tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/reef-2050-plan-15716/articlesReef 2050 plan – The Conversation2017-09-01T05:27:55Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/832332017-09-01T05:27:55Z2017-09-01T05:27:55ZThe new Great Barrier Reef pollution plan is better, but still not good enough<p>The draft <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/assets/reef-2050-water-quality-improvement-plan-2017-draft.pdf">water quality improvement plan</a>, released by the federal and Queensland governments this week, aims to reduce the pollution flowing from water catchments to the Great Barrier Reef over the next five years. </p>
<p>It is part of the overarching <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/long-term-sustainability-plan">Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan</a> to protect and manage the reef until mid-century. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/cloudy-issue-we-need-to-fix-the-barrier-reefs-murky-waters-39380">Water quality</a> is one of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/great-barrier-reef-threats-series-17189">biggest threats to the reef’s health</a>, but the new guidelines still fall short of what’s required, given the available scientific evidence. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cloudy-issue-we-need-to-fix-the-barrier-reefs-murky-waters-39380">Cloudy issue: we need to fix the Barrier Reef's murky waters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The draft plan, which is open for comment until October, presents several important and commendable advances in the management of water quality on the Great Barrier Reef. It addresses all land-based sources of water pollution (agricultural, urban, public lands and industrial) and includes social, cultural and economic values for the first time. </p>
<p>The principal sources of pollution are nitrogen loss from fertiliser use on sugar cane lands, fine sediment loss from erosion on grazing lands, and pesticide losses from cropping lands. These are all major risk factors for the Great Barrier Reef. </p>
<p>The draft plan also presents updated water quality targets that call for reductions in run-off nutrients and fine sediments by 2025. Each of the 35 catchments that feeds onto the reef has <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/catchment-targets/">its own individual set of targets</a>, thus helping to prioritise pollution-reduction measures across a region almost as large as Sweden. </p>
<h2>The reef’s still suffering</h2>
<p>The Great Barrier Reef suffered coral <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7645/full/nature21707.html">bleaching</a> and <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/reef-health">death</a> over vast areas in 2016, and again this year. The <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/scientific-consensus-statement/">2017 Scientific Consensus Statement</a>, released with the draft water quality plan (and on which one of us, Jon Brodie, was an author), reports:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Key Great Barrier Reef ecosystems continue to be in poor condition. This is largely due to the collective impact of land run-off associated with past and ongoing catchment development, coastal development activities, extreme weather events and climate change impacts such as the 2016 and 2017 coral bleaching events.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stronger action on the local and regional causes of coral death are seen to be <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7656/full/nature22901.html">essential for recovery</a> at locations where poor water quality is a major cause of reef decline. These areas include mid-shelf reefs in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ecocheck-australias-wet-tropics-are-worth-billions-if-we-can-keep-out-the-invading-ants-56815">Wet Tropics region</a> damaged by crown of thorns starfish, and inner-shelf reefs where turbid waters stop light reaching coral and seagrass. Human-driven threats, especially land-based pollution, must be effectively managed to reduce the impacts on the Great Barrier Reef.</p>
<p>But although the draft plan provides improved targets and a framework for reducing land-based pollution, it still doesn’t reflect the severity of the situation. The 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement reports that “current initiatives will not meet the water quality targets” by 2025. </p>
<p>This is because the draft plan does not provide any major new funding, legislation or other initiatives to drive down land-based pollution any further. As the statement explains:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To accelerate the change in on-ground management, improvements to governance, program design, delivery and evaluation systems are urgently needed. This will require greater incorporation of social and economic factors, better targeting and prioritisation, exploration of alternative management options and increased support and resources.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reefs-safety-net-is-becoming-more-complex-but-less-effective-75053">The Great Barrier Reef's safety net is becoming more complex but less effective</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The draft plan calls on farmers to go “beyond minimum standards” for practices such as fertiliser use in sugar cane, and minimum pasture cover in cattle grazing lands. But even the minimum standards are unlikely to be widely adopted unless governments implement existing legislation to enforce the current standards.</p>
<p>The draft plan is also silent on the impact of <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-better-policy-to-end-the-alarming-increase-in-land-clearing-63507">land clearing</a> on water quality, and the conversion of grazing land to intensively farmed crops such as sugar cane, as proposed in the <a href="http://northernaustralia.gov.au/files/files/NAWP-FullReport.pdf">White Paper on Developing Northern Australia</a>.</p>
<p>The federal and Queensland governments have committed A$2 billion over ten years to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Under the draft plan, about half of this (A$100 million a year) will be spent on water quality management. This is not an increase in resourcing, but rather the same level of funding that has been provided for the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771416301469">past seven years</a>.</p>
<h2>More than loose change</h2>
<p>There is a very strong business case for major increases in funding to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Even with conservative assumptions, the economics firm Jacobs has estimated that protecting the industries that depend on the reef will require <a href="https://www.qff.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Jacobs-report-15-12-16.pdf">A$830 million in annual funding</a> – more than four times the current level. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-economic-value-of-the-great-barrier-reef-its-priceless-80061">What's the economic value of the Great Barrier Reef? It's priceless</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The draft water quality plan acknowledges the need for a “step change” in reef management, and to “accelerate our collective efforts to improve the land use practices of everyone living and working in the catchments adjacent to the Reef”. </p>
<p>This need is echoed in many other reports, both government and scientific. For example, the <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/scientific-consensus-statement/">2017 Scientific Consensus Statement</a> makes several wide-ranging recommendations.</p>
<p>One of them is to make better use of <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13262/abstract">existing legislation and policies</a>, including <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771416301469">both voluntary and regulatory approaches</a>, to improve water quality standards. </p>
<p>This recommendation applies to both Commonwealth and <a href="https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2009/09AC042.pdf">Queensland</a> laws. These include the federal <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00551">Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975</a>, which restricts or bans any activities that “may pollute water in a manner harmful to animals and plants in the Marine Park”, and the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</a>, which prohibits any action, inside or outside the marine park, that affects the Great Barrier Reef’s World Heritage values.</p>
