|
On 25 September 2003, following a request by the International Federation of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO), the World Monuments Fund (WMF) listed the Dampier Rock Art Precinct among its 100 Most Endangered Sites. In response, the Western Australian Minister for State Development, Clive Brown MLA, wrote to the WMF, objecting to the listing of the monument. Bonnie Burnham, the WMF President, travelled from New York to Western Australia in January 2004, at the peak of the summer heat, to inspect the Dampier rock art and to evaluate the objections of the State Government herself. Ms Burnham examined four rock art sites on the Burrup Peninsula and inspected previous installations as well as current development works. While she was still in the field, before she had any opportunity to communicate her views, Clive Brown rejected her right to comment on the issues, stating that Americans had “enough environmental problems that they ought to be focusing on, rather than coming to Australia and telling people what to do”.
Undaunted by the government’s hostile reaction, President Burnham held a lengthy meeting (almost three hours) with senior policy makers of the Ministry of State Development and the Department of Industry and Resources (DIR) in Perth, attended also by the President of IFRAO, Robert G. Bednarik and three other scientists. This meeting was held immediately upon President Burnham’s return from Dampier, and the following is a summary of the principal outcomes and impressions as perceived by the undersigned. Among the principal outcomes of the lengthy discussions were the following: If the DIR/government were to cancel the Burrup industrial expansion plans at this late stage, “we would be the laughing stock of the international community … we would be finished as a provider of secure investment opportunities … it would ruin our sovereign integrity irreparably”. RESPONSE: More likely, it would have serious repercussions for the DIR, which would suffer the same review process the Environmental Protection Authority did in early 2003 when its Director was sacked and it was dissolved and reorganised. It would also have massive electoral repercussions because of the loss of more than $200 million of taxpayers’ money. There is no possibility of developing the Maitland Industrial Estate without devastating impact on the rock art of West Intercourse Island, therefore no such development is intended. RESPONSE: Both propositions are false: such development is certainly intended, and current proponents are interested in using the island; and there is no technical or engineering reason known why the causeway has to cross the island. It can skirt its coastline on the way out to sea. The ship-loading facilities cannot be situated on the island because of insufficient water depth, so they need to be almost 2 km north of the island in any case. We asked why this plan of skirting the island was not feasible and received no response. The claim that 20-25% of the rock art has been lost since 1964 is fundamentally flawed, only 2% has been lost so far. RESPONSE: The proposition is absurd for three reasons: (a) the claim is mathematically impossible to sustain, because the DIR has no idea of how much rock art was present in 1964, nor does it know how much rock art there is today; (b) It is agreed that about 38% of the land surface has been cleared or is being cleared on the Burrup, and it is logically impossible to sustain the claim that only 2% of the rock art should have occupied 38% of the land area; (c) the figure of 20-25% is the published estimate of the only researcher who studied the Burrup rock art at the time (1960s), who is therefore the only credible source to estimate the amount of rock art present at that time. The amount of Burrup emissions is significantly lower than is acceptable in metropolitan areas. RESPONSE: This is an irrelevant, illogical and untrue argument: first, the issue is not that of human tolerance to high smog levels, but that of the effects of atmospheric and ground acidification; second, the issue is not the amount of emissions, but the concentrations of harmful substances at the lithosphere-atmosphere interface, and their effects; these are yet to be established, which is the primary purpose of the Monitoring Committee, and the comments by the Chairman of the Committee therefore imply that he has already made up his mind before any data were produced. This is clearly a case of bad science. Thirdly, he is incorrectly informed and his attention is drawn to the January 2004 report by the EPA, Bulletin 1124. “Australia, we must emphasise, is not a Third World country … we are actually a First World country”. RESPONSE: We have not the slightest inclination of contesting this proposition, and we reassure the DIR that we had never considered the possibility that Australia might be a Third World country. The following two comments were offered: “There is no need to consider a four-year moratorium on new projects, because there wouldn’t be any new projects started up for perhaps 4-5 years.” “We have numerous proponents keen to start up on the Burrup now.” RESPONSE: It seems that one comment contradicts the other. Since one of the key requests of the WMF is that of a moratorium, why cannot the government agree to a moratorium until the completion of the Monitoring Committee’s report, bearing in mind that there is no expectation of further project starts for the intervening period? The DIR suggests that it is impossible to find an alternative port site up and down the coastline. RESPONSE: This is absurd, because in all locations, dredging and/or causeways are required. Has the DIR considered engaging an independent consultant, as the Shire of Roebourne has had to do in order to compare the Burrup and Maitland options, to find alternative locations for a port, and to compare their costs independent of the DIR? Woodside has indicated to the DIR that it would be capable, if so requested by the government, to significantly reduce the emissions of toxic gaseous substances. RESPONSE: Bearing in mind the scandalous revelation by Woodside on 26 March 2003 that it had always understated its emissions by about 50%, plus the findings of the EPA concerning current emissions by Woodside, it is incredible that no such request has been made. Minister Clive Brown attacked the WMF and its President on 12th January, i.e. before President Burnham made any public comment, and before he could know her reactions or the findings of her fact-finding mission. He is quoted in The Australian as having stated: “I would have thought the US has enough environmental problems that they ought to be focusing on, rather than coming to Australia and telling people what to do. Have a look at some of the environmental disasters in the US; I mean they hardly need to come here with a holier-than-thou attitude.” RESPONSE: The Minister is trying to sell natural gas to the US, but his intemperate attack on an international and independent body does considerable damage to his government’s sales prospects. The location of the WMF head office or the nationality of its President are of no relevance whatsoever to the issue of Dampier rock art destruction. Neither the WMF nor the IFRAO speak for a particular country. Moreover, the Minister does not seem to realise that there are no less then seven US properties on the WMF list, so the Minister’s accusation is an absurdity. |
|
Home-page of the Australian Rock Art Research Association, Inc. (AURA)
Environmental Protection Authority report of January 2004, on NOx emissions at Dampier
|
