Once on a list, treaties require countries to protect the site.

Because of that, the decision whether to ask UNESCO to put that sticker on a site is a political choice.

Nearest Western-international parallel might be Bears Ears in the US. There are specific features likely to hold off development, but other areas are sparse or remote wilderness less likely to survive political assault?

Like, I could phrase this more inflammatorily, but the idea that "oh, the responsible white/asian leaders should hold the land in _trust_ for the natives, until they're responsible enough to take care of it properly"... is pretty indefensible, IMO.

So I know people who have found things that are archeologically important and they dig it up, drive to a forest and throw it away. About two years ago a neighbor of a person at work found a big intact sword and they asked guy at work that is into history of that area. He was then consulted in secrete because they didn't dare go to the government for losing land valued at 200 000+ USD. The sword was very likely real and should have been displayed in a museum.

So unless the government start paying real market prices for the area they create special status for, then many people will not report and instead hide it. Anytime the government here take some special are such as woods and give "fair" compensation, people are never happy because the government gives you X and you have no choice.

If it’s that valuable buy it. Don’t take it, buy it.

This is an interesting take on the word corrupt - why is valuing present needs a corrupt outcome?

Most of the European settlers in Australia sacrificed their cultural heritage; they have no ready access to any of the cultural treasures of Europe or their ancestral lands. They have no moral right to tell the Aboriginal communities to do as they say rather than they do.

And how many people do you know who are interested enough to go and visit these potential 'world heritage' sites? We've got hundreds if not thousands of them in the Pilbara, and yet it isn't a tourist destination. I'd hazard that up until the mines got involved literally nobody knew or cared how long they'd been there. They aren't remotely important world heritage. They showcase nothing about the world except that humans have been a species for some time now. There is no heritage here that anyone cares enough about to go and look at, outside of maybe making a political point (and even then, the Pilbara is a long way to go for a protest). Australia is festooned with ancient Aboriginal sites. I've never seen a mine that doesn't have Aboriginal sites within the perimeter.

The papers are wildly underestimating how common 'aboriginal sites' are.

In fact, some legal framework of this kind already exists, through the UNESCO World Heritage sites. If anything, I believe that tends to have problems in not recognizing enough First Peoples sites as important, rather than being too protective of them.

The fact that wealthier countries have more resources to put towards preservation and so nominate of their own UNESCO sites is big problem with the whole system. The Eurocentric bias of the UNESCO committee's selection of which sites actually make it onto the list is another one that's been debated for a while.

As I see it, it's their ancestral land, and they're willing to destroy their cultural heritage for $$$. Perhaps they're in dire financial circumstances, or perhaps they don't care about their cultural heritage all that much. We don't know. Either way, it's their choice and that is a good thing.

There's an ongoing Intervention in the Northern Territories where the rural Indigenous communities are basically being nannied. They can't buy alcohol, they have state-issued debit cards that will only buy "good" things like healty groceries and clothes.

If the state treats them as responsible adults who can make their own decisions, then a large proportion of them choose, as adults, to get drunk most of the time. Then the state gets shouted at for allowing the Indigenous communities to become cesspits that no-one can live in.

If the state treats them as "chldren" - people who cant make sensible decisions - then the state gets a reputation for racism and colonialism.

It's the exact same problem we have with addicts: the only person who can stop the problem is the addict, but they have to get to the point where they want to stop first. And that means a lot of self-harm and the risk of death to get to that point.

Using that analogy, this is your junkie nephew stealing family heirlooms from your grandma's house to sell so that they can buy more junk.

note: obviously not all Indigenous folks are junkies/alcoholics or bad people. There are good people out there struggling to cope with a terrible situation, and I wish we could help them more.

I am not implying that though. Please do not put words in my mouth.

> but the idea that ...

This is not what I said.

If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like.

> A listed site gains international recognition and legal protection, and can obtain funds from among others the World Heritage Fund to facilitate its conservation under certain conditions.

This is what has happened.

It’s going to be preserved as an open cut iron ore mine.

These arguments typically come from the hearts of post industrial societies that have already exploited their resources, cultural, environmental, and otherwise, leaving them in the aftermath with only token conservation efforts in their regions and essentially no skin in the game elsewhere.

Thus: capitalism for me, none for thee.