tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/great-barrier-reef-threats-series-17189/articlesGreat Barrier Reef Threats series – The Conversation2020-11-10T03:17:32Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1434442020-11-10T03:17:32Z2020-11-10T03:17:32ZGene editing is revealing how corals respond to warming waters. It could transform how we manage our reefs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368490/original/file-20201110-24-1m0606o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C14%2C1155%2C783&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mikaela Nordborg/Australian Institute of Marine Science</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Genetic engineering has already cemented itself as an invaluable tool for studying gene functions in organisms. </p>
<p>Our new study, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920779117">published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>, now demonstrates how gene editing can be used to pinpoint genes involved in corals’ ability to withstand heat stress.</p>
<p>A better understanding of such genes will lay the groundwork for experts to predict the natural response of coral populations to climate change. And this could guide efforts to improve coral adaptation, through the selective breeding of naturally heat-tolerant corals. </p>
<h2>A threatened national treasure</h2>
<p>The Great Barrier Reef is among the world’s most <a href="https://nature.new7wonders.com/wonders/great-barrier-reef-australia-papua-new-guinea/#">awe-inspiring, unique</a> and <a href="https://www.barrierreef.org/the-reef/the-value">economically valuable</a> ecosystems. It spans more than 2,000 kilometres, has more than <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/corals">600 types of coral</a>, <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-facts">1,600 types of fish</a> and is of immense cultural significance — especially for Traditional Owners. </p>
<p>But warming ocean waters caused by climate change are leading to the mass bleaching and mortality of corals on the reef, threatening the reef’s long-term survival.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-first-step-to-conserving-the-great-barrier-reef-is-understanding-what-lives-there-146097">The first step to conserving the Great Barrier Reef is understanding what lives there</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many research efforts are focused on how we can prevent the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-we-can-put-a-man-on-the-moon-we-can-save-the-great-barrier-reef-121052">reef’s deterioration</a> by helping it adapt to and recover from the conditions causing it stress. </p>
<p>Understanding the genes and molecular pathways that protect corals from heat stress will be key to achieving these goals.</p>
<p>While hypotheses exist about the roles of particular genes and pathways, rigorous testings of these have been difficult — largely due to a lack of tools to determine gene function in corals.</p>
<p>But over the past <a href="https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/who-really-discovered-crispr-emmanuelle-charpentier-and-jennifer-doudna-or-the-broad-institute/">decade or so</a>, CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing has emerged as a powerful tool to study gene function in non-model organisms. </p>
<h2>CRISPR: a technological marvel</h2>
<p>Scientists can use CRISPR to make precise changes to the DNA of a living organisms, by “cutting” its DNA and editing the sequence. This can involve inactivating a specific gene, introducing a new piece of DNA or replacing a piece. </p>
<p>In our <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/20/5235">2018 research</a>, we showed it is possible to make precise mutations in the coral genome using CRISPR technology. However, we were unable to determine the functions of our specific target genes.</p>
<p>For our latest research, we used an updated CRISPR method to sufficiently disrupt the Heat Shock Transcription Factor 1, or HSF1, in coral larvae.</p>
<p>Based on this protein-coding gene’s role in model organisms, including closely related sea anemones, we hypothesised it would play an important role in the heat response of corals. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Injection going into coral egg." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We injected CRISPR components into the fertilised eggs of the coral species <em>Acropora millepora</em> to inactivate the HSF1 gene.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Phillip Cleves (Carnegie Institute for Science)/Patrick Buerger (CSIRO)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Past research had also demonstrated HSF1 can influence a large number of heat response genes, acting as a kind of “master switch” to turn them on. </p>
<p>By inactivating this master switch, we expected to see significant changes in the corals’ heat tolerance. Our prediction proved accurate.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-the-gene-editing-technology-that-won-the-chemistry-nobel-prize-147695">What is CRISPR, the gene editing technology that won the Chemistry Nobel prize?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What we discovered by injecting coral eggs</h2>
<p>We spawned corals at the Australian Institute of Marine Science during the annual <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-mass-coral-spawning-a-wonder-of-the-natural-world-87253">mass spawning</a> event in November, 2018. </p>
<p>We then injected CRISPR/Cas9 components into fertilised coral eggs to target the HSF1 gene in the common and widespread staghorn coral <em><a href="http://www.coralsoftheworld.org/species_factsheets/species_factsheet_summary/acropora-millepora/">Acropora millepora</a></em>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="_Acropora millepora_ coral colony during a mass spawning event." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Acropora millepora</em> colonies can be found widely on the Great Barrier Reef. They reproduce sexually in ‘mass spawning’ events.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mikaela Nordborg/Australian Institute of Marine Science</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We were able to demonstrate a strong effect of HSF1 on corals’ heat tolerance. Specifically, when this gene was mutated using CRISPR (and no longer functional) the corals were more vulnerable to heat stress.</p>
<p>Larvae with knocked-out copies of HSF1 died under heat stress when the water temperature was increased from 27°C to 34°C. In contrast, larvae with the functional gene survived well in the warmer water.</p>
<h2>Let’s understand what we already have</h2>
<p>It may be tempting now to focus on using gene-editing tools to engineer heat-resistant strains of corals, to fast-track the Great Barrier Reef’s adaptation to warming waters. </p>
<p>However, genetic engineering should first and foremost be used to increase our knowledge of the fundamental biology of corals and other reef organisms, including their response to heat stress. </p>
<p>Not only will this help us more accurately predict the natural response of coral reefs to a changing climate, it will also shed light on the risks and benefits of new management tools for corals, such as selective breeding. </p>
<p>It is our hope these genetic insights will provide a solid foundation for future reef conservation and management efforts.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4ZI_dGa6C9g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">During mass spawning events, corals release little balls that float to the ocean’s surface in a spectacle resembling an upside-down snowstorm.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143444/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dimitri Perrin has received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the Australian-French Association for Innovation and Research (AFRAN), and the Advance Queensland programme.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Line K Bay receives funding from AIMS, the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the National Environment Science Program and the Agouron Institute.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phillip Cleves receives funding from the Carnegie Institute for Science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob Bradford 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>New research involving CRISPR technology has furthered our understanding of corals’ gene functions. Specifically, it has revealed a mechanism underpinning how corals withstand heat stress.Dimitri Perrin, Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of TechnologyJacob Bradford, Queensland University of TechnologyLine K Bay, Principal Research Scientist and Team Leader, Australian Institute of Marine SciencePhillip Cleves, Principal Investigator, Carnegie Institution for ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/429452015-07-17T06:08:03Z2015-07-17T06:08:03ZNot out of hot water yet: what the world thinks about the Great Barrier Reef<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88434/original/image-20150714-21743-1emk75x.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=38%2C103%2C3582%2C2484&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The World Heritage Committee's deliberations involved far more than a simple tick for the Great Barrier Reef.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jon Day</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You might be forgiven for thinking that Australia can now breathe a sigh of relief, after the World Heritage Committee decided earlier this month not to add the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) to the <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/">World Heritage in Danger list</a>. But make no mistake – more than ever, the eyes of the world remain on the GBR.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.39whcbonn2015.de/blog/blog-details.html?tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=86&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=0854f258425a6bfc7532404aa38e8e1c">blog post</a>, the Committee summarised its decision like this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In an intensive debate on the threats to the Australian Great Barrier Reef, the Committee decided not to add the site to the World Heritage in Danger List but to observe further developments in the coral reef off the Australian coast closely. Australia has been requested to submit a progress report to the planned protective measures within 18 months.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Most committee members acknowledged the global significance of the GBR. This is not surprising, given that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/154.pdf">wrote in 1981</a>: “If any coral reef in the world were to be chosen for the World Heritage List, the Great Barrier Reef is the site to be chosen”. </p>
<p>During the discussion, numerous nations pointed out the global importance of the GBR, including Jamaica, Algeria, the Philippines, and South Korea, who said that “the symbolic importance of the [GBR] as World Heritage is of utmost importance to the entire world. We must not lose this heritage for our future generation and the global ecosystem”.</p>
<p>However, many committee members went beyond such accolades and expressed their ongoing concerns strongly during the discussion.</p>
<h2>Recognising the challenges</h2>
<p>In their introductory comments leading into the GBR discussion, both the World Heritage Secretariat and IUCN acknowledged that “the scale of major challenges facing the [GBR] is substantial”. </p>
<p>Finland said: “We strongly encourage [Australia] to address the cumulative impacts of climate change, threats in upstream sediments and nutrients as well as increasing ship traffic that have impact on the Outstanding Universal Value [of the GBR]”. Germany expressed concern about the “continued dumping of maintenance dredge spoil”, noting that “the overall outlook of the [GBR] is poor, and major threats and their cumulative impacts present considerable challenges to the present and future management of the Reef”, whereas Poland said “we are well aware of the vulnerability of the [GBR] and the need for constant monitoring”.</p>
<p>The Philippines noted that “the problem of scale adds to the complexity of the situation and undoubtedly there are knowledge gaps which [Australia] still needs to address”. Poland, Jamaica, Croatia, Turkey and Korea also referred to the long-term challenges facing the GBR in their comments. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rv_TzLFMKfE?wmode=transparent&start=6340" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Climate change still dominates</h2>
<p>Various speakers acknowledged that climate change remains the major threat facing the GBR. Japan, for instance, said “it is essential to improve the health of the Reef’s ecosystem and to enhance the resilience of the Reef”, while Colombia called for a permanent budget to mitigate the effect of climate change.</p>
<p>The closing comments from Queensland Deputy Premier Jackie Trad pledged “to address the impacts of climate change which remains the most significant long-term threat to the survival of the Reef”. However, the Australian government’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/long-term-sustainability-plan">2050 Reef plan</a> regrettably does little to address climate change, a concern raised by the <a href="https://www.science.org.au/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan">Australian Academy of Science</a>.</p>
<h2>Concerns for the declining World Heritage values</h2>
<p>Countries all over the world raised concerns about the Reef’s declining values and the consequent need for greater protection. Finland said that it shares “the concerns that many people and organisations around the world have expressed over the poor condition and the foreseen negative trend of many biodiversity values in the [GBR]”. </p>
<p>Germany recalled a <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6049">decision</a> last year in which the committee urged Australia to ensure “that developments inside port areas do not impact individually or cumulatively on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property”. Japan noted that “the overall outlook [has] worsened since 2009”, while Kazakhstan expressed hope that Australia “will make efforts for reducing negative impacts of development”. </p>
<h2>Support for the role of civil society and NGOs</h2>
<p>It is clear that civil society, including non-government organisations (NGOs) and independent scientists, has played a significant role in focusing attention on the threats to the GBR in recent years. Certainly the publicity around the Gladstone and Abbot Point developments has contributed prominently, along with the efforts of key NGOs.</p>
<p>Poland, India, Jamaica, Korea, Peru and Japan all provided supporting comments about the role of civil society in the GBR, and Finland stated “the discussions on the GBR provides an excellent example of how civil society can contribute with their expertise and support the protection and conservation of world heritage”. </p>
<p>Committee Chair Maria Böhmer’s closing comments included: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am also very grateful for the commitment of civil society, represented by Greenpeace and WWF today … they also stand for the many people who with great commitment advocated for the iconic Great Barrier Reef". </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Contrast that with the reception some of these NGOs have received in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/great-barrier-reef-a-political-hostage-to-global-activists/story-e6frg6xf-1227299217128">the Australian media</a>.</p>
<h2>Proving the progress</h2>
<p>Also in the Australian media have been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greg-sheridan">claims</a> that the GBR has “returned to the normal five yearly reporting cycle”. But this is incorrect: the Committee’s final decision requires Australia to demonstrate within the next 18 months how it will implement the long-term plan designed to restore the values of the GBR World Heritage Area, and then report again in 2019.</p>
<p>The Chair summarised the Committee’s view immediately following the decision:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…we all know, and this has been very clearly stated here, that the decision that has been taken today does not end the debate. It means entering into a new phase… For now it all comes to the implementation and further steps…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is now a continuing expectation that Australia will deliver on its commitments, especially as this globally iconic site remains <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-barrier-reef-is-not-listed-as-in-danger-but-the-threats-remain-42548">under threat</a>. </p>
<p>The Australian government has 18 months to show that the Reef 2050 Plan is making progress and receiving adequate funding, and it also has until December 2019 to demonstrate that the plan is delivering on its goal of “effective and sustained protection”.</p>
<p>After the decision, the Queensland Minister Steven Miles <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/great-barrier-reef-unesco-verdict-confirmed-but-future-status-remain-murky-20150701-gi2wjc.html">said</a>: “Now we need to deliver, we need to implement (the plan) and that’s what they’ll be watching in coming years. It’s no doubt going to be tough to achieve what we need to achieve, but it’s doable”. </p>
<p>Given Australia is a rich country and previously had a reputation for being a global leader in marine conservation, it is doable. But it is going to take some hard decisions to fulfil our global responsibility.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42945/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Day attended the recent World Heritage meeting in Bonn, his twelfth Committee meeting in the last 18 years, as a non-government observer. Jon had previously represented Australia as one of three members formally appointed as the Australian delegation to the WH Committee between 2007-2011. Jon worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority between 1986 and 2014, and was one of its directors between 1998-2014.</span></em></p>Australia was spared the ignominy of having the Great Barrier Reef listed as officially in danger. But comments from member countries of the World Heritage Committee show the world is still worried about it.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/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/423302015-05-29T11:56:50Z2015-05-29T11:56:50ZAustralia reprieved – now it must prove it can care for the Reef<p>UNESCO’s <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/committee/">World Heritage Committee</a> has decided not to add the Great Barrier Reef to the <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/">List of World Heritage in Danger</a>, for now at least. In a <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3234">draft decision</a> released ahead of its annual meeting next month, it has welcomed Australia’s plan to save the Reef, but also demanded a progress report on its policies by the end of 2016, as well as a full update on the Reef’s conservation status by December 2019.</p>
<p>The move draws a temporary line underneath an issue that has loomed large for the past three years, bringing Australia’s stewardship of the Reef uncomfortably into the international spotlight.</p>
<p>During that time there has been copious input from scientists, politicians and campaigners, discussing threats such as <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/what-can-we-say-for-certain-about-dredging-and-the-great-barrier-reef-39181">dredging</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/cloudy-issue-we-need-to-fix-the-barrier-reefs-murky-waters-39380">pollution</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/shipping-in-the-great-barrier-reef-the-miners-highway-39251">shipping</a>, and even the fate of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-09/gladstone-harbour-in-pictures-and-quotes/3650296">barramundi on our plates</a>. It has got people talking <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/world/asia/wary-of-un-action-australia-unveils-plan-to-aid-great-barrier-reef.html?_r=0">all over the planet</a> about whether or not the Australian and Queensland governments really care enough about one of the most recognisable symbols of Australia.</p>
<p>Not everyone has agreed with one another. As debated extensively on <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-should-not-be-listed-as-in-danger-35602">The Conversation</a> and elsewhere, experts have advocated both for and against the idea of listing the Reef as endangered. </p>
<p>On one hand, the evidence is impossible to doubt that the Great Barrier Reef is in danger. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.short">Half of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef have disappeared since 1985</a>, and the destruction of coastal habitat by rapid port development and other activities has been plain to see. On the other hand, the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/reef-2050-plan">ramping up</a> of remedies by both federal and state governments shows that our leaders clearly want to honour the promises made when the Great Barrier Reef was <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/154">first listed as World Heritage in 1981</a>.</p>
<h2>Has UNESCO made the right call?</h2>
<p>I have <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-should-not-be-listed-as-in-danger-35602">previously argued</a> that a decision to list the Great Barrier Reef as endangered would be premature. So UNESCO’s decision makes a lot of sense to me, for several reasons. </p>
<p>The first is that the decline of the Great Barrier Reef began as much as 100 years ago, and hence is not something that the government can turn around overnight. It requires a concerted, non-political process that recognises and aggressively solves the problems of pollution, sediments, and unsustainable fishing. </p>
<p>Given that we have not had an effective process for some time (water quality, for instance, has been an issue for decades; it didn’t just pop up in the past couple of years), it would seem counterproductive to list the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger” at a time when federal and state governments are finally beginning to take clear actions in response to the issue. It will take time to rethink coastal agriculture, fix eroded gullies, and address issues such as coastal herbicide and pesticide use.</p>
<p>The second reason is that the response of ecosystems to these policy changes will necessarily be complex and slow. As coral populations hopefully rebound, seagrasses regrow, and threatened populations such as dugong being to recover, we will need to make careful long-term observations before we know if the actions taken now have been effective.</p>
<p>Short-term international manoeuvring won’t save the Great Barrier Reef. We need to think beyond politics and recognise that safeguarding the Reef will require a long-term commitment by Australia as a nation, not just a political process.</p>
<p>The third and final reason is that it would be rather perverse for UNESCO to ignore Australia’s clear intention to take this issue seriously. Given the effort that successive state and federal governments have made to avert an “in danger” listing, what incentive would remain if the listing was made anyway? It would hardly help to motivate future governments to fight the uphill battle of getting the listing removed again.</p>
<h2>Crunch time</h2>
<p>There is no doubt that federal environment minister Greg Hunt and his Queensland state counterpart Steven Miles will both be sighing with relief that the prospect of an “in danger” listing has been staved off for another five years. This is great for Australia and for the many people who believe that re-listing the reef as “in danger” would have been the wrong step to take at this time. </p>
<p>But the real work starts now. It’s time to vindicate UNESCO’s decision by showing that the Reef is truly being protected.</p>
<p>There are encouraging signs. The Queensland government has successfully introduced the <a href="https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/54PDF/2014/PortsB14.pdf">Ports Bill</a>, which restricts port development in Queensland to four so-called Priority Port Development Areas, and has restricted dredging for port facilities outside these areas for the next 10 years. </p>
<p>Meanwhile the federal government has <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2015/mr20150316.html">banned</a> port developers from dumping dredge spoil in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef, and both federal and state governments have committed to a <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/publications/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan">long-term sustainability plan</a> that acknowledges the major challenges from coastal development, pollution, and (in a somewhat less satisfactory way) climate change.</p>
<p>This is all well and good. But as pointed out before, the devil is in the detail. While still in process, much of these commitments still need to be legislated, and without legislation they are no more than hot air. We must also trust our science (and not private opinion), and ensure that we take real actions with a measurable outcome that safeguards the Reef.</p>
<p>It is also absolutely essential that loopholes, such as those within the Ports Bill, are removed so that we never again find ourselves engaging in activities that are ultimately at odds with the long-term future of the Great Barrier Reef. As it stands now, for example, the Ports Bill only prohibits “significant” port development. However, what is classified as “significant” is not defined by the Bill and is, at this point of time, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-should-not-be-listed-as-in-danger-35602">entirely arbitrary</a>. These problems need to be fixed if Australia’s apparent sincerity about solving the problems is to be believed. </p>
<p>Let’s hope that in 2020, when UNESCO assesses the progress that has been made, Australia passes with flying colours as a nation that has successfully turned around one of its most significant environmental problems.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42330/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 re-insurance Group (London), and Great Barrier Reef Foundation (Brisbane). He did not receive salary for writing this article.</span></em></p>UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has spared Australia’s blushes by opting not to list the Great Barrier Reef as ‘in danger’. But it has also demanded that Australia make good on its plans to save it.Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed 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/393822015-05-27T20:05:07Z2015-05-27T20:05:07ZWe’ve only monitored a fraction of the Barrier Reef’s species<p><em>This long-read 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>When the Great Barrier Reef was first <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/154">placed on the World Heritage List in 1981</a>, it was recognised as being home to a huge diversity of species, many of them threatened. Conserving the reef’s habitats would therefore be a great way to protect many different species all at the same time.</p>
<p>Naturally, some of these thousands of species have attracted more attention than others. Generally these are large animals with high tourism value – often called the “charismatic megafauna” – such as marine mammals, turtles, sea snakes, sharks, rays and seabirds. Many of these species are listed as either <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species">threatened</a> or <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected/migratory-species">migratory</a> under Australia’s environmental legislation.</p>
<p>Yet this hardly scratches the surface. Even counting only vertebrates, the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) boasts a diversity of species (see page 23 onwards <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/cdn/2014/GBRMPA-Outlook-Report-2014/">here</a>) that can be found in few other places on the planet. It features 1,625 species of bony fish, six of the seven marine turtle species, 30 whale and dolphin species, dugong, 20 breeding seabird species, and some 136 species of sharks and rays. </p>
<p>There are also hugely valuable places such as Raine Island, the world’s largest breeding location for green turtles, which also hosts breeding colonies of 14 seabird species and provides habitat for up to 20 shark and ray species.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83060/original/image-20150527-25080-orhlb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83060/original/image-20150527-25080-orhlb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83060/original/image-20150527-25080-orhlb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83060/original/image-20150527-25080-orhlb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83060/original/image-20150527-25080-orhlb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83060/original/image-20150527-25080-orhlb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83060/original/image-20150527-25080-orhlb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83060/original/image-20150527-25080-orhlb7.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Great Barrier Reef is home to some 1,600 species of bony fish.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AReef2172_-_Flickr_-_NOAA_Photo_Library.jpg">Eric Johnson/NOAA/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet of these thousands of species, we only have data on population trends for a small few, and most species have never been assessed. There are nine species or species groups of marine vertebrates in the GBR – <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/cdn/2014/GBRMPA-Outlook-Report-2014">six are rated as being in poor condition and four have deteriorated</a> since 2009. </p>
<p>The lack of specific data makes it hard to work out which species will be vulnerable to human-generated risks, and to decide on policies to safeguard them. And of the ones that have been assessed, the news is a mixed bag of good and not-so-good.</p>
