Once again the federal government has been seriously embarrassed over the possible listing of Kakadu National Park as "world heritage in danger" because of the potential impact of the Jabiluka uranium mine.

Last year, the World Heritage Committee (WHC) was presented with a report from a United Nations fact-finding mission which found that the Jabiluka mine posed "severe ascertained and potential dangers to the cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park".

After a massive lobbying effort by the Australian government, the WHC decided to give the government until April 15 to submit a report explaining how the natural and cultural attributes of Kakadu can be protected if the mine proceeds.

Twenty out of 21 WHC members recommended that construction of the mine be stopped pending the preparation and review of the government's report; the only dissent was from the Australian delegate. The government ignored that recommendation and construction is ongoing.

The latest fiasco involves the leaking of a document, stamped "Highly Protected", which outlines the government's strategy to avoid a world heritage in danger listing.

The document was prepared by the federal environment department following high-level consultations with the department of prime minister and cabinet, the department of industry, science and resources, the attorney general's department, and the department of foreign affairs and trade.

The document bluntly states that the government's objective is "to avoid a listing of Kakadu as World Heritage in Danger, while securing arrangements for ... development of the Jabiluka mine."

Noting the apparent disposition of WHC members to proceed with a world heritage in danger listing when a final decision is made, the document says, "Overcoming this disposition before the July meeting of the WHC will be a difficult task; requiring a coordinated, resource-intensive effort across a range of portfolios and both domestically and internationally."

The document says the environment department will implement an international lobbying strategy in as many international contexts as necessary. "A key focus will be on lobbying on capitals to assert a whole of government approach on their Committee members", it says.

In other words, efforts will be made to go over the heads of WHC delegates because the delegates have shown themselves to be too concerned with "heritage or environmental agendas rather than a whole of government view."

The department of foreign affairs is entrusted with the task of "identifying decision-makers and pressure points" overseas, while the environment department is to explore and prepare a calendar of "ad hoc lobbying opportunities".

Already, the government has funded lobbying trips to Mexico, Nairobe, Zimbabwe, Washington, Ireland and London.

Hill acknowledged that his department alone would spend $1 million on the lobbying campaign. There appears to be no intention to forward the bill to the mining company Energy Resources of Australia (ERA).

Another task for the foreign affairs department is "analysis of upcoming candidacies". This can only have one meaning: grubby deals in which the Australian government supports WHC member countries for international positions, in return for which those countries are expected to vote against an in-danger listing.

Democrats senator Lyn Allison says the government has attempted to change the composition of the world heritage bureau. Allison says a leaked foreign affairs cable noted, "We had only a limited opportunity to influence the election (of the world heritage bureau). We lobbied with success to have Korea preferred over Thailand ..."

Evidently Thailand's sin is its view that a world heritage site can be put on the "in danger" list without the consent of the affected national government, a view the Australian government is contesting.

According to Allison, Robert Hill denied the veracity of the information and then, when faced with the evidence, fudged by attacking the Democrats.

The leaked document says "the issue of traditional owner attitudes to the mine is the most difficult one to counter internationally with rational argument".

It goes on to stress the importance of "arguing the strength of our ... policies to support the genuine empowerment of traditional owners." What is meant by that statement is anyone's guess. The fact is that the government and ERA are pushing ahead with the mine despite the unanimous opposition of the Mirrar traditional owners.

Presumably the "genuine empowerment" will come from mining royalties. However the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, which represents the Mirrar, says "Local Aboriginal people have been excluded from governance of their region, have had their language and culture ignored, suffered massive industrial development against their wishes and in the space of 20 years been completely overwhelmed by a rapidly established white township (Jabiru). This has manifested in chronic alcohol abuse, community violence and a chronic sense of disempowerment and hopelessness."

As with the nearby Ranger mine, the Jabiluka mine will further disempower the Mirrar, contrary to the environment department's glib assertions.

The environment department suggests a strategy of bribery and co-option: "If we could arrive at an attractive package involving land, social and economic benefits, we might be able to persuade the traditional owners to accept, albeit reluctantly, the fact that the mine is going ahead, and that they should accept a negotiated settlement.

"Any settlement will be difficult to achieve, given the extent of the international support gained by the Mirrar but a settlement, or even a clearly fair Commonwealth offer, could neutralise the active opposition of many World Heritage Committee members."

Another option floated by the environment department is blackmail. There are ongoing negotiations regarding the transfer to Aboriginal ownership of sections of land in the Kakadu region. The document suggests that early action to settle this matter would be unwise as it "may limit the options for negotiation in relation to the mines."

The leaked document has been sent to all members of the World Heritage Committee. There will be even more intense scrutiny of the process as a result of the revelations.

The Jabiluka issue is widely regarded as a litmus test for the world heritage process. Last year, a report from two advisory bodies to the WHC argued that a failure to implement the recommendations of the WHC's fact finding mission - that the mine should be stopped and Kakadu listed as world heritage in danger - would diminish the credibility of the world heritage convention.

"This is of particular concern at a time in the Convention's history when the pressures on World Heritage sites are growing, and mining in particular is bringing such serious impacts", the advisory bodies said.

Robert Hill has repeatedly attempted to discredit the WHC. Last year, Lyn Allison claimed that Hill's staff were assembling a "dirt file" to discredit scientists on the fact-finding mission to Australia. Hill refused to confirm or deny Allison's claim. When the WHC reports were released publicly, Hill claimed they were biased and unbalanced.

After dredging up a 1997 report by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Hill tried to score a political point by claiming that Australia is being "singled out" over commercial operations in or near world heritage areas.

Hill claimed that the report "shows that many of the factors which UNESCO claims are putting Kakadu at risk are commonplace in world heritage areas around the world."

Hill's manoeuvre backfired. IUCN director general David McDowell said Hill's claim that Australia is being singled out "amounts to a misrepresentation of the purpose and content of the 1997 report, which is an objective statistical record of human impacts on sites. Such a record of the situation does not imply acceptance of these impacts or endorsement of them.

"Each case is assessed individually, taking into account the particular circumstances of the site, its nominated values, and the specific nature and impact of the activity being proposed on that site.

"IUCN has frequently taken a stand in relation to mining proposals - as it has with other such development activities - where they are likely to result in a damaging impact on the values for which the site was inscribed."

McDowell cites the example of world heritage listed Yellowstone national park in the US. It was listed as world heritage in danger because of the potential impact of a planned gold mine adjacent to the park. The US government subsequently stopped the mine.

The government says it will allow the mine to proceed even if Kakadu is put on the world heritage in danger list. ERA has also attempted to downplay the significance of the world heritage fiasco. However, Hill said he was "disturbed and distressed" by the findings of the WHC last year, and Phillip Shirvington, chief executive of ERA, said he felt "betrayed" by the Committee.

On May 19, consultants to the World Heritage Committee (WHC) released reports on the Jabiluka uranium mine in the NT.

In April, the federal government submitted a report to the WHC attempting to justify the mine and arguing that the world heritage values of Kakadu National Park will not be affected by the mine.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), having reviewed the federal government report, maintain that the Jabiluka mine will have adverse impacts on natural and cultural values and that Kakadu National Park should be listed as world heritage in danger unless the mine is stopped.

A report by the International Council for Science was also released on May 19. This report was not available at the time of writing, but it is known that it makes no recommendation as to whether Kakadu should be listed as world heritage in danger.

The ICOMOS report said, "ICOMOS believes that mining operations beneath what is without dispute an area of great spiritual significance to the indigenous Mirrar people would cause irremediable damage, both tangible and intangible, to its qualities, in contravention of the generally accepted principles of heritage conservation and the World Heritage Convention in particular."

The Jabiluka mine is located in a mining enclave excised from Kakadu National Park. However as ICOMOS argues, this does not mean that the cultural values of the Park will be unaffected: "While in administrative terms it is possible to draw a line on a map in order to exclude the mining enclave from a National Park or a World Heritage site, this distinction is meaningless in cultural terms. The sacred sites within the (mining) enclave form part of a much larger network of sacred sites and dreaming tracks that spread over the entire region. ... The cultural links between the enclave and the Mirrar lands within the World Heritage site cannot be challenged; they form a single cultural unit.

"ICOMOS maintains its view that the site should be placed on the World Heritage List in Danger and that all operations relating to the proposed Jabiluka mine (including the digging of the decline) should cease, to permit a detailed cultural impact study to be carried out by independent Australian and international experts and with the full agreement and involvement of the Mirrar people."

