Sunday, July 9, 2017

Australia: Great Barrier Reef Avoids UNESCO's 'In Danger' Status: Is This A Good Thing?


via techtimes.com - The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has decided that the massive coral bleaching that has been happening to the Great Barrier Reef is not enough to consider it "In Danger."

The Australian government is celebrating UNESCO's decision and calls it a "big win" for the continent, but things may not be as well as it seems.

According to Federal Environment Minister Josh Freedenberg, they have received reports that the government's Reef 2050 plan — an integrated government strategy aimed at improving the Great Barrier Reef's condition — has been showing positive results.

"Of course coral bleaching has been significant but we've also seen the health of the reef be encouraged in the years leading up to the most recent bleaching event," he expressed.

However, there is still a big possibility that avoiding the "In Danger" status may or may not be helpful for the reef's restoration.

Some believe that UNESCO decided against labeling the Great Barrier Reef as "In Danger" in order to help the Australian government avoid embarrassment. By doing so, tourism in Australia would also be able to avoid a negative impact on its tourism sector, which could also affect the nation's economy.

"It supports more than 69,000 Queensland jobs, provides billions of dollars into the Queensland economy each and every year," Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said.

This is because, once the reef is added to the list of world heritage sites "In Danger," the government would have to take drastic actions to save the reef and may even be forced to limit or close off the site for tourism.

Since Premier Palaszczuk already revealed that the Great Barrier Reef supports the livelihood of thousands of people in Queensland, one can only rightly assume that any move to limit tourism in the reef would affect at least 69,000 people. (ontinueReading
* * * *
Disclaimer: Posted links are not direct endorsements. 

2 comments: