The Albanese government will launch a lobbying campaign in a bid to reverse a Unesco recommendation that an ancient rock art site inWestern Australiacan’t go on the world heritage list until damaging industrial emissions linked to a controversial Woodside gas development are stopped.
Government officials were aiming to meetUnesconext week after its advisers said the nomination of the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in north-west WA – home to more than a million petroglyphs, some almost 50,000 years old – should be referred back to Australia until nearby “degrading acidic emissions” were halted.
The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) advised Unesco the main requirements for world heritage nomination had been met, but pollution from nearby industry “makes the integrity and the authenticity of key attributes of the nominated property highly vulnerable”.
The main source of emissions,the ICOMOS report said, was Woodside’s Karratha gas plant, which last week wasconditionally awarded a 40-year extension by the environment minister, Murray Watt, to operate until 2070.
The Unesco recommendation is due to go before the 21-country world heritage committee at its next meeting on 6 July in Paris.
A government spokesperson told the Guardian it was now “actively engaged in the process” and would make “strong representations at every opportunity” to have Murujuga listed as a world heritage site at the Paris meeting.
Sources told the Guardian that Australian government department officials were also aiming to meet Unesco officials over the nomination during next week’s UN oceans conference in Nice.
Last week, Watt said he was disappointed Unesco had been influenced by “factual inaccuracies” but did not provide further detail on what those inaccuracies were.
Most of the pieces of rock art were created by hitting the rocks with harder rocks to remove a top layer, revealing lighter colours beneath – a technique known as pecking.
Scientists expressed concern that emissions of nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide were working to slowly dissolve the top layers of the petroglyph rocks.
A summary of astate government-commissioned monitoring reporton the state of pollution and the petroglyphs, released last month, claimed observed damage to some of the rocks was likely related to a power plant that ran in the 1970s and 1980s.
But leading rock art expert Prof Benjamin Smith, of the University of Western Australia, said the body of the 800-page report was clear that current industrial emissions were also damaging the petroglyphs.
He said: “If [the federal government] is trying to say the damage was done in the 70s and 80s, then they’re on a hiding to nothing.
Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email
“I don’t thinkemissions are damaging the rock art, I know they are.”
He said the official monitoring report showed current emissions at the site were likely between four and five times higher than during the 1970s and 80s.
Smith said: “The 800-page report makes it clear they are being damaged in the areas closest to industry. If [Australia] tries to blame that power plant in the 1970s, then the implication is that that emissions are damaging it five times more now.”
TheABC has reported a scientist leading the monitoring report has privately complained the report was alteredto remove a line on a graph that would have shown “five of the monitoring sites were experiencing pollutant levels above the interim guideline”.
The ICOMOS evaluation report said it had received information from a “third party” drawing its attention to the extension of Woodside’s Karratha gas plant to 2070.
That information, the Guardian can reveal, was a detailed letter from the Australian Conservation Foundation, which pointed to several studies raising concerns about emissions and the rock art.
The Guardian hasrevealed the Australian government has previously carried out a long and sustained lobbying campaignto keep the Great Barrier Reef off the world heritage list of sites in danger.
Gavan Macfadzean, climate and energy program manager at ACF, said he expected the Australian government would now be lobbying Unesco and the world heritage committee up to the meeting.
“Our role is to make sure that when sites are nominated [for world heritage status], we’re reassured that the values for which it’s being evaluated are protected,” he said.
“We support the listing, but we have to make sure that it’s not a greenwashing exercise. We want to see the nomination happen in a way that protects the values.
He said emissions of nitrous oxide and sulfur oxide from local industry – including from Woodside’s gas processing facility – needed to be “fully addressed”.
In a statement, the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC), which has worked with government to nominate the site, said it was “deeply disappointed” by the ICOMOS recommendation.
The chair of MAC, Peter Hicks, said the ICOMOS report had made clear the site should be on the world heritage list.
He said: “The evaluation report provides the pathway to finalising world heritage listing and while the referral adds another small step to our journey, it is a positive outcome and not a rejection.
“While we are disappointed, we are determined to finish our journey and see the Murujuga Cultural Landscape included on the world heritage list as soon as possible.”
A spokesperson for Woodside said the final decision on the nomination would rest with the world heritage committee.
They said: “Woodside will continue to support the leadership of traditional custodians, including the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC), which holds cultural authority, and work with the commonwealth and state governments as they prepare their responses to the [ICOMOS] recommendation.”
The statement said the findings of the monitoring report “show that emissions are below risk thresholds, and the data does not support the theory that acid rain damages the petroglyphs.”
They said: “Woodside has taken proactive steps over many years – including emissions reductions, data sharing and ongoing support for [the monitoring report] – to ensure we manage our impacts responsibly.
“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 coexist when collaboration, transparency, and rigorous scientific monitoring are in place.”