<p>Another recommendation is to rethink existing land-use plans. For instance, even the best practice in sugar cane farming is <a href="https://terrain.org.au/projects/water-quality-improvement-plan/">inconsistent with the nitrogen fertiliser run-off limits</a> needed to meet <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/how-the-reefs-managed/water-quality-in-the-great-barrier-reef/water-quality-guidelines-for-the-great-barrier-reef">water quality guidelines</a>. One option is to shift to less intensive land uses such as grazing in the Wet Tropics region – a <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/assets/2017-scientific-consensus-statement-summary-chap03.pdf">priority area</a> for nitrate fertiliser management because of its link to <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/9/1/17">crown of thorns starfish outbreaks</a>. This option is being explored in a <a href="http://nesptropical.edu.au/index.php/round-2-projects/project-2-1-2/">NESP project</a>. </p>
<p>These changes would require significantly increased funding to support catchment and coastal management and to meet the draft plan’s <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/catchment-targets/">targets</a>. Government commitment to this level of management is essential to support the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Brodie receives funding from the Australian Government; Queensland Government; UNEP; the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, NZ; Melbourne Water; NSW EPA. He was also an author of the 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement: Land Use Impacts on Great Barrier Reef Water Quality and Ecosystem Condition.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laurence McCook is a Partner Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alana Grech does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The updated plan for improving water quality on the Great Barrier Reef still doesn’t address the need to curb intensively farmed crops such as sugar cane, and to enforce existing environmental laws.Jon Brodie, Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook UniversityAlana Grech, Assistant Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook UniversityLaurence McCook, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, Partner Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/440052015-06-30T05:23:44Z2015-06-30T05:23:44ZIt’s time for the new Great Barrier Reef expert panel to wade into the issue<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86780/original/image-20150629-9090-1jgvw8w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government has convened 16 experts to help deliver its plan to save the Great Barrier Reef.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Federal environment minister Greg Hunt has announced the make-up of the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2015/mr20150627.html">Independent Expert Panel</a> of 16 leading experts who will advise the government on actions and priorities relating to the Great Barrier Reef. As an Australian who is passionate about the future of our Reef, I am honoured to have been selected and stand ready to serve. </p>
<p>Over recent years there have been lots of panels, and even more reports, about the Reef and its health. So what will the new one bring to the table? </p>
<p>We will mainly be advising on how best to progress with the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/long-term-sustainability-plan">Reef 2050 Plan</a> – the umbrella for protecting and managing the Great Barrier Reef from today until 2050. It is a key component of the federal and Queensland governments’ response to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-reprieved-now-it-must-prove-it-can-care-for-the-reef-42330">recommendations of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-reprieved-now-it-must-prove-it-can-care-for-the-reef-42330">Recent concerns</a> over whether or not the Great Barrier Reef should be added to the official list of <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/">World Heritage In Danger</a> rested partly on whether or not state and federal governments are taking appropriate steps to reverse the Reef’s <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.short">clear decline</a> over the past several decades.</p>
<p>The Reef 2050 Plan, <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-03-21/long-term-sustainability-plan-australias-iconic-great-barrier-reef">announced earlier this year</a> by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Queensland Premier Annastasia Palaszczuk, together with federal and state environment ministers, aims to protect the Outstanding Universal Values (OUV) that define the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.</p>
<p>The plan consists of hundreds of actions, as well as several clear targets, such as:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Improving water quality by reducing dissolved inorganic nitrogen loads in priority areas by at least 50% by 2018, on the way to achieving an overall reduction of 80% in inorganic nitrogen by 2025.</p></li>
<li><p>Reducing pesticide loads by at least 60% in priority areas by 2018</p></li>
<li><p>Improving the net condition of natural wetlands and riverside vegetation by 2020</p></li>
<li><p>Stabilising or increasing the populations of dolphins, dugongs and turtles by 2020.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>While the plan been <a href="https://www.science.org.au/node/450347#.VZHFKM-qpBc">criticised by the Australian Academy of Science</a> as being too modest in scope, these targets nevertheless represent a considerable challenge, particularly given the short deadlines. And the targets and deadlines are consistent with the seriousness of the specific problems facing the Great Barrier Reef.</p>
<p>The new independent expert panel features a balance of expertise, including ecologists, water quality experts and climate change experts, as well as agricultural and conservation scientists. Australia’s Chief Scientist Ian Chubb will chair the panel, which besides supporting the implementation and review of the Reef 2050 Plan will also advise on the <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/">Reef Water Quality Protection Plan</a>, help guide the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/reef-trust">Reef Trust</a>, and perform other related actions aimed at reversing the downward trend of the Reef’s health.</p>
<p>This panel will also interact with the recently established <a href="http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2015/5/7/chief-scientist-leads-new-taskforce-to-help-save-great-barrier-reef">Great Barrier Reef Water Science Task Force</a>, chaired by Queensland’s Chief Scientist Geoff Garrett. Given the complex set of arrangements for protecting the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland will also be looking at the issue from its own perspective.</p>
<p>All eyes are now on Australia, with this being the first of many steps to be taken by the federal government to reverse the decline of one of the nation’s (and the world’s) greatest environmental assets. With a rapidly changing climate posing one of the severest threats the Great Barrier Reef, federal government leadership is also required at <a href="http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en">the United Nations Paris climate summit</a> later this year.</p>
<p>Reducing Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases remains an urgent priority. Meanwhile, tackling the ever-present dangers from declining coastal water quality remains critically important for Australia and its Great Barrier Reef.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44005/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Hoegh-Guldberg undertakes research on coral reef ecosystems and their response to rapid environmental change, which is supported primarily by the Australian Research Council (Canberra), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Washington, D.C.), Catlin Group (London), and Great Barrier Reef Foundation (Brisbane). He is a member of the Federal Independent Expert Panel and Queensland State Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce. He did not receive salary for writing this article.</span></em></p>The government’s plan to save the Great Barrier Reef hinges on hitting a series of pollution and conservation targets within just a few years. A new expert panel will advise on how best to get there.Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/425482015-05-30T03:08:39Z2015-05-30T03:08:39ZThe Barrier Reef is not listed as in danger, but the threats remain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83438/original/image-20150530-15238-z6lcsq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1208%2C71%2C8291%2C4607&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's still too early to declare that it's blue skies for the Great Barrier Reef.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALady_Elliot_Island_SVII.jpg">Underwater Earth/Catlin Seaview Survey/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3234">draft decision</a> by UNESCO and IUCN proposes not to list the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) World Heritage Area as “in danger”, but it does put Australia on notice. It requests a progress report by 1 December 2016, vowing that if “the anticipated progress is not being made”, the GBR will be considered by the Committee in 2017. </p>
<p>At this stage, these are only recommendations, and the draft decision will be considered at the Committee’s meeting in Germany in <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/39com/">late June</a>, when the actual wording of the decision will be finalised.</p>
<p>The Committee does not always accept the wording in draft decisions and in recent years has often made amendments. Various factors can influence the views of its <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/committee/">21 member countries</a>, so the final outcome may well depend on the Committee’s deliberations at the meeting. </p>
<h2>The real state of the Reef</h2>
<p>Either way, the reality is that despite all the pronouncements by the Australian government that the GBR is healthy, the evidence contained in its <a href="http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/2855">2014 Outlook Report</a> and <a href="http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/2861/1/GBR%20Region%20SA_Strategic%20Assessment%20Report_FINAL.pdf">Strategic Assessment</a> has repeatedly demonstrated that the real situation is not as rosy as UNESCO and others are being told.</p>
<p>The following examples, from the Strategic Assessment, reveal the deterioration in many of the world heritage values for which the GBR was recognised as being internationally significant in 1981:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Since 1985, hard coral cover has <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.short">declined</a> from 28% to 13.8%, mainly in the southern two-thirds of the Reef.</p></li>
<li><p>Significant, widespread losses of seagrass have occurred in areas directly affected by cyclones Yasi (2011), Marcia (2015) and Nathan (2015); seagrass abundance south of Cooktown has <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/21743/VA-Seagrass-31-7-12.pdf">declined since 2009</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>Catastrophic nesting failures at globally significant seabird breeding areas have been recorded in the southern GBR, and the number of breeding seabirds on Raine Island has <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/21730/gbrmpa-VA-OffshorePelagicSeabirds-11-7-12.pdf">fallen by 70% since the 1980s</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>The dugong population south of Cooktown has drastically declined from 1962 levels (see <a href="http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/2861/1/GBR%20Region%20SA_Strategic%20Assessment%20Report_FINAL.pdf">chapter 7, page 13 here</a>).</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Differing perspectives?</h2>
<p>The government’s 2014 <a href="http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/2855">Outlook Report</a> concluded that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor, has worsened since 2009 and is expected to further deteriorate in the future. Greater reductions of threats at all levels, Reef-wide, regional and local, are required to prevent the projected declines in the Great Barrier Reef.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To make doubly sure the GBR was not listed as “in danger”, diplomatic lobbying <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-11/government-outlines-travel-costs-to-lobby-for-barrier-reef/6460740">seems to have become the government’s main focus</a> in recent months, when what is really needed is a serious and continuous focus on addressing the issues highlighted in its own reports. </p>
<p>The government’s view about the overall health of the GBR differs from that of many concerned individuals and organisations throughout Australia. There is a widespread belief that not enough has been done to ensure the restoration of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-courting-danger-with-the-great-barrier-reef-20411">world heritage values</a>, especially those shown to be deteriorating. This has led many, including the <a href="https://www.science.org.au/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan">Australian Academy of Science</a>, to state that the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan</a> is deficient, particularly given the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2604.html">projected changes</a> over the next 35 years. </p>
<p>Concerns for the GBR include <a href="https://theconversation.com/coal-and-climate-change-a-death-sentence-for-the-great-barrier-reef-39252">climate change</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/cloudy-issue-we-need-to-fix-the-barrier-reefs-murky-waters-39380">water quality</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/development-and-the-reef-the-rules-have-been-lax-for-too-long-39383">coastal development</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/shipping-in-the-great-barrier-reef-the-miners-highway-39251">shipping</a>, and <a href="http://www.angfaqld.org.au/aqp/blog/2013/10/16/evidence-of-unsustainable-fishing-in-the-gbr/">unsustainable fishing</a>. The Reef 2050 Plan will need to improve in all these areas if it is to achieve its intended aims. </p>
<p>A group of eminent Australians has also recently voiced their <a href="http://clivehamilton.com/australian-scientists-urge-banks-not-to-finance-galilee-basin-coal-projects/">concerns</a> about issues that will further impact on the GBR.</p>
<h2>Unprecedented lobbying</h2>
<p>The international <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/14/australia-lobbies-unesco-stop-listing-great-barrier-reef-as-in-danger">lobbying</a> about the GBR in 2014-15 has included senior government officials visiting all the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-spends-100000-on-travel-to-lobby-against-unesco-reef-listing-20150511-ggyydi.html">countries</a> on the Committee and briefing diplomats in Canberra and in Paris, offering <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/great-barrier-reef-lobbying-australian-government-offers-junkets-to-journalists">GBR junkets to overseas journalists</a>, and providing briefings to technical experts from many countries, including <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/environment/will-the-great-barrier-reef-be-declared-endangered-by-the-united-nations-20150528-ghby2a.html">paying for visits</a> to the Reef or to resort islands. </p>
<p>The government’s consistent message during all of this lobbying is that the GBR is healthy, and adequate financing will be available to implement the Reef 2050 Plan. </p>
<p>However, several overseas experts have recently told me that the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/great-barrier-reef-mining-industry-told-foreign-journalists-ports-not-a-danger-20150526-gh8uwt.html">briefings</a> may not have <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-ways-australia-is-selectively-reporting-to-the-un-on-the-great-barrier-reef-37161">provided the full picture</a>. One example is the much-touted ban on dumping dredge spoil from port developments in the Marine Park, without raising the fact that about a million tonnes of maintenance dredging spoil will continue to be dumped every year in the World Heritage Area.</p>
<p>The expensive, excessive and selective lobbying about the GBR sets a poor global example in attempting to influence the decision-making processes of the World Heritage Committee. </p>
<h2>What is the view of the tourism sector?</h2>
<p>It has been claimed that tourism would suffer if the GBR were listed as “in danger”. The reality is that most tourist operators know only too well that the outlook for the GBR is poor, and many of them agree with Tony Fontes, a Whitsundays dive operator, who wrote to me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“In-danger” listing … might actually be the catalyst to ensure the GBR is properly protected. Clearly more effective protection is essential now if we are to ensure tourism in the GBR is able to exist well into the future. Over the 35 years that I have been operating as a tourist operator, I have seen huge changes in the GBR. It’s clear the current management approach is not working to maintain the values which are the real draw cards for visitors, so more needs to be done to better protect the Reef, or the declining values are going to have an impact on the tourism industry in the future anyway.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Why more resources are needed</h2>
<p>The government’s pledge to spend <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/greg-hunt-bans-dumping-in-great-barrier-reef-marine-park-20150316-1m02z1">A$2 billion over 10 years</a> is no more than the current collective annual expenditure (A$200 million) of four federal agencies, six state agencies and several major research programs over the coming decade. </p>
<p>So far, most funding has been spent addressing water quality, and while it has achieved some positive results, it has not managed to <a href="https://theconversation.com/cloudy-issue-we-need-to-fix-the-barrier-reefs-murky-waters-39380">stop the deteriorating trends</a>. According to <a href="http://www.rgc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Investment-Plan-NRM-proposal-190115.pdf">one estimate</a>, fixing the water quality problem alone will cost A$785 million over the first five years, and more beyond. </p>
<p>Even with an <a href="http://www.greghunt.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/133/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3275/179-million-boost-to-Green-Army-and-100-million-for-Reef-Trust.aspx">extra A$100 million for the Reef Trust in the Federal Budget</a>, the funding is inadequate to deliver fully on the government’s promised plans. </p>
<p>The GBR generates <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/66417/Economic-contribution-of-the-Great-Barrier-Reef-2013.pdf">more than A$5 billion every year</a>, mainly from tourism. In economic terms, spending between A$200 million and $250 million per year to manage an asset that generates 20-25 times as much in revenue, but is declining, puts that future income in jeopardy. </p>
<p>If governments insist that further funds are unable be to found, then a re-prioritization of the existing funding must be undertaken to ensure the GBR’s values are restored.</p>
<h2>Listing “in danger” would not have fixed the problems</h2>
<p>An “in danger” listing, in and of itself, would not save the GBR. It would undoubtedly have raised international awareness of the problems, but those problems will still have to be addressed either way. Hopefully the government will now be <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-reprieved-now-it-must-prove-it-can-care-for-the-reef-42330">encouraged by what it will see as a favourable outcome</a>.</p>
<p>The government has been asked to report back on its policies next year, and on the status of the GBR in 2019. But given the clear evidence of the declining values, annual reporting to UNESCO should be required until it can be shown that the deteriorating trends have been reversed and the Reef 2050 Plan has been improved. The Outlook Report, while an comprehensive report on the overall status of the GBR, is deficient in the one thing that UNESCO needs to know: a thorough assessment of the condition and trend of all the world heritage values. </p>
<p>Irrespective of UNESCO’s final decision next month, Australia must do more to address the wide range of the threats identified in its own reports, and to show a genuine commitment to restoring the values of the GBR for the sake of future generations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Day worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority between 1986 and 2014, and was one of its directors between 1998-2014. He was also one of the Australian delegates to the World Heritage Commitee from 2007-11.</span></em></p>Whether it’s on the official “in danger” list or not, the Great Barrier Reef is clearly under threat. UNESCO has placed its faith in Australia, but without urgent action the problems will not go away.Jon C. Day, PhD candidate, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies , James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/393832015-05-28T20:12:55Z2015-05-28T20:12:55ZDevelopment and the Reef: the rules have been lax for too long<p><em>This article is part of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/great-barrier-reef-threats-series">series</a> examining in depth the various threats to the Great Barrier Reef.</em></p>
<p>The Great Barrier Reef, in one of the world’s <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/how-the-reefs-managed">best-managed marine parks</a>, might seem safe enough from human activities on land. But its future depends to a large degree on what people do alongside it. </p>
<p>The Reef’s coastline spans about 2,300 km, and its catchment is home to 1,165,000 people, most of whom live along the coast. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park attracts some 1.6 million tourists each year, while the coastal zone produces or exports large volumes of farming and mining products. </p>
<p>While most development has been in the southern two-thirds of the Reef’s coast, south of Cooktown, much of the Reef’s coastal zone has been converted (see pages 6-36 <a href="http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/2861/1/GBR%20Region%20SA_Strategic%20Assessment%20Report_FINAL.pdf">here</a>) to various land uses, such as housing and other <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15000792">urban infrastructure</a> like roads, drainage, commercial and light-industry areas, and tourism facilities. Land has been developed for sugar cane and other crops, aquaculture, stock grazing, highways, railways, refineries and other industrial developments, and ports. </p>
<p>People have changed the Reef’s coastal zone dramatically, and the direct result is the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.short">decline of the Reef’s ecosystems</a>. Further declines are likely, but not inevitable – with enough commitment, we can improve the Reef’s condition.</p>
<h2>Effects of coastal development</h2>
<p>The beauty, biological richness, and cultural values that have made the Great Barrier Reef a <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/154">World Heritage Area</a>, not to mention a global and national icon, are at stake, as UNESCO weighs up <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-list-of-world-heritage-in-danger-15679">whether to add the Reef to the List of World Heritage in Danger</a>. </p>
<p>The water that flows into the Reef’s lagoon is <a href="https://theconversation.com/cloudy-issue-we-need-to-fix-the-barrier-reefs-murky-waters-39380">polluted with sediments, nutrients and pesticides</a>. <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/4090/preliminary-study-of-potential-impacts-1998.pdf">Urban development</a> is a big contributor, while some tourism developments, such as <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/hinchinbrook/report/c04">Port Hinchinbrook</a>, have been ecologically damaging because of poor planning or inappropriate fast-tracking.</p>
<p>Many coastal waterways have been <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14000402">blocked by roads and dams</a>; recreational and commercial fishing have damaged habitats and populations of dolphins and dugongs (see page 127 <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/cdn/2014/GBRMPA-Outlook-Report-2014/">here</a>); and <a href="https://theconversation.com/shipping-in-the-great-barrier-reef-the-miners-highway-39251">shipping traffic</a> is set to increase markedly, with the associated port development posing a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-can-we-say-for-certain-about-dredging-and-the-great-barrier-reef-39181">threat from dredging</a>. </p>
<p>Add <a href="https://theconversation.com/coal-and-climate-change-a-death-sentence-for-the-great-barrier-reef-39252">climate change</a> to the mix, and the upshot is a long list of threats (see page 256 <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/cdn/2014/GBRMPA-Outlook-Report-2014/">here</a>) to the Reef, some of which are set to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2604.html">intensify rapidly</a>. </p>
<p>The danger is death by a thousand cuts. No single development has tipped the balance, but a litany of poor choices has resulted in a <a href="http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/9/728.abstract">tyranny of small decisions</a>, with a large <a href="https://theconversation.com/it-all-adds-up-port-development-on-the-great-barrier-reef-19708">cumulative impact</a>. </p>
<p>The problem is simple, even if the solutions are not: a long succession of piecemeal developments and government approvals has ignored or failed to understand the environmental problems, and put <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/content/mouse-roars-coal-queensland-economy">short-term gain</a> before the long-term survival of the Reef.</p>
<h2>What are we doing about it?</h2>
<p>To the casual observer, checks and balances seem to be in place for safeguarding the Reef. Large developments are subject to environmental impact assessments (EIAs), while there are systems aimed at monitoring cumulative damage and offsetting any environmental losses. </p>
<p>The reality is different. The <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X13003822">EIA process is broken</a>, with a focus on bureaucratic procedure instead of good environmental outcomes, and permit conditions are not being monitored. Offsets are <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114000902">poorly implemented</a>, preventing real compensation for environmental losses, and the assessment of cumulative impacts is primitive.</p>
<p>Last year, when the Federal and Queensland governments released their <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/consultations/8b8f5023-3cfb-4310-bc51-1136aa5d875a/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainaiblity-plan.pdf">draft 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan</a>, they acknowledged that the greatest risks to the Reef are “climate change, poor water quality from land-based run off, impacts from coastal development and some fishing activities”. In a <a href="https://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-content/response-to-the-draft-reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">critical response</a>, the Australian Academy of Science pointed out that the draft plan would promote further coastal development and fail to assess and mitigate the resulting impacts on the Reef.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">revised Reef 2050 Plan</a>, released in March, is still short on specific commitments to tackle the impacts of coastal development. The Academy <a href="https://www.science.org.au/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan">remains concerned</a>. </p>
<p>Some statements of achievement don’t stand up to close scrutiny. For example, the ban on marine dumping of dredge spoil from new port developments leaves the Queensland government with the problem of deciding where else it will go, with the environmental impacts still unknown. And the plan is vague about the management of around a million cubic metres a year of spoil from maintenance dredging at existing ports. </p>
<p>The Reef Trust, bolstered by an <a href="http://www.greghunt.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/133/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3275/179-million-boost-to-Green-Army-and-100-million-for-Reef-Trust.aspx">extra $100 million in the recent Federal Budget</a>, provides welcome additional funding, although not enough to address all the threats to the Reef. And some of the Reef Trust money amounts to a levy on developers who damage the Great Barrier Reef, with the funds set to be used in ways that are obscure and – if <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114000902">past performance</a> is any guide – possibly ineffective. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">Reef 2050 Plan</a> sets targets for ecosystem health and biodiversity that are general and qualitative, making achievement subject to argument. Enhancements to management of coastal land-use change are described using terms such as “add to”, “require”, “strengthen”, and “ensure” – vaguely encouraging, but essentially lacking in specific commitment. </p>
<h2>Time to get serious</h2>
<p>If the Federal and Queensland governments are serious about reducing the impacts of present and future coastal development on the Great Barrier Reef, there are several ways forward. </p>
<p>First, the burden of proof should rest with developers. We have pushed the Great Barrier Reef to the point where there can be no more tolerance of uncertainty about the impacts of developments. Where there is any uncertainty, proponents of new developments must demonstrate that no harm will ensue.</p>
<p>Second, the environmental impact assessment process needs to be <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X13003822">made effective</a>, by appointing contractors capable of independent assessment, introducing peer-review of assessments, ensuring financial guarantees against unexpected impacts, and regular auditing of approval conditions.</p>
<p>Third, governments need to use the best available methods to assess cumulative impacts on the Reef as a result of changes in land and water use, coastal planning decisions, and the future demands for coal, sugar cane, tourism or other products. We have the ability to model the effects of all these factors on the Reef, using the best available data and expert opinion.</p>
<p>Fourth, there is an urgent need to tighten the process of environmental offsets, which are meant to deliver environmental benefits elsewhere to make up for damage caused by development. Above and beyond the need to first avoid or mitigate environmental damage from developments, offsets should be designed according to <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114000902">world’s best practice</a>, an appropriate standard for the Great Barrier Reef. </p>
<p>Fifth, targets for recovery of the Reef need actual numbers, not vague statements. And those numbers should, at any time, be the best available estimates of what is needed for the recovery of key ecosystems and species, coupled with ongoing monitoring. </p>
<p>Committed action on these five fronts would be a strong start toward reversing the decline of the Great Barrier Reef. There is no time to lose.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39383/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bob Pressey receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a scientific advisor to WWF-Australia and associated with the North Queensland Conservation Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marcus Sheaves is a member of the Hinchinbrook Local Marine Advisory Committee.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alana Grech and Jon C. Day do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The coast alongside the Great Barrier Reef is home to ports, farms, holiday resorts, and more than a million people. It all puts pressure on the Reef, and it’s time for some firms plans to manage it.Bob Pressey, Professor and Program Leader, Conservation Planning, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook UniversityAlana Grech, Lecturer in Spatial Information Science, Macquarie UniversityJon C. Day, PhD candidate, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies , James Cook UniversityMarcus Sheaves, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/156792015-05-25T20:06:32Z2015-05-25T20:06:32ZExplainer: what is the List of World Heritage in Danger?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26686/original/4ndj4v9k-1372739407.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C17%2C3843%2C2547&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When World Heritage sites are under threat, like Florida's Everglades National Park, they are added to the List of World Heritage in Danger. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/slack12</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The List of World Heritage in Danger has recently come to the attention of Australians, as <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-24/unesco-barrier-reef-decision-expected-this-week/6490516">the World Heritage Committee considers</a> whether the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-courting-danger-with-the-great-barrier-reef-20411">Great Barrier Reef belongs there</a>. What is the list, and what does getting onto it mean?</p>
<h2>The World Heritage Convention and the ‘in danger’ list</h2>
<p>The World Heritage Convention is <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/about/world/convention.html">an international convention adopted by UNESCO</a> aimed at conserving the world’s most outstanding heritage sites. The convention covers 190 countries that voluntarily participate in it. Identifying potential world heritage places is the responsibility of each participating country. </p>
<p>The World Heritage Committee – a 21-member body established by the convention but with membership elected by the member states – decides which sites make the list (there are <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list">currently 1,007</a>). Countries have to protect, conserve, communicate the value of, rehabilitate and transmit the sites to future generations. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26633/original/hgqz8934-1372658924.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26633/original/hgqz8934-1372658924.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26633/original/hgqz8934-1372658924.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26633/original/hgqz8934-1372658924.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26633/original/hgqz8934-1372658924.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26633/original/hgqz8934-1372658924.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26633/original/hgqz8934-1372658924.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The government of Honduras requested the World Heritage Committee place its Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve on the List in Danger because of its reduced capacity to manage the site. Lawlessness in the area led to illegal logging, fishing and land occupation, poaching and the presence of drug traffickers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hjvannes/Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The World Heritage Committee also publishes a second list: the “List of World Heritage in Danger”. </p>
