UK taxpayer-backed Royal Bank of Scotland has ruled out investment in a controversial coal port development that could threaten Australia's Great Barrier Reef.
The bank, which is 80% owned by taxpayers since being bailed out in 2008, is the latest financial institution to state it will not finance expansion of Abbot Point coal terminal near Bowen, Queensland, following similar moves by HSBC and Deutsche Bank.
The terminal will export coal from nine major mines planned for Queensland's Galilee Basin and its expansion involves dumping three million cubic metres of dredged material in the Great Barrier Reef world heritage site.
Environmental campaigners and scientists fear the dumping of dredged material could damage the ecosystem of the reef, with sediment potentially smothering corals and seagrasses and exposing them to pollutants and elevated levels of nutrients.
In a tweet, RBS said: "We are not involved in financing the expansion of Abbot Point & have no plans to be involved in the future."
The move by RBS came as world heritage body Unesco deferred a decision on whether to add the Great Barrier Reef to its World Heritage in Danger list until 2015.
If listed, it would be one of only a handful of world heritage sites in developed countries which are considered to be in danger, joining Liverpool's historic centre and docklands and Everglades National Park in the US.
Unesco is concerned about the impact of planned coastal developments, including ports and liquefied natural gas facilities, and said it had asked Australia to submit an updated report on the state of conservation of the site by February next year.
World Heritage Centre director Kishore Rao said the decision adopted by the World Heritage Committee, who are currently meeting in Doha, Qatar, welcomed progress made by Australia in managing the reef.
"Unesco is confident the overall direction towards next year's decision is a positive one," he said.
But environmental charity WWF-Australia said its government had been put on notice that it had to take stronger action to protect the reef, which supports more than 60,000 jobs and brings in billions of pounds a year in tourism revenue.
WWF-Australia reef campaigner Richard Leck said: "The Australian and Queensland governments must take responsibility, lift their game and improve management of the Reef.
"If not they face the shame of having the Reef declared 'World Heritage in Danger' in 2015, putting at risk thousands of tourism jobs.
"Australia has clearly not lived up to the standards expected by the international community when it comes to protecting the Reef."
Campaigners welcomed the move by RBS to rule out investment in the Abbot Point project.
Felicity Wishart, Great Barrier Reef campaigner for the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said: "While the Australian and Queensland governments have approved millions of tonnes of destructive dredging and dumping at Abbot Point, it is heartening to see global financial institutions such as the RBS take leadership and reject investment in projects that will damage the Reef."
"The health of the Great Barrier Reef is already suffering due to poor water quality.
"Port expansions would mean millions of tonnes of seabed being dredged and dumped in the Reef's waters - sediment would cloud the water, damaging seagrass and coral, making matters far worse."
Ben Pearson, of Greenpeace, said: "It is great to see that three global investment banks have now publicly distanced themselves from this risky, irresponsible project.
"It will be interesting to see if other British banks follow their lead over the coming months - particularly in the light of the strong concern that Unesco have expressed around the port projects."
The Great Barrier Reef covers an area of 348,000 square kilometres (133,000 square miles) along the north-eastern coastline of Australia and has been a world heritage site since 1981.
It is home to 400 types of coral, 1,500 species of fish and 4,000 types of mollusc.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article