GBR - UNESCO World Heritage Ruling

[GordMay]

Australia awaits Great Barrier Reef UNESCO world heritage ruling

The World Heritage Committee was set to consider Friday whether to add the Great Barrier Reef to UNESCO's list of endangered sites, after high-level lobbying from Australia to prevent the move.

➥ https://www.rfi.fr/en/australia-awai...eritage-ruling

➥ https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/env...vote-c-3481400

➥ https://sydneynewstoday.com/australi...f-vote/279051/

➥ https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/154/

[GordMay]

Coral reefs are the canary in the coal mine.

Humans have collapsed other ecosystems, before, through overfishing, overhunting and development, but this is the first unequivocally tied to climate change. It’s a harbinger of what can happen to other ecosystems, as they reach their survival thresholds.

The International Coral Reef Society [ICRS], which represents thousands of coral scientists, issued an urgent call to governments on July 20, 2021, to do more to protect coral reefs.

As part of its report on the state of the world’s reefs [2], the ICRS listed ways to help reefs survive, including investing in conservation, management and restoration; committing to slow climate change, reduce pollution and stop overfishing; and supporting efforts to help corals adapt [3] to warming waters. With swift action to slow climate change, the group writes, about 30% of reefs could survive the century; if global temperatures rise by 2 C (3.6 F) or more, only about 1% will still exist. At stake is an estimated US$10 trillion in annual economic value and coastline protection.

Research shows [4] marine heat waves are now about 20 times more likely than they were just four decades ago, and they tend to be hotter and last longer. We’re at the point now that some places in the world are anticipating coral bleaching every couple of years. That increasing frequency of heat waves is a death knell for reefs. They don’t have time to recover before they get hit again.

Some reefs are able to survive heat waves better than others. Cooler, stronger currents, and even storms and cloudier areas can help prevent heat building up. But the global trend is not promising. The world has already lost 30% to 50% of its reefs in the last 40 years [5], and scientists have warned that most of the remaining reefs could be gone within decades. [6]

In the areas where we see glimmers of hope, it is mostly due to good management. When a region can control other harmful human factors [overfishing, extensive coastal development, pollution and runoff] the reefs are healthier, and better able to handle the global pressures from climate change. [7]

ICRS ➥ Home - International Coral Reef Society

[2] Rebuilding Coral Reefs: A Decadal Grand Challenge
➥ Rebuilding Coral Reefs - Grand Challenge - International Coral Reef Society

[3] New Study Shows Some Corals Might Adapt to Climate Changes
➥ https://news.miami.edu/rsmas/stories...te-change.html
[3] “Two threatened Caribbean coral species have contrasting responses to combined temperature and acidification stress” ~ by Chris Langdon et al
➥ https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley...1002/lno.10952

[4] “High-impact marine heatwaves attributable to human-induced global warming” ~ by Charlotte Laufkötter et al
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6511/1621

[5] “Protecting Coral Reefs in a Deteriorating Environment”
➥ https://www.nationalacademies.org/ne...ng-environment

[6] “Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governments” ~ IPCC

[7] “A Bulwark against Reef Destruction in a Warming World”
➥ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...warming-world/

[GordMay]

UNESCO downgrade of Great Barrier Reef Deferred

Australia on Friday garnered enough international support to defer for two years an attempt by the United Nations' cultural organization to downgrade the Great Barrier Reef's World Heritage status because of damage caused by climate change.

UNESCO had recommended that its World Heritage Committee add the world's largest coral reef ecosystem off the northeast Australian coast to the World Heritage in Danger list, mainly due to rising ocean temperatures.

But Australian-proposed amendments to the draft decision at a committee meeting in China on Friday deferred the "in danger" question until 2023.

Representatives of 16 of the 21 committee nations apart from Australia spoke in favor of the amendments before the committee accepted the position without a vote. Only Norway argued for the reef to be listed “in danger.”

News report ➥ https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...t-barrier-reef

[StuM]

> deferred the "in danger" question until 2023.


So the question of whether to downgrade or not was deferred.



That's very different to your headline of:
"UNESCO downgrade of Great Barrier Reef Deferred"

Deferring the downgrade, means that the decision to downgrade has been made, but the implementation date has postponed.


In fact, they have not made any decision and the question itself may become moot.


It is apparent from the number in favour of deferring the question that, as discussed in a previous thread and mentioned in the link, the whole thing was politically inspired.