<h2>Good news stories</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Humpback whales</strong> were hunted to near extinction in eastern Australia during the 1950s and early 1960s. Since whaling was banned in the early 1960s the population has recovered by an estimated 11% per year, and humpback and dwarf minke whales now support a multimillion-dollar whale-watching industry (see page 32 of the <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/cdn/2014/GBRMPA-Outlook-Report-2014/">GBR Outlook Report</a>).</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Loggerhead turtles</strong> breeding in Queensland declined between the 1980s and 2000s as they were hit hard by <a href="http://www.austurtle.org.au/SeaTurtleBiology/loggerhead_Linnaeus.pdf">egg predation and fishing bycatch</a>. Combinations of land based-management, protected area designations and fisheries regulations (such as the 2001 requirement for turtle excluder devices) led to population recovery, although it has still not regained its original level.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Reef shark</strong> populations have <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106885">declined in some areas</a>, probably as a result of previous fishing pressures. However, there are early indications of recovery for some species since the rezoning of the GBR and fisheries management changes introduced in 2004. The public has also shown increasing awareness of the need for and value in sustaining healthy shark populations.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Sad news stories</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Hawksbill turtles</strong> on the northern GBR are declining by around 3% per year. The key threats are international turtle hunting, and predation of eggs on Australian islands by native and introduced fauna. Without action, the population is <a href="http://www.austurtle.org.au/SeaTurtleBiology/hawksbill_Linnaeus.pdf">forecast to decline by more than 90% by 2020</a>.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Most sawfishes</strong> and the speartooth shark have <a href="http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/2952/1/gbrmpa-VA-Sharks_Rays-11-7-12.pdf">seriously declined</a> in abundance and distribution along the Queensland coast, with some species such as the green sawfish facing potential localised extinctions. Although these species are listed as protected species, they continue to be threatened by fishing and habitat loss and degradation.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Inshore dolphins</strong> such as the Australian snubfin and Indo-pacific humpback live in small, often isolated, local populations around the coastal areas of the GBR. Although there are no population size estimates for either species they are believed to be in decline and under considerable risk from human activities. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Dugong</strong>, despite being more abundant in the Torres Strait than anywhere else on Earth, are thought to be in decline in the southern GBR, according to <a href="https://theconversation.com/dugongs-are-safer-in-torres-strait-than-townsville-13552">aerial surveys</a>, and there are concerns that declining sea grass abundance coupled with fisheries and boating related mortality are affecting the population.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Conserving homes and habitats</h2>
<p>Rather than focus on individual species, it is perhaps easier to look at the broad habitat types where they live. The different habitats that cover the GBR World Heritage Area include islands, beaches and coastline, seagrass meadows, coral reefs, mangroves, the lagoon floor, shoals, halimeda banks, continental slope and open waters. </p>
<p>The GBR Marine Park Authority’s <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report">Outlook Report</a> states that the condition of five of the ten habitat groups have deteriorated between 2009 and 2014, and for three habitats rated as “good”, their condition was inferred on the basis of limited evidence. Each of these habitats is important for many of the GBR’s most recognised species.</p>
<p>In particular, there have been <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/cdn/2014/GBRMPA-Outlook-Report-2014/">well-documented declines in seagrass and hard coral cover</a> across the World Heritage Area, particularly in the southern inshore region of the GBR. Additionally, coastal, estuarine and lagoon floor habitats are also affected by impacts from land-use changes such as <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15000792">coastal modification</a>. Restoring the condition to these habitats is complicated and will take a long time. What’s more, when habitats change we have little idea of the longer-term flow-on consequences for many species. </p>
<p>There are still crucial unanswered questions: how do seagrass seeds disperse along the coast and between coastal bays? What is the abundance, distribution and status of key species (and new ones yet to be discovered)? How and why do coastal species move within and between coastal habitats and coral reefs? </p>
<p>How does bottom-trawling affect seafloor invertebrate species and the flow on impacts to turtles? What is the impact of high seas and International fisheries on the GBR’s marine turtles? How will marine mammals and other vertebrates react to underwater noise from human activities?</p>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>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 big on ambition but low on detail. Targets are <a href="https://theconversation.com/cloudy-issue-we-need-to-fix-the-barrier-reefs-murky-waters-39380">well defined for water quality</a>, having been the subject of much discussion. But for marine vertebrates and their habitats the targets are often generic, and there is no guarantee that there will be enough resources to do the necessary monitoring to make them any better.</p>
<p>Yet we believe there are several things that can be done. Several of the threatened and declining species are migratory, so one thing we can do is strengthen international cooperation through jointly funded conservation projects. We should also strengthen Indigenous partnerships for research and management, not just in the World Heritage Area but in the neighbouring Torres Strait and southeast Queensland. </p>
<p>We need to <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378011001427">strengthen the transfer of knowledge</a> between groups doing work on the ground and people in Government who make decisions. There also needs to be concerted effort and political will focused on reviving the integrated planning and management schemes designed to manage and protect the coastal ecosystems that drive and support coastal and reef dwelling species. </p>
<p>From the sheer volume of media discussion about issues such as the Abbot Point port redevelopment, it could be inferred that the people are uncertain about the government’s ability to safeguard the reef’s outstanding value. Community attitudes and support are vital for a healthy reef, and we believe that a concerted effort is needed to restore community confidence and engage the community in conservation efforts.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, we need to identify the species of highest priority. For each species or group of species we then need to understand the threats, work out how to manage them, and properly evaluate the effectiveness of management actions put in place to protect them. </p>
<p>It is unlikely that sufficient resources will be available to address each individual threat for each species or multi-species group, so we need to develop tools which allow decision makers to determine priority actions which when complete provide best conservation bang for buck. </p>
<p>Marine parks work, but are they generally too small to protect mobile or migratory species, so we will need to work out how to conserve species on larger scales. </p>
<p>Monitoring marine populations and habitats is always challenging, especially in near-shore regions with <a href="https://theconversation.com/cloudy-issue-we-need-to-fix-the-barrier-reefs-murky-waters-39380">cloudy water</a>, but if we are to save the valued animals of the Great Barrier Reef, we will need research, results, and a solid plan with realistic priorities on which we can rely on to obtain the best conservation outcomes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39382/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Hamann receives funding from the Australian Government's Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility and the National Environmental Research Program. He is affiliated with James Cook University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Chin receives funding from the Australian Government Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, and is affiliated with the Center for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture at James Cook University. He is an executive officer of the Oceania Chondrichthyan Society, a scientific organisation promoting the research and sustainable use of sharks and rays.</span></em></p>The Great Barrier Reef is home to some 1,600 species of bony fish, 130 sharks and rays, and turtles, mammals and more. Most have had no population monitoring, meaning we don’t know how well they are faring.Mark Hamann, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Science (marine focus), James Cook UniversityAndrew Chin, Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/392512015-05-24T20:13:35Z2015-05-24T20:13:35ZShipping in the Great Barrier Reef: the miners’ highway<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 has deteriorated since its <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/154">World Heritage listing in 1981</a> and, as a <a href="http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/2855">report from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority</a> made clear, this downward trajectory is likely to continue without significant intervention. At the same time, the global demand for coal, gas and minerals has led to rapid port expansion along the Reef’s coast, most prominently at <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/abbot-point">Abbot Point</a>, <a href="http://www.nqbp.com.au/hay-point/">Hay Point</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/gladstone">Gladstone</a>.</p>
<p>The impact of ports and <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-can-we-say-for-certain-about-dredging-and-the-great-barrier-reef-39181">dredging</a> on the Reef’s values are a focal point of local and international attention. Dredging establishes shipping lanes, swing basins and berth pockets to service the navigation of large shipping vessels. But what about the ships themselves? The impacts of shipping have been reported as <a href="http://www.amsa.gov.au/navigation/shipping-management/nesm/">well managed</a> in the past, but will this change as more ships move through the region?</p>
<h2>Traffic report</h2>
<p>More than <a href="http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/2855">9,600 ship voyages</a> were recorded in the Reef between 2012 and 2013, and <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/884f8778-caa4-4bd9-b370-318518827db6/files/23qrc-doc3.pdf">3,947 individual ships</a> called in at Reef ports in 2012. At the current growth rate of 4.8% per annum, the projected increase in ship numbers calling into these ports will exceed 10,000 by 2032.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82655/original/image-20150522-12502-1dfgiq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82655/original/image-20150522-12502-1dfgiq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82655/original/image-20150522-12502-1dfgiq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82655/original/image-20150522-12502-1dfgiq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82655/original/image-20150522-12502-1dfgiq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82655/original/image-20150522-12502-1dfgiq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82655/original/image-20150522-12502-1dfgiq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82655/original/image-20150522-12502-1dfgiq6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PGM Environment/port authorities</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The average size of ships is also increasing: worldwide, average vessel size has <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/28811/Ports-and-Shipping-Info-Sheet-4-Shipping-May-2013-update.pdf">grown by 85%</a> over the past 15 years.</p>
<p>In addition to commodity vessels, the number of cruise ships, super yachts and navy vessels are also predicted to increase.</p>
<p>When the Chinese bulk coal carrier MV Shen Neng I <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/17164/ShenNengGroundingImpactAssessmentReport.pdf">ran aground</a> on Douglas Shoal northeast of Gladstone in 2010, it left a 400,000-square-metre scar – the largest ever recorded in the Great Barrier Reef. More than <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report/outlook-report-2009">600 shipping incidents</a> were recorded in the region between 1987 and 2009, not to mention the many near misses that have <a href="http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/mair/282-mi-2010-011.aspx">gone unreported</a>. </p>
<p>The potentially catastrophic impact of incidents such as collisions, groundings, or major oil or cargo spills has led the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to develop the <a href="https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/Publications/AMSA439.pdf">North-East Shipping Management Plan</a>, which features measures such as mandatory ship reporting. The Reef is also listed as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), necessitating <a href="https://www.amsa.gov.au/navigation/services/reefvts">traffic monitoring</a> of all vessels longer than 50 metres. Vessels are largely confined to dedicated shipping lanes in general use zones, and much of the region requires the compulsory pilotage of vessels over 70 m and all loaded oil tankers and chemical and natural gas carriers.</p>
<p>The result has been that, despite the reported increase in vessel traffic of about <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/26775/Ports-and-Shipping-Information-sheet-29May2013.pdf">1% per year</a> over the past decade, the <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report/outlook-report-2009">2014 Outlook Report</a> judged the likelihood of an acute shipping incident as “unlikely to impossible” – the same level as it was in 2009.</p>
<p>Accidents aside, what about the more gradual effects of growing traffic volumes across the Reef?</p>
<h2>Chronic impacts - the sleeping giant?</h2>
<p>The shipping industry has <a href="http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/resources/environmental-protection/shipping-industry-guidance-on-environmental-compliance.pdf?sfvrsn=8">committed to continually improve</a> the design and operation of ships to ensure they have no harmful impact on the environment. In practice, the biggest issues for the industry are cost and safety – the environmental conservation is not a priority, except in the case of acute events such as oil spills.</p>