Equally scathing of the federal government and Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) is a report written by Professor Thayer Scudder, an anthropologist from California Institute of Technology, for the IUCN. Thayer says there is "ample evidence that the Government Response is, at best, full of erroneous information and interpretations or, at worst, is intentionally deceptive."

Thayer notes that the government provides no evidence for its assertion that the majority of 533 Aborigines in the Kakadu region support the Jabiluka mine. Thyaer says the history of the nearby Ranger uranium mine undermines the argument that royalties from the Jabiluka mine will be advantageous for the Mirrar traditional owners. He cites a 1998 document in which the government states, "The Government accepts the finding of the KRSIS (Kakadu Regional Social Impact Study) that twenty years of development in the Kakadu region has not generally translated into the social and economic benefits for Aboriginal people that was originally expected."

Thayer says, "The Australian Government devotes a substantial portion of its report to attacking the credibility of local Aboriginal people's belief in the sacred and dangerous nature of what has become known by non-Aboriginal people as the Boyweg-Almudj Sacred Site Complex.

"This public attack is considered by the Mirrar to be highly unethical and deliberately malicious. It is most distressing for the Mirrar to see their cultural heritage dissected, falsely defined and summarily dismissed by people who have never lived on Mirrar land, practices Mirrar culture or even allowed Mirrar an appropriate opportunity to explain the extent and significance of their sites in cultural context.

"The Australian Government's decision to place information denigrating Aboriginal cultural beliefs on the internet is an extraordinarily improper act, hardly designed to promote the reconciliation process. It should be noted that the Australian Government's attack is based on intentionally selective citations presented in the absence of any direct consultations with Traditional Owners and Custodians."

The federal government lists numerous pieces of federal and Northern Territory legislation relating to Aboriginal land rights. Thayer notes that "all the legislation in relation to the recognition or protection of Indigenous rights is, as a result of Commonwealth or Northern Territory Government existing or proposed reforms, under threat or is already inadequate to protect the rights of Aboriginal people to manage and control their traditional lands. The maze of legislation - and the uncertainty which accompanies it, illustrates the Commonwealth Government's ambivalence to providing justice and equity to Australia's indigenous peoples."

Thayer says, "At the very time that other OECD countries are improving policies relating to indigenous people, the Government of Australia appears to be moving in the opposite direction."

According to ERA, Construction of a tunnel leading to the ore-body was suspended for three days from May 18 to May 20 for "technical reasons". ERA planned to recommence drilling from May 21, and acknowledged that within "a day or two" of resuming construction, the Boyweg-Almudj site would be affected.

The senior traditional owner, Yvonne Margarula, said, "They (ERA) have asked us to keep talking while they blast and drill in our sacred sites. We can't see any point in further talks. They do not take us seriously. They don't believe our cultural values have any meaning. They are trying to destroy us, but we will fight until we die."

The World Heritage Committee will make its final decision regarding a world heritage in danger listing for Kakadu on July 12.

At a July 12 meeting in Paris, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee (WHC) voted not to put Kakadu National Park on the world heritage in danger list despite the impact on natural and cultural values from the Jabiluka uranium mine.

The WHC expressed "significant reservations concerning scientific uncertainties relating to mining and milling at Jabiluka." However only one country - Cuba - argued for an in-danger listing while the other 20 WHC delegates caved in to a massive lobbying campaign by the Australian government.

In the lead-up to the WHC decision, Jacqui Katona, executive officer of the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation which represents the Mirrar traditional owners, said, "The Australian Government is desperately attempting to convince the US and other WHC members to consider Australia's financial contributions to UNESCO, the global uranium market, trade-offs in elections for UN posts - anything but the heritage issues at stake."

It appears that some countries - including Japan and European countries - were persuaded to side with the Australian government because they are recipients of Australian uranium. Professor John Mulvaney, from the Australian National University, claimed that the last-minute back-flip from the US delegation may have been designed to pacify the Australian government following the imposition of tariffs on Australian lamb exports. The capitulation of the US delegation is likely to have persuaded other delegations to do likewise.

Mulvaney said, "Only an intense and shameless exercise in vote-buying and political arm-twisting could prevent Kakadu being placed on the 'In Danger' list in the face of such clear scientific and technical evidence."

