D-Day has arrived in the multifarious efforts to have the world-renowned Murujuga rock art added to the UNESCO World Heritage List.

A vaunted accolade, the decision to be made in Paris tonight (Australia-time), would add the ancient petroglyphs to a 1200-strong group which reads like a globe-trotters' bucket-list.

As reported in ENB (ad infinitum, some might say), the issue has been contentious, to say the least.

On one side is the Western Australian and federal governments, the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation and large contingents of industry (notably Woodside) as well as the many thousands of people who rely on the region's industrial activity for their well-deserved livelihoods.

This cohort (let's call them Team A) – represented in the French capital by WA environment minister Matthew Swinbourn, the federal environment minister Murray Watt, the MAC chairperson Peter Hicks and others – is leaning heavily on the findings of the Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program (MRAP) report which - while confirming "elevated levels of porosity" in the rock's surfaces, found no definitive link between industry emissions and the deterioration of petroglyphs. 

Instead, the MRAP report suggested the "elevated porosity" was due to emissions from the now demolished Dampier Power Station which was operational in the 1970s and 1980s - which emitted only 4000 tonnes of NO2 and SO2 per year, compared to the current emissions of 00,000 tonnes per year.

They also are of the belief that industrial activity and cultural sensitivities and the historic landscape can co-exist on the Burrup Peninsula, as demonstrated by Watt's proposed, conditional approval of Woodside's application to extend the life of their North West Shelf project by another 40 years.

On the other side of the argument is a cohort (Team B) led by the Save Our Songlines group, vocally headed by Marduthunera woman Raelene Cooper – also notably a former MAC chairperson.

Their argument is that all industrial activity needs to be stopped and indeed wound back in the area to prevent what they claim is the ongoing effects on the precious rock art.

So far, so (fairly) clear.

But while there are definite divisions between the two camps, there is also agreement.

Both sides want to see the region added to the UNESCO list.

Team A's point of view is that the UNESCO listing need not mean the end of industrial activity in the area and would simply deservedly highlight the region's importance in the history of human civilisation.

However, Team B say the opposite and that the UNESCO listing should signal the end of and winding back of industry in the region.

So, if that's what the main, interested parties have to say, what about the numerous third parties involved in the discussion?

First and foremost, perhaps is what the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) had to say in their report prepared in advance of tonight's meeting, which is intended to act as a recommendation for how the UNESCO forum should vote.

In May, in a draft decision published on its website, it became clear that ICOMOS was recommending the application to add the Murujuga to the World Heritage List be refused and deferred back to the Australian government to address concerns about the impact of industrialisation and emissions on the petroglyphs.

Specifically, the committee called on the Commonwealth to "ensure the total removal of degrading acidic emissions, currently impacting upon the petroglyphs of the Murujuga Cultural Landscape", and "prevent any further industrial development."

Not surprisingly, Team B - while not happy to see the UNESCO listing bid fail - was thrilled with the report's conclusion as it openly said the area's emissions were damaging the rock art.

Team A was understandably less impressed.

In fact, Team A's efforts since then have been an exercise in lobbying the UNESCO decision-making nations to ignore the ICMOS advice and simply add the Murujuga site to their list "as is."

And that's what they'll still be hoping happens at tonight's meeting.

In what's been undoubtedly a busy week in Paris, the ante has been well and truly upped with the emergence of a PhD paper from Bonn University.

This research - by a Dr Jolam Neumann - somewhat contradicts the MRAP report's conclusion and says the region's rocks are "most likely impacted by industrial pollution, with weathering rates very likely already accelerated." 

Unsurprisingly this thesis has been leapt upon by Team B as more evidence to support their claims.

And then - just as it looked like all the pieces were in place for the UNESCO body to make its decision - comes news - literally at the 11th hour – that an international delegation led by Kenya and supported by Senegal, Zambia, Rwanda, Ukraine, Republic of Korea, Japan and Qatar – has filed a proposition to the UNESCO board with significant amendments which would swiftly add the Murujuga site to the Heritage List but would also undo almost all conditions aimed at curtailing industrial activity in the region. (Lobbying in action?).

While the ICOMOS proposal said the bid should not succeed until the Australian government had moved to prevent any further industrial development in the area, develop decommissioning and rehabilitation plans for the existing industrial projects, and ensure the "total removal of degrading acidic emissions" that could harm the one million-plus pieces of rock art in the area, all those references have been removed from the amended motion.

Unsurprisingly again, Team B's cheerleader Cooper said she is "deeply concerned that the amendment being pushed by the Australian government will dramatically weaken these critical recommendations. If the government gets its way, the changes would pave the way for further industrial development."

No intelligent person can deny the significance of the Murujuga rock art. It is unique and deserves recognition and protection.

But just as that is an undeniable fact, it is also undeniable that WA's, Australia's and thousands, if not millions of peoples' prosperity relies on the type of industry which is accused of damaging the rock art.

Yes, of course we shouldn't wilfully damage amazing examples of human history, but similarly we shouldn't be dismissive of the need for nation-building industries.

We'll hopefully know which way the UNESCO body has voted by Monday and ENB will bring you all the analysis on the weekend's events.

In the meantime…à votre santé.

À bientôt,

Russell Yeo