<p>Yet the chronic impacts of shipping, despite generally causing only low-level damage, can accumulate significantly over time. Examples include physical damage from <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/ship-anchorage-management-great-barrier-reef-world-heritage-area-synthesis-report-july-2013">propellers and anchors</a>, the introduction of <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.12397/abstract?campaign=wolearlyview">invasive species</a>, <a href="http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/GHG-Emissions.aspx">greenhouse gas</a> and nitrogen oxide emissions, and contamination from the release of coal dust, rubbish, sewage, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X09005050">anti-fouling agents</a> and non-synthetic compounds such as oil and heavy metals. The global trend toward deeper-draft ships is also increasing the likelihood of propeller scouring and the <a href="http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/107584">resuspension of sediment</a>.</p>
<p>More ships moving through the Reef is increasing the likelihood of vessel strike on turtles, whales, dugong and other mammals, as well as exposing them to <a href="http://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/INTERNOISE2014/papers/p888.pdf">noise</a>, light and pollution. Increased vessel traffic also presents a risk of collision with smaller boats, such as yachts and fishing vessels, which are vital to Queensland’s tourism and fishing industries. </p>
<p>The Commonwealth and Queensland government’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/long-term-sustainability-plan">Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan</a> concentrates its actions, targets and objectives on acute shipping incidents. However, it does not address the monitoring or management of the cumulative impact of chronic shipping pressures that cover a much wider area then acute incidents.</p>
<h2>Shift to environmentally sustainable shipping</h2>
<p>The strategies to avoid shipping accidents on the Reef are arguably world-leading. But there is <a href="https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/Publications/AMSA439.pdf">room for improvement</a>. Materials and equipment for disaster responses are dispersed and difficult to mobilise in the Reef, particularly in the wet season, when many roads and airstrips can be unusable. Logistical difficulties and high transport costs limit the ability to respond quickly to accidents, especially in the remote north. </p>
<p>Good incident management needs sufficient funding, equipment, procedures and personnel, to provide for pilotage and assistance of stricken vessels, ship inspections, and immediate clean-up in the case of spills or groundings. Authorities should also consider closing the Reef’s waters to ships that don’t meet prescribed standards of crew competency and vessel condition, similar to the <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/how-the-reefs-managed/Managing-multiple-uses/commercial-tourism">eco-certification of tourism vessels</a>. </p>
<p>But if we are really to safeguard the Reef, we need to address chronic shipping pressures too. This could be done by shifting the current focus on ship safety to a <a href="http://www.cml.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/cml/de/documents/Studien/Best-practice-Studie-2013.pdf">broader approach</a> that ensures shipping is doing its business in smarter, safer and greener ways. Here are some suggestions:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Move towards <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Great_Barrier_Reef/Report/c07">best environmental practice </a>with introduction of Reef class vessels that are wider and shallower and result in less environmental impact than existing deep draught ships.</p></li>
<li><p>Develop an integrated monitoring program near major shipping routes, to measure the chronic impacts of shipping on species and habitats.</p></li>
<li><p>Implement the proposed <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Great_Barrier_Reef/Report/c07">National Vessel Strike Strategy</a> and develop guidelines for noise levels to minimise harm to marine wildlife.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The shipping industry is an integral part of Australia’s maritime economy. But it needs to be managed in a way that will not increase pressure on the Great Barrier Reef’s unique values. Given the region’s World Heritage status and its vulnerable state, we should expect to see continued improvement in shipping management. If the government prioritises strategic planning, partnership and funding to shipping management like they have for <a href="http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/continuing-investment/reef-programme">Reef Rescue</a>, we could see a transformation in the environmental sustainability of the shipping industry.</p>
<p><em>This article was co-written with Adam Smith, Director of <a href="http://www.reefecologic.org/">Reef Ecologic</a> and a former member of the <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/">Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39251/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laurence McCook is a Partner Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. He previously worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.</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>Port traffic near the Great Barrier Reef will more than double by 2025, as coal and other exports grow. While major incidents are rare, the chronic toll on the reef itself still remains largely unknown.Alana Grech, Lecturer in Spatial Information Science, Macquarie 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/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/392522015-05-19T20:05:16Z2015-05-19T20:05:16ZCoal and climate change: a death sentence for the Great Barrier Reef<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77292/original/image-20150408-18731-kwp306.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most magnificent wonders of our world.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ove Hoegh-Guldberg</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is the first in our <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>Back in 1999, I made an <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=MF99078">upsetting discovery</a>. By comparing the temperature tolerance of reef-building corals with the projected effects of rising carbon dioxide levels, I found that the oceans would soon grow too warm for corals to bear, meaning that coral-dominated systems like the Great Barrier Reef would disappear within 30-40 years. </p>
<p>Much as I tried to find a mistake in my reasoning and calculations, the numbers kept telling me that one of the world’s most diverse ecosystems would disappear in my lifetime. </p>
<p>As my study drew active discussion and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/06/14/312547.htm">debate</a>, I desperately hoped that it was wrong and that the world had more time to solve the problem of climate change. Now, 16 years later, my conclusions have been confirmed and the message, if anything, have become <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n2/full/nclimate1674.html">even more pessimistic</a>. </p>
<p>Sea surface temperatures have increased rapidly <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/">by 0.85 degrees C from 1880 to 2012</a>. In tropical regions, these changes have driven the destabilisation of the ancient symbiosis between corals and the brown micro-algae (dinoflagellates) that live inside them – a relationship that has driven the success of coral reefs for hundreds of millions of years. As temperatures rise, the dinoflagellates are damaged and are discarded, causing <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/what-does-this-mean-for-species/corals/what-is-coral-bleaching">bleaching</a> and leaving corals at increased risk of starvation, disease and death. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, ocean waters are acidifying at a rate that is unparallelled <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1058.short">in at least the past 65 million years</a>, potentially hampering the ability of coral reefs to maintain themselves through the all-important process of calcification. </p>