The WHC has ignored the unanimous recommendations of its advisory bodies for an in-danger listing. These advisory bodies were the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the International Committee on Monuments and Sites, and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property.

The WHC also ignored the recommendation for an in-danger listing from a recent report of the Australian Senate, and it ignored a petition from 34 members of the US Congress. Last but not least the Comittee ignored the wishes of the Mirrar.

John Howard said he was "delighted" with the WHC decision. Newspapers such as the West Australian, the NT News and The Australian carried editorials supporting the WHC decision and attacking activists opposed to the mine.

Energy Resources of Australia's chief executive Phillip Shirvington said the World Heritage Committee decision was a victory for "progress". ERA's share price, which has fallen dramatically because of the campaign against the Jabiluka mine over the past two years, rose after the WHC decision.

The July 12 statement from the WHC asks the Australian government to submit a progress report by April 15, 2000. The report is expected to address cultural mapping of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease and the Boyweg-Almudj sacred site, details on the progress or completion of a cultural heritage management plan, progress in the implementation of a comprehensive package of social and welfare benefits for Aboriginal communities (including the Mirrar), and more details regarding concurrent or sequential mining from the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines.

The Australian government and ERA agreed to limit mining from Jabiluka while the nearby Ranger mine is still in operation. The dubious logic is that sequential mining will have less impact than concurrent mining. Mining from Jabiluka is expected to commence in 2001, but full-scale production may not occur until 2009, by which time Ranger will be mined out.

The delay poses no great obstacle for ERA. Shirvington said that commercial obligations could still be met. Over the next 12 months, ERA did not plan to mine Jabiluka uranium regardless of the WHC decision. The company needs time to bully or bribe the Mirrar people to allow Jabiluka uranium to be milled at the nearby Ranger mill. The alternative is to construct a mill at Jabiluka at an additional cost estimated at $100-200 million.

Federal environment minister Robert Hill has given a written commitment to abide by the WHC recommendation to pursue "progress in the implementation ... of a comprehensive package of social and welfare benefits, together with the Northern Territory government, for the benefit of the Aboriginal communities of Kakadu (including the Mirrar)"

According to the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, this concession is important because additional government funding will be provided for basic services such as water, power and sewerage. Gundjehmi says that with less dependence on mining royalties, the Mirrar traditional owners could be in a better position to fight the Jabiluka mine.

The WHC July 12 statement "acknowledges indications that a new dialogue between the Mirrar Aboriginal people and the Australian government has begun."

This statement gave rise to media speculation that the Mirrar might be considering striking a deal which would involve giving their consent to the Jabiluka mine. However according to Gundjehmi, the Mirrar remain opposed to the mine and will continue to do everything possible to stop it.

Katona said, "The Mirrar people now have a transparent process which we believe will lead to Jabiluka being discontinued. ... We are extremely confident we can demonstrate beyond doubt the incompatibility of the Jabiluka project with the cultural values of Kakadu. ... We believe that over the next 18 months Mirrar opposition to Jabiluka will prevail."

Discussions are taking place regarding campaign directions in the wake of the WHC decision. Statements made by Gundjehmi suggest that there will be a renewed push for a world heritage in danger listing next year.

It remains to be seen whether mainstream environmental groups will support another push for an in-danger listing. A Wilderness Society spokesperson said, "We won't be bothering to go near this (world heritage) forum for a very long time. We'll focus all our energies now on our corporate campaign".

North Ltd, ERA's parent company, has agreed to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) prior to its Annual General Meeting in October. The EGM will address shareholders' concerns regarding Jabiluka.

Don Henry, executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said, "We are now going to increase our corporate campaigning activity, also our legal campaigns. There is a challenge currently under way to the legal validity of the approval processes for milling ... It's been mainly young Australians at universities who've been saying, 'This shouldn't go ahead'. It's really time for the mums and dads to come out of the kitchens and add their voices to make sure we can stop this abomination in one of our great world heritage sites."

A campaign update from the Melbourne Jabiluka Action Group is indicative of the perspective of grass-roots activists around the country, proposing to "give the campaign a cutting edge by putting people on the streets in direct and active opposition to the mine."

The Melbourne JAG statement argues that this is important because mass mobilisations make it harder for the government and ERA to ignore the opposition to the mine of 67% of the Australian public, because they demonstrate support for the Mirrar, and because mass mobilisations are necessary to convince trade unions to actively support the campaign.