[StuM]

https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitor...mary-2020-2021
Reef in recovery window after decade of disturbances

• This report summarises the condition of coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) from the Long-Term Monitoring Program (LTMP) surveys of 127 reefs conducted between August 2020 and April 2021 (reported as ‘2021’).
• Over the 35 years of monitoring by AIMS, the reefs of the GBR have shown an ability to recover after disturbances.
• In 2021, widespread recovery was underway, largely due to increases in fast growing Acropora corals.
• Survey reefs experienced low levels of acute stressors over the past 12 months with no prolonged high temperatures or major cyclones. Numbers of outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish on survey reefs have generally decreased; however, there remain ongoing outbreaks on some reefs in the Southern GBR.
• Overall, 59 out of 127 reefs had moderate (>10% - 30%) hard coral cover and 36 reefs had high (>30% - 50%) hard coral cover.
• On the Northern GBR, region-wide hard coral cover was moderate and had continued to increase to 27% from the most recent low point in 2017.
• On the Central GBR region-wide hard coral cover was moderate and had increased to 26% in 2021.
• Region-wide hard coral cover on reefs in the Southern GBR was high and had increased to 39% in 2021.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

... Deferring the downgrade, means that the decision to downgrade has been made, but the implementation date has postponed.
In fact, they have not made any decision and the question itself may become moot ...

Indeed, you are correct.
My headline could be misconstrued, to mean that only the implementation date date has been deferred - which is NOT the case.
However, I think that the body of my summary, made that more clear.
Politics? World Heritage Committee members, including China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, agreed Australia should have more time to report on its reef conservation efforts.

Unfortunately, nothing reported, yet, in the UNESCO Press Room [the Prime Source, for this story]:
➥ https://en.unesco.org/pressroom
➥ https://en.unesco.org/news/press_releases

[celle2000]

The UNESCO meetings and pronouncements this year with China chairing the committee and with anonymous voting certainly had a very political flavour

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by celle2000

The UNESCO meetings and pronouncements this year with China chairing the committee and with anonymous voting certainly had a very political flavour

The document that spurred the consideration to vote [1], was not Chinese inspired.
The Chinese agreed with the decision to defer the vote.

[1] IUCN* World Heritage Outlook2020 Conservation Outlook for the Great Barrier Reef
➥ https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.or...es/wdpaid/2571

* IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) is the world's oldest and largest global environmental organization and is explicitly recognized within the Convention as the technical Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee on natural World Heritage sites. IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas is the world's premier network of protected area expertise, which has over 1,700 members, spanning 140 countries

[billgewater]

My take on it is that it is obvious that immense damage has been done to large swathes of the reef. There are no rational models that predict it will not get worse. The state of the reef may vary from place to pace and over time, but the trend is well documented if not conspicuous. I live near Cairns and the topic is “topical”.

Is there some politics involved? Accusations that the Chinese are still having a pot shot at Australia may well have some credibility, but the real hard political theme comes directly from the Australian government that is firmly in the hard testicular grip of the fossil fuel industries. The simple evidence for this is to found in the current mantra of opening more coalmines; publicly funding new coal burning power stations and gas sources and of course we have no credible policy intent to do anything at all about our carbon footprint- an international embarrassment. There is no political attempt to support the use of green energy nor electric vehicles. Yet we have enormous deposits of lithium ores and enough sunlight to energize most of Asia.

Any perceived action such as PV take up on houses and hydrogen and ammonia production from green energy has been done by individuals or companies that see the writing on the wall. One really large planned project in Western Aus. was rejected by the federal government on environmental grounds. This caused peels of laughter from the community which have overseen staggering environmental damage from this government.

Climate change denialism is also the mantra of the largest Newspaper company operating here. The owner, Rupert, has often publicly denied that climate change either exists or is anthropogenic. (Although there has been a very slight shift here.)

Past massive land clearing in tropical rainfall areas has (and still does), created massive run offs from the coastal and tableland areas. The excessive use of some fertilizers and pesticides certainly has not helped. The farming lobby is largely represented by the major coalition member in state and the federal governments. However, even some farmers are asking for a more rational approach.

Tourism is a big earner and there are mixed responses from the industry. Some operators deny any problems, some call for government action and some simply say “See it before it’s gone.”

[Hermia II]

I suggest you watch this very comprehensive study, not filtered though layers of corrupt institutions, concluding "The GBR is in perfect shape" https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...d0&app=desktop

[keithw88]

Hermia II suggest we watch a Youtube clip. In turn, I suggest that anyone who is interested in doing so also research the presenter’s history. Professor Peter Ridd is well known for opposing the concept of climate change being related to human activity. To most of us who read and listen to scientists and researchers in this field, his conclusions lie in zone of “alternative facts”.
As to corruption, the evidence rather strongly supports the conclusion that big oil, gas and coal companies have long been guilty of financing studies designed to be favourable to their interests, and funding massive lobbying efforts to suppress information which is inimical to their interests.

[Hermia II]

Keithw88. Do not be afraid of listening to Peter Ridd, he is explaining exactly what is researched and what the results are. He may not subscribe to the narrative that human emitted CO2 is causing global warming, together with thousands of other scientists, but that should not prevent him from presenting his research.
By the way, the only "proof" that the CO2 we have generated causes global warming are the "climate models" that IPCC and the UN often publish. This is not science. If you know of any scientific proof, please let us know.

