With a new Labor government in Australia that campaigned on Climate Change, we might expect an in-danger listing for the Great Barrier Reef at the next session. Based on their climate proposals it seems unlikely the new government would fight against an in-danger listing, especially considering the reality of what's happening to the reef.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/13/labor-pledges-millions-in-funding-to-protect-threatened-species-and-great-barrier-reef

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/majority-of-great-barrier-reef-coral-studied-in-2022-was-bleached-australian-scientists-say

I forgot to follow up on this, and in the end we flew out for South America in early June so ultimately we weren't around. We mostly live in Sydney, though a lot of the time we're based down in Wollongong as well.

How did your trip pan out, did you manage to see everything you were hoping for?

joelonroad

Hey Joel! Yes, I meant to send you a message but my original plan changed! I sustained a knee injury after rugby training in early May and I had to cancel the trip. I pushed through with a much shorter trip, reducing my 3-night Fraser Island to just a day trip and removing Cairns from the itinerary. This turned out to be good because this gave me extra time in Sydney and Melbourne and I am reserving Cairns for a bigger trip.

Funnily enough, I am currently in South America, particularly Peru! I will visit Sydney in November for a conference. Let's meet up when I come back!

Sounds good! We're out of town for a week in early November but otherwise we'll probably be around.

World heritage listing for central Victoria could turbocharge region's economy by $440 million a year

If they're looking for a potential WHS in central Victoria, what would be a candidate, if any?

See this

I read and participated in a seminar with the author of "The Chinese Question: The Gold Rushes, Chinese Migration, and Global Politics"

Book Summary: "In roughly five decades, between 1848 and 1899, more gold was removed from the earth than had been mined in the 3,000 preceding years, bringing untold wealth to individuals and nations. But friction between Chinese and white settlers on the goldfields of California, Australia, and South Africa catalyzed a global battle over "the Chinese Question": would the United States and the British Empire outlaw Chinese immigration?"

I would support a transnational "Gold Rushes" nomination between Australia (Victoria), United States (California), and South Africa (Witwatersrand).

This article adds a bit more detail about the candidature an aims for world heritage status by 2026.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-06/report-finds-goldfields-heritage-listing-worth-1b/101507470

Actually only Tentative List "status"???
"The project is seeking $500,000 from the state government to help shortlist potential World Heritage sites within the area, which comprises 17 per cent of the state."
and
"If the funding is secured the project will seek federal government support to place the Goldfields on its tentative World Heritage list. The campaign is hopeful the status will be granted in time for the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Victoria."

2026 would seem very ambitious for inscription anyway - would require submission of a Nomination by Feb 2025... and they don't even have it on the T List yet. I do get the impression that Australia doesn't operate a "periodic review" system for its T List - the most recent additions were in 2020 (Murujuga CL) and 2021 (Flinders Ranges). This would seem to indicate that sites can "apply" for T Listing at any time - "Updating Australia's World Heritage Tentative List is an ongoing process where the Australian Government seeks submissions from the state and territory governments which are encouraged to consult with community and stakeholder groups as well as the Australian committees of the relevant advisory bodies (ICOMOS and IUCN). The state and territory governments are responsible for submitting proposals for the Tentative List to the Australian Government and undertaking the necessary research and consultation to support the case for tentative listing. The Australian Government is responsible for submitting updates to its Tentative List to the World Heritage Centre." So, at least they wouldn't have to wait for such a periodic review - but it would have to have been on the T List for a year so it would need to be there by Feb 24 to even stand a chance of a 2026 WHC. On the other hand..... 2026 IS "available" if Murujuga and Flinders make 2024 and 2025!

Am I alone in finding the entire tenor of the "economic" document disturbing? It seems to epitomise what "World Heritage" has become - a tool for economic development. The report waxes lyrical - "It's a compelling report," Mr Brumby said. "It shows nearly 2,000 new jobs are generated, hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment in accommodation and tens of thousands of tourists from overseas".

I know that it is an "economic report" but I look in vain for anything suggesting that there are things worth preserving which WH status would assist. "World Heritage" has morphed from being a means of preserving valuable heritage into one for creating "visitor experiences". The question is no longer "do we have something worth preserving which WH status will assist"... rather... "do we have something which can be marketed using its World Heritage status". Of course the eye-watering amounts of money required both to get a site onto a T List and then through to inscription have played a large part in this as have the convolutions needed to create a case that there is "OUV"..... I am not suggesting that Australia is either unique or the worst in this respect.... just more open perhaps??

I wonder what impact the Tr'ondëk-Klondike nomination from Canada will have on this nomination. I do see in the articles that the proposers of the Australian Goldfields package have ensured First Nations participation in their proposal, so it seems they may be taking cues from Canada.

It will be interesting to see if Australia's nomination accurately portrays both Chinese contributions in Victoria and the state-sponsored bigotry "White Australia Policy" that eventually emerged to disenfranchise them (poll tax, license fees, etc). In the United States, anti-Chinese bigotry evolved into legislation, the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned Chinese immigrants for more than half a century. What is abundantly clear, without Chinese laborers all three Gold Rushes would have been far less productive or "successful" by the standards of the time.

There is some tangible built heritage remaining in Bendigo whcih, it would seem, is likely to be the "centre point" of any nomination - see this

This section from the bid website describes the type of site envisioned:

"The World Heritage approach for the Central Victorian Goldfields models the best practice Cornwall West Devon Mining Landscape which involved listing ten distinct and highly significant areas to form what is known as a serial listing where a series of individual sites from across the region are listed, bringing greater social and regional development benefits to the entire region."

I'm disappointed though that Beechworth (and the local Indigo council) don't seem to be involved, as I found some of the 19th C buildings there some of the most impressive during my travels around Victoria last year. Though the whole state is dotted with gold mining remains!

It looks like the potential nomination is progressing well, with funding of $500,000 awarded to shortlist potential sites and then progress to being added to the Australian tentative list.

https://goldfieldsworldheritage.com.au/all-news/unprecendented-regional-partnership-receives-funding/