The Federal Government submitted a report on the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine in the Northern Territory to the United Nations’ World Heritage Committee (WHC) on April 15.

The government had to explain what progress it had made in addressing concerns about the project and its impacts on the natural and cultural values for which Kakadu National Park is listed as a World Heritage site.

The government’s report, “Australia’s Commitments: Protecting Kakadu National Park”, will be considered by the bureau of the WHC in Paris in June, and by the WHC itself in Cairns in December.

The report is full of references to “world’s best practice” - best practice cultural heritage management, best practice land rehabilitation, best practice regulation, best practice park management and so on.

However, environment groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Northern Territory Environment Centre point to serious deficiencies:
- the government’s unwillingness and inability to provide key data requested by the expert International Scientific Panel;
- the government’s failure to conduct a detailed Cultural Heritage Management Plan;
- the government’s failure to act on its commitment to strengthen the legislation regulating uranium mining in the region and the role of the Commonwealth in the region; and
- the scientific uncertainty posed by mining company ERA's plan to develop a uranium mill at the Jabiluka site, a plan which has never been studied in detail by the WHC.

Social and economic development

The government’s report mentions the beginning of planning and construction of a $3.2 million upgrade of tourism infrastructure in Kakadu; new housing construction and major upgrades worth $1.2 million in Kakadu outstations; planned improvements to basic infrastructure such as power, sewerage and water reticulation costing $3 million; and the provision of better employment opportunities through Community Development Employment Projects and Parks Australia.

Jacqui Katona from the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC), which represents the Mirrar traditional owners, said the social and economic benefits promised in the government’s report rely on long overdue funding from the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Commission.

Scientific studies blocked

Last year the WHC asked its International Scientific Panel (ISP) to assess the Australian Supervising Scientist’s response to an ISP report completed last year.

The draft terms of reference, later provided by the WHC to the ISP, also asked for “an examination of the details of any parallel activities at Ranger and Jabiluka and the revised plans for mining at Jabiluka”. The Australian government responded indignantly. The report to the WHC says “Australia will not support a proposal by the ISP to undertake an examination which goes beyond the role given to the ISP by the Committee.”

However, the government’s claim is illogical - the WHC has in fact asked the ISP to examine parallel activities at Ranger and Jabiluka and the revised plans for mining at Jabiluka.

The government’s apparent nervousness reflects unresolved issues surrounding ERA’s plan to build a new uranium ore processing mill at Jabiluka. The plan for a mill at Jabiluka was approved by the government two working days before the calling of the 1998 federal election following. The approval followed a Public Environment Report from ERA - a form of assessment even more farcical than environmental impact statements.

The method for disposing of waste tailings - devised not by ERA but by a government department - will be to dump the waste back down the mine site. Avoiding public and international srutiny of this plan appears to be high on the agenda of ERA and the government.

'Transparency and responsiveness'

In September, Hill appointed Adelaide lawyer Alistair (Bardy) McFarlane to investigate and report on GAC’s application for protection of the Boywek-Almudj sacred site. However, according to Katona, McFarlane is a partner in a law firm that represents miners, pastoralists and the fishing industry in opposing native title claims, and he has no experience in dealing with Aboriginal people in northern Australia.

The government’s failure to consult with the Mirrar or GAC regarding the appointment of McFarlane was arguably a breach of its commitment to the WHC to engage in constructive dialogue with the traditional owners.

GAC decided not to proceed with the application to protect the Boywek-Almudj site. Although that process was meant to precede the development of a cultural heritage management plan, Hill allowed ERA to proceed with the plan - “world’s best practice”, of course - with the assistance of a reference group to “advise and assist ERA”. GAC has refused to participate in the reference group.

A spokesman for Hill told the Sydney Morning Herald (April 20) that, “If the green groups think it's important there be a cultural heritage plan we welcome them talking to the Gundjehmi and the Mirrar, seeking to get them involved.”

For all the government’s rhetoric about its “spirit of transparency and responsiveness”, the report to the WHC does not canvass alternative options to resolve the impasse, such as consulting with GAC over the appointment of someone better suited than Mcfarlane to investigate the application for protection of the Boywek-Almudj site, or excluding ERA from the cultural heritage management planning process.