<p>Normally, for a site to enter this list, its country asks for help to address serious threats. But in cases of urgent need, the committee can inscribe a site immediately and without the agreement of its country. Currently, 46 World Heritage Sites, 20 of which are natural, <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/">are on the List in Danger</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82820/original/image-20150525-32586-19ws8z8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82820/original/image-20150525-32586-19ws8z8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82820/original/image-20150525-32586-19ws8z8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82820/original/image-20150525-32586-19ws8z8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82820/original/image-20150525-32586-19ws8z8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82820/original/image-20150525-32586-19ws8z8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82820/original/image-20150525-32586-19ws8z8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82820/original/image-20150525-32586-19ws8z8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 46 sites currently on the List of World Heritage in Danger.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">UNESCO/Google Maps</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How are sites added to the list?</h2>
<p>The World Heritage Committee gets information about the state of conservation of sites from countries and from advisory bodies such as the <a href="http://www.iucn.org/">IUCN</a> (natural heritage) and <a href="http://www.icomos.org/en/">ICOMOS</a> (cultural heritage). Where threats have been identified or changes proposed that may adversely effect a World Heritage property, the committee may seek a detailed site examination. This happened on <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/strategic-assessment/monitoring-mission">the Great Barrier Reef in 2012</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26595/original/gf8jgqss-1372654534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26595/original/gf8jgqss-1372654534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26595/original/gf8jgqss-1372654534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26595/original/gf8jgqss-1372654534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26595/original/gf8jgqss-1372654534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26595/original/gf8jgqss-1372654534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26595/original/gf8jgqss-1372654534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System, the largest barrier reef in the Northern Hemisphere, was put on the World Heritage in Danger List for excessive development. The Great Barrier Reef is under scrutiny for similar concerns.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Asteiner/Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Two of the criteria used for placing a property on the list are ascertained and potential danger. Ascertained danger measures imminent threats, such as industrial development, to the site. Potential danger applies to development proposals that <em>could</em> undermine the essential character of the site.</p>
<h2>Why list a site as ‘in danger’?</h2>
<p>There are some advantages to a country of having a site listed as “in danger”. The World Heritage Committee can allocate funds to respond to the threats, typically under a plan drawn up with the country concerned. And it highlights to the world the threats that exist and encourages donor agencies to help. </p>
<p>For example, all five World Heritage Sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been on the endangered list since 1994, which has generated a large amount of international aid to support their rehabilitation. More than US$50 million has flowed not just from UNESCO but also from non-government organisations and from Belgium and Japan. This is an excellent example of the convention at work.</p>
<p>Countries may seek to avoid listing (and any perceived shame attached to this) and address the concerns internally. This occurred when Ecuador’s Galapagos World Heritage Area was inscribed.</p>
<p>Ecuador initially opposed the listing and asked for time to resolve the concerns internally. This required a constitutional change to empower the federal government to take appropriate action. Much to Ecuador’s credit, this was accomplished.</p>
<p>Few other countries have taken such dramatic action to protect World Heritage. On two occasions when countries have failed to respond appropriately, the committee has taken the radical step to remove sites from both Heritage lists altogether. The first to be removed was Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary - a victim of the nation’s lust for oil. </p>
<p>Every such removal would be seen as a failure of the convention. The presumption is that a site is rehabilitated and then upgraded to its original standing on the World Heritage list. </p>
<p>While there has been some debate about its efficacy and there are different interpretations about the significance and meaning of listing a site as “in danger”, the process is a very clear first step in the potential removal of a site from the World Heritage List.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15679/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Valentine is Adjunct Associate Professor at James Cook University and is a member of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. He has received funding from State and Federal Governments for World Heritage work.</span></em></p>The United Nations is set to decide whether to add the Great Barrier Reef to the List of World Heritage in Danger. But what is the list, and what does it mean for the places that are on it?Peter Valentine, Associate Professor Environmental Science, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/393802015-05-20T20:04:52Z2015-05-20T20:04:52ZCloudy issue: we need to fix the Barrier Reef’s murky waters<p><em>This article is part of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/great-barrier-reef-threats-series">series</a> examining in depth the various threats to the Great Barrier Reef.</em></p>
<p>Over the past 170 years, the dozens of river catchments that empty into the waters around the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) have seen huge amounts of agricultural and urban development. As a result, these rivers now wash significant amounts of sediments, nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticides onto the reef. </p>
<p>While difficult to estimate precisely, loads of fine sediment and nutrients have all increased by several times, while the waters are also polluted with synthetic organic pesticides that were <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749109001304">not there before about 70 years ago</a>.</p>
<p>The effects of these pollutants include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Waters less than 25 m deep have <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X14002902">become cloudier</a>, reducing the sunlight available for the growth of corals, seagrass and marine algae.</p></li>
<li><p>Outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish have <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-010-0628-z#page-1">become more frequent</a>
as a result of the extra nutrients in the water, increasing the rate of coral deaths.</p></li>
<li><p>Some reefs have shifted from being coral-dominated to being <a href="http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-2023.1">dominated instead by algae and other organisms</a>, again driven by increased nutrient loads.</p></li>
<li><p>Coral diseases have <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016893">increased</a> as water quality has declined.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These effects, <a href="https://theconversation.com/coal-and-climate-change-a-death-sentence-for-the-great-barrier-reef-39252">together with those of climate change</a>, have contributed to the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.seen%20over%20the%20past%20half-century">severe decline in the overall health of the GBR</a>.</p>
<h2>What is being done about it?</h2>
<p>By 2003, the scientific evidence was sufficiently strong, and the political climate sufficiently favourable, for an official plan to be drawn up to improve water quality on the reef. The result was the <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/assets/reefplan-2003.pdf">Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2003</a>, a joint effort between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. </p>
