Date published: 2006/06/12
The BBC says:
Five metres (15ft) below the clear green water of the western Caribbean lie the fractured remains of a coral dome hundreds of years old.
Local scientists say it's now so badly damaged that another hurricane would simply sweep it away.
But they don't primarily blame hurricanes for the damage to the coral here on the Belize Barrier Reef; they blame climate change.
And they are backing a petition pressing the United Nations World Heritage Sites Committee to acknowledge that climate change is already damaging world heritage sites.
The five sites are the Belize Barrier reef, at 321km (200 miles) long, the biggest in the western hemisphere; the Australian barrier reef; and glacier parks in Nepal, Peru and the Rockies where glaciers are disappearing as the climate warms.
The World Heritage Sites Treaty stipulates that listed sites should not be damaged by signatories to the treaty, but it was mainly designed to protect the world's treasures in the event of wars.
The stakes are high because if the UN accepts the case, it might lead to poor countries attempting to sue rich countries for damages for the greenhouse gases they've emitted.
...
[ The UN campaigners ] will face, though, determined resistance on the World Heritage Committee from the US. Objections to the petition include:
- There is no conclusive proof that that the reef are being damaged by greenhouse gas emissions
- Any damage to the reef is accidental, so it does not breach the World Heritage Sites Treaty.
- Accepting the petition on a controversial issue such as climate change would spoil the harmonious relations of the World Heritage Committee.
The petition will be heard when the committee meets between 8 and 16 July.
The coral reefs of the world are almost certainly being damaged by climate change, so the US argument on that score is disingenuous. But reefs are also being damaged by other human activities (e.g. fishing and tourism). And the US is correct that the petitioners are perverting what the original intent of World Heritage status was supposed to be. And if for some reason the UN accepts this petition then it would almost certainly spell end of support for the World Heritage Sites Treaty by the rich countries of the world.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").