[GordMay]

Yes, the Great Barrier Reef is ‘in danger’
There’s more to gain than lose by adding the Great Barrier Reef to the list of ecosystems ‘in danger’, argues Tiffany Morrison [1], who studies the governance of approximately 250 ecosystems with World Heritage status. She urges the Australian government to embrace the assessment of the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations cultural organization UNESCO. The 2009 listing of the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System offers hope for what can result: with technical and financial support for restoration from the World Heritage Fund, it has been taken off the list.

[1] “Great Barrier Reef: accept ‘in danger’ status, there’s more to gain than lose” ~ by Tiffany H. Morrison
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02220-3

See also:

“Save reefs to rescue all ecosystems” ~ by Tiffany H. Morrison et al
An approach that tackles the underlying causes of coral-reef decline could be applied to other habitats, argue Tiffany H. Morrison, Terry P. Hughes and colleagues.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02737-8

“Fevers are plaguing the oceans — and climate change is making them worse” ~ by Giuliana Viglione
Sudden marine heatwaves can devastate ecosystems, and scientists are scrambling to predict when they will strike.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01142-4

“Climate change has doubled the frequency of ocean heatwaves” ~ by Jeff Tollefson
Extreme heat events wreak havoc on marine ecosystems and will only get worse in coming decades.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05978-1

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by billgewater

My take on it is that it is obvious that immense damage has been done to large swathes of the reef. There are no rational models that predict it will not get worse. The state of the reef may vary from place to pace and over time, but the trend is well documented if not conspicuous. I live near Cairns and the topic is “topical”.

Is there some politics involved? Accusations that the Chinese are still having a pot shot at Australia may well have some credibility, but the real hard political theme comes directly from the Australian government that is firmly in the hard testicular grip of the fossil fuel industries.

The simple evidence for this is to found in the current mantra of opening more coalmines; publicly funding new coal burning power stations and gas sources and of course we have no credible policy intent to do anything at all about our carbon footprint- an international embarrassment. There is no political attempt to support the use of green energy nor electric vehicles. Yet we have enormous deposits of lithium ores and enough sunlight to energize most of Asia.

Any perceived action such as PV take up on houses and hydrogen and ammonia production from green energy has been done by individuals or companies that see the writing on the wall. One really large planned project in Western Aus. was rejected by the federal government on environmental grounds. This caused peels of laughter from the community which have overseen staggering environmental damage from this government.

Climate change denialism is also the mantra of the largest Newspaper company operating here. The owner, Rupert, has often publicly denied that climate change either exists or is anthropogenic. (Although there has been a very slight shift here.)

Past massive land clearing in tropical rainfall areas has (and still does), created massive run offs from the coastal and tableland areas. The excessive use of some fertilizers and pesticides certainly has not helped. The farming lobby is largely represented by the major coalition member in state and the federal governments. However, even some farmers are asking for a more rational approach.

Tourism is a big earner and there are mixed responses from the industry. Some operators deny any problems, some call for government action and some simply say “See it before it’s gone.”

This is a prime example of the sort of nonsense being propagated by the AGW/CC zealots which is making any transition away from fossil fuels extremely difficult politically. Many of the remarks made therein are clearly partisan political and clearly either extreme exaggerations or patently untrue.

Australia is able to dig up it's coal and ship it half way around the world to sell because it's extremely high quality and does not contain many of the pollutants locally available coals have in the countries receiving it do Does anyone really believe that the countries building the hundreds of coal fired power stations are going to stop building them and demolish their existing plants? Off course not they'll just burn dirtier, more polluting coal.

In all of the posts in the threads on the Great Barrier Reef I've yet to see any comparison between the actions taken by Australia to protect the GBR and actions being taken by other countries with corral reefs. And I don't mean the numerous phony promises being made on CO2 reductions which never actually occur. Few countries have as good a record of actually meeting their promises as Australia.

Almost fifty years ago and well before the rise of the AGW/CC religion I bought shares in a company which was going to explore for oil on the continental shelf which supports the GBR. I blew my dough when the national government of the time instituted a total ban on petroleum exploration in the areas contiguous with the GBR. About a decade later the GBR marine park was instituted and thereby a massive area of coastal waters was excluded from a number of economic activities.

Of course UNESCO only deferred the decision, you cannot honestly believe that the members of this particular committee in the perverted UN system are going to honestly surrender a fairly effective pressure point for the sake of truth and objectivity do you.

.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

... Of course UNESCO only deferred the decision, you cannot honestly believe that the members of this particular committee in the perverted UN system are going to honestly surrender a fairly effective pressure point for the sake of truth and objectivity do you.

Why not? They've done it before.

Excerpted from“Great Barrier Reef: accept ‘in danger’ status, there’s more to gain than lose” ~ by Tiffany H. Morrison
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02220-3

"... There are benefits to an in-danger listing:
the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System was placed on the list in 2009.

The World Heritage Fund then provided technical and financial assistance for its restoration.
By 2018, mangrove coverage was restored nearly to 1996 levels, with clearing in protected areas almost entirely curtailed.
The whole maritime zone was under a moratorium on oil and gas production.

Restoration work is ongoing, but the Belize reef is no longer on the list ...