“We will work constructively with the World Heritage Centre to ensure the factual inaccuracies that influenced the draft decision are addressed,” Watt said.
Loading
“We will strongly advocate to the World Heritage Committee to reconsider the nomination when it meets.
“This is a complex site; none would deny that. It is disappointing that the draft decision is heavily influenced by claims made in the media and correspondence from non-government organisations, rather than scientific and other expert evidence.”
Watt was also disappointed that traditional custodians were not consulted or given an opportunity to respond to proposed recommendations.
“The Albanese government is strongly committed to the protection of First Nations cultural heritage and to World Heritage,” he said.
“We will continue to work closely with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, the World Heritage Committee, the advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre to ensure this outstanding place is protected now and for future generations across the planet.”
Australian Conservation Foundation’s climate campaigner Piper Rollins said UNESCO was essentially saying to the Albanese government: “You can’t have your cake and eat it.”
“You are going to have to choose between World Heritage or Woodside’s toxic gas extension. The two cannot coexist,” she said.
The UNESCO draft decision comes at a pivotal moment for Murujuga and the Burrup Hub.
On Friday, a report into monitoring of industrial emissions on the rock art was released with the executive summary suggesting the current levels of emissions were not impacting the rock art.
However, on Tuesday world-renowned rock art scientist Ben Smith claimed the WA government lied in the executive summary of an 800-page report.
Woodside said it was disappointed with the draft decision and want the bid to go ahead.
“Woodside is disappointed by ICOMOS’s draft recommendation, particularly given the depth of traditional custodian leadership and the independent science that has supported the nomination,” a spokeswoman said.
“We believe the World Heritage nomination should proceed on the strength of the evidence and stand as proof that cultural heritage and industry can responsibly co-exist when collaboration, transparency, and rigorous scientific monitoring are in place.”
The spokeswoman said the Murujuga rock art monitoring report was not reflected in the ICOMOS report.
“Coexistence is not just possible; it is something we have demonstrated for many years,” she said.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