<p>The plan’s main focus was to improve farming practices in the water catchments that feed onto the GBR, through changes to fertiliser use, pesticide application and beef grazing management. But the plan was not substantially funded until 2008, when the Commonwealth government (with state support) finally provided A$200 million over five years, with farmers who successfully apply for grants having to match the funding themselves. </p>
<p>From 2008 to 2013, this investment delivered <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/2012-2013-report-card.aspx">modest successes</a> in reducing the burden of sediment, nutrients and pesticides on the reef. Reported improvements, after discounting time lags in the system, include on average 11% reductions in human-contributed fine sediments, 10% reductions in nitrogen, no reported reduction in phosphorus, and 28% reductions in targeted pesticides.</p>
<p>However these reductions fell well short of the actual targets set to be achieved by 2013: a 20% reduction in fine sediment, a 50% reduction in both nitrogen and phosphorus, and a 50% reduction in pesticide loads. What’s more, the <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/resources/assets/reef-plan-2013.pdf">updated version of the water quality plan</a>, released in 2013, sets new targets for 2018 but these, surprisingly, are only equal to or less than the targets originally set for 2013. </p>
<h2>Plans still not sufficient</h2>
<p>The basic problem is that these official water quality targets have never been strong enough to properly protect the species and ecosystems of the GBR. This is despite the fact that both the <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/assets/reefplan-2009.pdf">2009</a> and <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/resources/assets/reef-plan-2013.pdf">2013</a> editions of the water quality plan had an explicitly ecological goal: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>To ensure that by 2020 the quality of water entering the reef from broad scale land use has no detrimental effect on the reef’s health and resilience. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The current water quality targets are not set to achieve this overall goal. What we need instead are what I refer to as “ecologically relevant targets” (ERTs).</p>
<p>ERTs have already been developed to safeguard water quality in <a href="http://www.terrain.org.au/Projects/Water-Quality-Improvement-Plan/Studies-and-Reports">some regions of the GBR</a> such as the rivers of the Wet Tropics and the Burnett Mary region, and are also currently being prepared for the Burdekin and Fitzroy river regions.</p>
<p>Yet the message is still not getting through as far as the GBR is concerned. The Commonwealth and Queensland governments’ <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/long-term-sustainability-plan">Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan</a>, released earlier this year, is supposed to provide a comprehensive blueprint for protecting the reef. But its first draft featured little input from leading scientists and listed only the flawed 2013 water quality targets, with no estimate of the funding required to meet even these inadequate measures. </p>
<p>With the advent of the new Queensland government earlier this year, the Reef 2050 Plan was revised, and its water quality section now includes a preliminary attempt to include ecologically relevant targets. But the final plan still contains no estimate of the cost, despite the availability of a current estimate that puts the figure at <a href="http://www.rgc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Investment-Plan-NRM-proposal-190115.pdf">A$785 million by 2020</a>. </p>
<p>These details could easily have been included, given that the Reef 2050 Plan was two whole years in the making, although it is worth noting that the recent Federal Budget did include a <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2015/mr20150512.html">pledge of A$100 million</a> towards preserving the reef.</p>
<h2>Decision in the balance</h2>
<p>With the United Nations set to decide on whether to add the reef to its list of World Heritage in Danger, Australia is presenting a rather flawed plan in terms of water quality (as well as on climate change and port development, as seen elsewhere in this series). This is particularly regrettable, given the millions of dollars spent by the scientific community on research and monitoring, the results of which were readily available to those drafting the plan.</p>
<p>Management of terrestrial pollutant runoff is critical for the long-term condition of the GBR as this is one sector where progress (albeit modest) is actually being made. With more investment in collaboration with the farming sector, we can further reduce sediments, nutrients and pesticides flowing onto the reef. </p>
<p>That would help to make the reef more resilient, to some extent at least, against the growing impacts of climate change. We already know that many climate change impacts, such as coral bleaching and disease, are worsened by poor water quality.<br>
Meanwhile, as we get to grips with “conventional” pollutants on the GBR, we are now also facing a <a href="https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater/publications/copy_of_1323UnrecognisedPollutantRiskstotheGreatBarrierReef.pdf">multitude of new ones</a>, including microplastics, drugs, coal dust, and other synthetic chemicals, the effects of which are far from clear. </p>
<p>Without a better long-term plan, featuring strong, credible targets and enough money to deliver on them, it is inevitable that water pollution will continue to take a toll on the Great Barrier Reef. This treasured ecosystem will continue to suffer, and the increasing effects of climate change will only hasten its decline.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39380/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Brodie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Successive plans to curb the sediments, nutrients and pesticides flowing into the waters around the Great Barrier Reef have fallen short, leaving the corals that call the reef home highly vulnerable.Jon Brodie, Chief Research Scientist, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/392432015-03-30T01:26:54Z2015-03-30T01:26:54ZIs Australia meeting the UN recommendations for the Great Barrier Reef?<p>The <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan</a>, released jointly by the federal and Queensland governments last weekend, claims that both governments “have responded to all recommendations of the World Heritage Committee and indeed have gone further”.</p>
<p>Over the past four years the World Heritage Committee has made more than 28 separate recommendations or formal comments about the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). These appear as formal decisions on the UNESCO website:
<a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4418">2011</a>,
<a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4657">2012</a>,
<a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4959">2013</a> and <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6049">2014</a>. They can be divided roughly equally into three types - requests for action; more strongly-worded statements (for instance, “<a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4657">Notes with great concern</a> the unprecedented scale of coastal development currently being proposed…”); and compliments for progress made by Australia.</p>
<p>The most important of all these recommendations, which has been made repeatedly since 2011 and most recently in <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6049">2014</a>, is quite unambiguous:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(The Committee) “… reiterates its request to (Australia) … to ensure that the Long-Term Plan for Sustainable Development results in concrete and consistent management measures that are sufficiently robust, effectively governed and adequately financed, to ensure the overall long-term conservation of the (Reef) and its Outstanding Universal Value, including … addressing cumulative impacts and increasing reef resilience”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This request is not unreasonable, given the global significance of the Great Barrier Reef – arguably the most important World Heritage property on the planet in terms of its biodiversity.</p>
<p>So is Australia meeting the Committee’s most important request as well as its other recommendations?</p>
<h2>Four priority threats</h2>
