved understanding Bruce Maslin & Stephen van Leeuwen of Mulga will be immediate and substantial, and will enable these species and communities to be better-protected, more CALM Science Division effectively managed and sustainably utilized. The study will deliver numerous scientific and applied outcomes that are particularly relevant in rangeland areas where competing land use interests may occur. UNDERSTANDING MULGA Species currently recognized as comprising the Mulga group – APPENDIX 1 PROJECT PROPOSAL THE MULGA ‘CORE GROUP’ SPECIES Bruce Maslin & Stephen van Leeuwen Botanical name Common name State distribution CALM Science Division Acacia aneura F.Muell. ex Benth. Department of Conservation and Land Management var. aneura Common Mulga W.A., N.T., S.A., N.S.W., Qld Locked Bag 104 var. argentea Pedley W.A. Bentley Delivery Centre WA 6983 var. conifera Randell Christmas tree Mulga W.A., N.T., S.A., Qld (08) 93340510 var. fuliginea Pedley W.A. (08) 93340299 var. intermedia Pedley W.A., N.T., S.A., N.S.W., Qld 0429 334051 var. macrocarpa Randell W.A., S.A. [email protected] var. major Pedley W.A., N.T., S.A., N.S.W., Qld var. microcarpa Pedley W.A., N.T., S.A. var. pilbarana Pedley W.A. var. tenuis Pedley W.A., N.T., S.A., N.S.W., Qld AG CARTOGRAPHIC DIVISION THE MARCH OF MULGA Source: Flora of Australia, Volume 11 (to be published by Australian Biological Resources Acacia ayersiana Maconochie Uluru Mulga W.A., N.T., S.A.
  • Australia's Kakadu: Protecting World Heritage

    Australia's Kakadu: Protecting World Heritage

    AUSTRALIA’S KAKADU PROTECTING WORLD HERITAGE RESPONSE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE REGARDING KAKADU NATIONAL PARK APRIL 1999 Environment Australia, part of the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage © Commonwealth of Australia 1999 This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part for study, research or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and no commercial usage or sale results. Reproduction for purposes other than those listed above requires the written permission of the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Corporate Relations and Information Branch, Environment Australia, GPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. ISBN 0 642 54622 3 Photography: Mark Hallam Michael Preece Parks Australia, Environment Australia Science Group, Environment Australia Copies of this document are available on the internet at www.environment.gov.au CONTENTS Australian Government Position: Summary v Summarises Australian Government case that Kakadu Park is protected not endangered Chapter One: World Heritage Values and Attributes of Kakadu National Park 1 Defines and describes the natural and cultural values which give Kakadu National Park its World Heritage signficance. The criteria for World Heritage Listings are outlined and, from these, the specific values and attributes of Kakadu are identified. These defined attributes are an important starting point in evaluating claimed threats to these values. Chapter Two: Kakadu National Park – The Place and its People 13 Background to the Park, providing a picture of the place and its people.
  • 3. the Rock Art of Kakadu: Past, Present and Future Research, Conservation and Management

    3. the Rock Art of Kakadu: Past, Present and Future Research, Conservation and Management

    3. The Rock Art of Kakadu: past, present and future research, conservation and management S K May3, P Taçon4, D Wright5 and M Marshall6 “I worry about that place … Secret place. That got painting there, Inside cave. It got to be looked after because My father, granddad all look after. Now me, I got to do same. If that painting get rubbed off There might be big trouble. That story important.” Big Bill Neidjie in Neidjie et al. 1985:49 3.1 Introduction Kakadu National Park (henceforth, Kakadu) is one of the world’s greatest rock art provinces, providing a visual record for stories about people living on country for tens of thousands of years. The rock art draws thousands of tourists each year and has attracted researchers from countries around the world. Rock art was an important reason why Kakadu was put on the World Heritage List. For local Aboriginal people, rock art sites are a significant storehouse of traditional knowledge with the act of producing rock art a powerful tool for educating clan members (especially children) about different aspects of ‘culture’. In this paper we briefly review previous rock art research and look at the future of rock art conservation, management and research in the park. The paper is divided into three sections: Rock art studies in Kakadu Observations arising from review The future of rock art in Kakadu 3 School of Archaeology and Anthropology, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200 4 PERAHU, School of Humanities, Griffith University, Gold Coast campus, Queensland 4215 5 School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT (feel free to contact me: https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/wright-dj) 6 School of Archaeology & Anthropology Research School of Humanities & the Arts ANU College of Arts & Social Sciences 36 3.2 Rock art studies in Kakadu Over five decades of rock art research and management has occurred in Kakadu.
  • Inquiry Into the Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project

    Inquiry Into the Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project

    CHAPTER 5 THE RIGHTS OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS Government is shutting out Bininj law, they won’t recognise our law.1 5.1 This chapter analyses the process of consultation with Traditional Aboriginal Landowners that has taken place in regard to the Jabiluka project. It focuses on the negotiations leading up to the 1982 Jabiluka Agreement negotiated between Pancontinental and the Northern Land Council, and also discusses events surrounding the Deed of Transfer in 1991, the negotiations between ERA and the Northern Land Council in 1997 over the ‘change in scope’ of the project, and recently renewed pressures from ERA for Traditional Owners to agree to the milling of Jabiluka ore at the Ranger mine. The chapter concludes that there is persuasive evidence to suggest that the 1982 Agreement was negotiated unconscionably and that the Northern Land Council failed to fulfil its obligations under the Commonwealth Land Rights Act to properly consult with and act on the instructions of Traditional Owners. The Committee concludes that there is a strong prima facie case for a revision of the Jabiluka Agreement, and it is deeply concerned at indications that ERA may resort to the unwelcome practices of the past to obtain consent for the Ranger Mill Alternative. Introduction 5.2 Aboriginal rights, and specifically rights accruing to Traditional Owners, exist in relation to the Jabiluka project in two main areas. • The right to be consulted about, negotiate the terms of or veto development which takes place on or affects their lands; these rights are provided for in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and subsequent amendments; and • Measures for the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites and cultural heritage.