<p>The consequences of these changes threaten to ripple up through one of the most complex ecosystems on the planet, affecting thousands of organisms from sponges to seabirds. In the process, they reduce the reef’s resilience to destructive events such as cyclones and non-climate-related human activities, fundamentally altering the food web and affecting opportunities for humans and industry. </p>
<h2>Threat to the reef … and our hip pockets</h2>
<p>It is important to appreciate that these concerns are not the mutterings of a few scientists. The threat of climate change to coral reefs like the Great Barrier Reef is part of a <a href="http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/">major scientific consensus</a> set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as by federal government bodies such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (<a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report">GBRMPA</a>) and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (<a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/outreach/coral/coralchange.html">NOAA</a>). There is no credible alternative prognosis that has survived the peer-reviewed process of science.</p>
<p>Without wanting to sound too dramatic, the realisation that coral reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef are about to be thumped by rapidly warming oceans should have had us on our feet. Even if you don’t like or understand coral reefs, the dollars should have spoken to you. If we lose the Great Barrier Reef, we lose a large part of the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a3ef2e3f-37fc-4c6f-ab1b-3b54ffc3f449/files/gbr-economic-contribution.pdf">A$5 billion to A$6 billion</a> it earns from tourism and fisheries, and with that many of the 60,000-plus jobs that this amazing ecosystem provides to Australia. If we look after the reef and don’t destroy it for short-term gains, we stand to reap those benefits, year after year, far into the future.</p>
<p>There is growing international concern that the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef is in danger of being damaged irreparably. With 50% of the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.short">corals gone</a>, UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has been pressuring the Australian and Queensland governments to increase their commitment to reversing the deteriorating health of the reef. Later this year, the committee will decide whether to add the reef to its official “in danger” list – a prospect that has already been extensively debated <a href="https://theconversation.com/search?q=world+heritage+danger+reef">here on The Conversation</a>. </p>
<p>The situation has prompted the state and federal governments to unveil a <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/publications/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan">long-term sustainability plan</a> for safeguarding the Great Barrier Reef until 2050, with input from reviews by the <a href="https://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-content/response-to-the-draft-reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf">Australian Academy of Science</a> and others. </p>
<p>While many elements of the plan are commendable, it has also been <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-unveils-2050-great-barrier-reef-plan-experts-react-39172">criticised</a> for its lack of firm, measurable targets and adequate discussion of the implications of climate change.</p>
<h2>Climate caution, or business as usual?</h2>
<p>While the Reef 2050 plan does mention climate change as the predominant threat to the reef, it fails to link the problem to Australia’s plans to grow the coal trade and to ship coal through enlarged ports on the Queensland coast. The reef plan only mentions coal in the context of local-scale impacts such as coal dust and port development. </p>
<p>The plan briefly mentions Australia’s intention to cut greenhouse emissions by 5% on 2000 levels by 2020. But there is no mention of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/nov/07/climate-change-keystone-galilee-queensland-coal-mining">billions of tonnes (gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide</a> that will be released when Queensland’s coal is dug up, sold and burned by other countries.</p>
<p>The spectre of coal ships traversing the Great Barrier Reef couldn’t be more laden with symbolism. Coal extracted from the Queensland landscape, if burned along with other fossil fuel reserves, will ensure the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. With only 500-800 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide left in the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08017.html">global carbon budget</a>, beyond which we will push the climate into a dangerous state, the emissions from even a single mine can play a significant role. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/carmichael-mine-is-a-game-changer-for-australian-coal-29839">Carmichael mine</a> in the Galilee basin, for example, will pump out <a href="http://envlaw.com.au/carmichael-coal-mine-case/">4.49 gigatonnes during its lifetime</a>. Given that the world’s reserves of fossil fuels are estimated to be capable of generating <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08017.html">2,500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide</a>, business-as-usual is easily capable of destroying the reef (pushing the added carbon dioxide well beyond the 500-800 gigatonne budget), along with many other ecosystems too. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the negotiations over Australia’s greenhouse emissions are clearly separate from the deliberations of the World Heritage Committee. While it is almost certainly true that continual failure to act on climate change will mean the death of the Great Barrier Reef and every other coral reef, the question of how to curb emissions is obviously best handled by the United Nations’ <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/">climate negotiations framework</a>, which is convening this year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/paris-2015-climate-summit">crucial Paris COP21 talks</a>.</p>
<p>Yet one could also argue that Australia should stand up as a nation and help lead the world away from this current dangerous climate trajectory. After all, if we know that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is extremely dangerous for the Great Barrier Reef, why would Australia deliberately put such a national treasure and economic powerhouse at risk by helping dig up even more carbon to burn from the Queensland landscape? </p>
<p>If Australia is truly committed to preserving the Great Barrier Reef, it faces a tough choice: re-examine the current plans for unrestricted coal exports, taking proper account and responsibility for the resulting greenhouse emissions, or watch the reef die. </p>
<p>Surely we as Australians have more foresight and chutzpah than to let that happen!</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39252/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 did not receive salary for writing this article.</span></em></p>With the United Nations set to decide on whether to list the Great Barrier Reef as officially in danger, we look at the various threats to the reef’s survival, starting with the biggie… climate change.Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.