<p>The government’s own 5-yearly report card, the GBR <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report">Outlook Report 2014</a>, identifies four priority threats:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Climate change, poor water quality from land-based run-off, impacts from coastal development and some remaining impacts of fishing remain the major threats to the future vitality of the Great Barrier Reef.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Addressing two out of four threats is not enough</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">Reef 2050 Plan</a> includes actions to address water quality and some impacts of coastal development, but has been <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-great-barrier-reef-is-under-siege/2015/03/23/cd478050-bd21-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html">widely criticised</a> for failing to address adequately the threats of climate change or unsustainable fishing practices. </p>
<p>The Reef 2050 Plan aspires to be a long-term framework to “ensure the overall long-term conservation of the (Reef) and its Outstanding Universal Value”, but fails to acknowledge the huge changes that are likely to occur over the term of the plan (35 years), such as a <a href="http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/subjects/demography/%20population-projections/tables/proj-pop-series-qld/index.php">doubling of the Queensland population</a>, the projected growth in <a href="https://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/81070/2320-qld-ag-strategy-v15.pdf">agriculture</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/energy-white-paper-plans-to-burn-burn-burn-it-all-10616">coal production</a>, and expected changes in technology. </p>
<p>The 2050 Plan also states that “currently governments are contributing around $200 million a year to support the resilience of the Reef”, and refers to extra funding from the <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/resources/news.aspx">Queensland</a> and <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-03-21/additional-100-million-protect-great-barrier-reef">federal</a> governments over five years, primarily to address water quality. </p>
<p>But an <a href="http://www.rgc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Investment-Plan-NRM-proposal-190115.pdf">independent assessment</a> for water quality concluded that A$785 million would be required over the next 5 years, and A$2 billion over the next 15 years, to make a real difference. So it is clear that the plan is not “adequately financed”, as the Committee requested.</p>
<h2>Cumulative impacts not addressed</h2>
<p>In <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4657">2012</a> the Committee requested that Australia should: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… fully address direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the Reef and lead to concrete measures to ensure the overall conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The combined impacts of climate change, poor water quality and direct use have caused a decline in the values for which the area was listed as world heritage, including an estimated <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full">loss of 50% of coral cover</a> and significant declines in <a href="http://www.nerptropical.edu.au/article/news/aerial-survey-shows-dugong-decline">dugong</a> and <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/21730/gbrmpa-VA-OffshorePelagicSeabirds-11-7-12.pdf">seabird</a> populations.</p>
<p>The 2050 Plan makes repeated mention of this fundamental issue of cumulative impacts. But other than recommending the development of various guidelines or policies, the Plan provides no practical guidance on how to address them. </p>
<p>The Plan is effectively “business-as-usual”, allowing new pressures like dredging, coastal development and new coal mines to be superimposed on the existing pressures, leading to “death by a thousand cuts”, as documented in the government’s GBR <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report">Outlook Report 2014</a>. </p>
<h2>Other important recommendations</h2>
<p>After the <a href="http://www.iucn.org/">International Union for Conservation of Nature</a> and <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-centre/">UNESCO</a> visited the GBR in 2012, they produced a comprehensive report (download the pdf <a href="whc.unesco.org/document/117104">here</a>) with a further 15 detailed recommendations. </p>
<p>Of these recommendations, only two have been fully met: commission an <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/ae7cbcf9-2963-47d7-9029-3aa1a065db51/files/gladstone-review-supplementary-report.pdf">independent review</a> into the Gladstone Harbour and Curtis Island developments; and assess the condition, trends, and threats for the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the GBR (available in Appendix A of <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/cb36afd7-7f52-468a-9d69-a6bdd7da156b/files/gbr-state-party-report-2015.pdf">this report</a>) </p>
<p>Of the remaining 13 recommendations, the majority have only partially been met, despite their fundamental importance for protecting the values of the GBR. Here are some examples:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Recommendation 5 (part): …identify appropriate and limited locations and standards for coastal development, and also identify areas that should not be subject to development… </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">2050 Plan</a> does not identify nor provide a map of “appropriate and limited locations” where developments such as new port or tourism developments might occur on or near the Reef. More importantly, it fails to identify where development should <em>not</em> occur. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Recommendation 9: Ensure all components of the Outstanding Universal Value of the GBR are clearly defined and form a central element within the protection and management system for the property… </p>
</blockquote>
<p>To achieve this, all components of the Reef’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) (that is, the things that make the Reef globally unique) need to be both correctly identified and publicly accessible. Appendix B in the revised <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">2050 Plan</a> provides only part of the official “Statement of OUV” (the full wording can be found on pages 20-23 <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2012/whc12-36com-8Ee.pdf">here</a>), omitting to provide a fundamentally important part called “Integrity” or the part covering Protection and Management. </p>
<h2>Has Australia done enough to satisfy the Committee?</h2>
<p>The final version of the Reef 2050 plan claims to be the definitive document on Australia’s approach to protecting the GBR. Yet many of the concerns raised by <a href="https://www.science.org.au/node/450347#.VRTD1FemSuI">scientists</a> when commenting on the draft 2050 Plan have not been addressed, and in some instances, useful parts of the draft Plan (such as the frank assessment of the decline in the values of the Reef in a previous Appendix) have now been omitted in the final 2050 Plan. </p>
<p>It remains uncertain whether the World Heritage Committee will consider that Australia has done enough and whether or not the Reef should be officially listed as <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/">World Heritage in Danger</a>. </p>
<p>The current and proposed magnitude of investment is insufficient to effectively address the four priority threats, nor is it commensurate to protect in perpetuity a World Heritage property that generates more than A$5 billion every year for the Australian economy, primarily through sustainable tourism.</p>
<p>Irrespective of the outcome of the Committee’s decision in June 2015, we recommend the following: </p>
<ol>
<li>Amendments to improve the Reef 2050 Plan to address the above concerns;</li>
<li>Much greater levels of real funding for protection and management; and </li>
<li>A far greater commitment from both governments to restore the values at Reef-wide, regional and local levels.</li>
</ol>
<p>Unless the above concerns are urgently addressed, the future of this global icon will be bleak, as concluded by the government’s own GBR <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report">Outlook Report 2014</a>, which stated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor, has worsened since 2009 and is expected to further deteriorate in the future.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Hughes receives competitive research funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon C. Day does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government says it has met all of the recommendations for safeguarding the Great Barrier Reef. But a close reading of the dozens of UN recommendations shows that many have been only partly fulfilled.Jon C. Day, PhD candidate, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies , James Cook UniversityTerry Hughes, Distinguished Professor, James Cook University, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.