OCEANOGRAPHIC PROCESSES OF CORAL REEFS: Physical and Biological Links in the Great Barrier Reef - Chapter 20 (end) doc

Will the Great Barrier
Reef Survive Human
Impact?
Frank H. Talbot
CONTENTS
Comparison with the Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Time Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Who Controls the GBR? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
The Importance of the GBR to Australians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
What is Actually Happening, and What Might Damage the GBR? . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Inner Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
Endangered, Threatened, Vulnerable, or Rare Species
of Marine Mammals and Turtles (“Charismatic megafauna”) . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Acid Sulphate Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Trawling and Line Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Coastal Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Hamilton Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
A House Lease in Lizard Island National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Hinchinbrook Channel Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
Environmental Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
Without fresh thinking and fundamental attitudinal and management changes, the Great
Barrier Reef will not “survive” as we enjoy it today . . . it will be slowly and continu-
ously degraded both biologically and aesthetically.
COMPARISON WITH THE LAND
In thinking of the future of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), we can learn from our
treatment of the Australian landscape. In the process of increasing agricultural
and pastoral production we have denuded and scarred a serious proportion of our

20
331
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
continent’s usable land surface, removing its cover, eroding its topsoil, losing its
retentive wetland sinks, and lifting saline water to the surface in irrigated areas. We
have also silted our rivers and dirtied them with mud and salt. These results now pose
threats to the very production that led to them. As a corollary we have lost plant and
animal species at a rate many hundreds of times pre-European settlement rates, and
we have introduced pests and predators. In our need to use the land for pastoral, agri-
cultural, and mining purposes we were often ignorant of the steady damage we were
causing, and the unsustainability of many of our practices. Over past decades many
of these practices have continued, not through ignorance, but with full knowledge of
the long-term consequences. Sustainable husbandry has generally lost out to the dif-
ficulties, expenses, and politics of change. While we have set aside protected areas
(though rarely in the best farming or pastoral country) we now realise that our unique
biodiversity will not be protected by reserves and parks alone; the areas where we live
and farm are also important. Global warming, now certain rather than possible, may
also adversely affect isolated communities in separated parks and reserves if it shifts
latitudinal temperatures.
With all this accumulated experience from the land, are we able to do better with
the GBR?
TIME SCALES
The GBR coral reef province we see today is only 10,000 years old. What time scale
for the “survival” in our heading should be considered? In the early part of the rising
sea northeastern Australia’s aboriginal inhabitants would have experienced remark-
able change in the GBR region, from a coastal plain with occasional mountains, over
which they would have lived and hunted, to today’s shallow reef-filled sea with many
islands. To consider the “survival” of the GBR 10,000 years in the future would be
highly speculative, though in the reasonably short term we do expect rising tempera-
ture, rising sea level, and increasing storm strength through global warming. For

longer time scales (millions of years) possible geological changes make the exercise
still less valid. Only in terms of a generation or two can we expect prediction to have
some value, and for our purposes thinking about tens and hundreds of years rather
than thousands or longer is probably the best we can do. We therefore attempt to
address those human impacts that are now affecting or are likely to affect the GBR
this shorter time scale (decades to a few human generations), and particularly to con-
sider those impacts that could be amenable to management.
WHO CONTROLS THE GBR?
Over the past few decades we have seen severe breakdown of coral reefs in most trop-
ical areas. Of the world’s coral reefs, 10% are now estimated as severely damaged or
destroyed, and 58% potentially threatened (Bryant et al., 1998). The area north of us
has the world’s richest reefs (of which the GBR is an outlier), but Indonesian and the
Philippine reefs are already considered to be 60 to 70% degraded, with only 5% still
in excellent condition (Yap & Gomez, 1985).
332 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
Unlike many of these coral reef areas, the GBR should be in good condition, for
Australia has considerable controls over its use. In particular:
• As the GBR is a World Heritage Area the Federal Government has right of
veto over any action that could “have a significant impact” on its values,
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999.
• The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, with spatial limits slightly
less than the GBR World Heritage Area, has an oversight act with strong
controls and the creation of different use (or no use) zones, and its act also
includes powers to act against that impact on its area from outside.
• Queensland has controls of fishing over the GBR areas where this is
permitted.
• Areas designated as terrestrial or marine national parks are controlled under
Queensland Government acts.

• The recent Queensland Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 states
the Minister “must prepare a State coastal management plan” and “must
prepare regional coastal management plans as soon as practicable.” Plans
developed by local authorities must then be consistent with State and
regional plans.
With this rather remarkably wide set of controls (and there are more) one might
assume that the GBR and its islands, reefs, and coasts are well regulated and safe
from non-sustainable human impact.
Nevertheless, effective protection demands that the regulatory authorities use
their acts and regulations effectively, so that the values of the GBR are protected in
the long term. In a number of recent cases this has not been the case. This raises many
questions, none of which has simple answers.
Impacts that damage coral reefs and other reef habitats are now generally well
known worldwide and can be avoided. In spite of such broad general knowledge,
experience shows that there is often some need for focussed information gathering
and research to assess the impact on a reef habitat from a specific development. We
know little as yet about slow, long-term, chronic changes, synergies between various
impacts, and more subtle effects.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GBR TO AUSTRALIANS
Australians want their GBR to have clear, clean waters, and colourful fish and corals;
populations of seabirds, turtles, dolphins, and whales; and also spectacular scenery,
with tropical vegetation, white beaches, coral cays, high rocky islands, and wild
coasts and channels. The GBR is loved because it embodies this rich array of natural
values, and does so on the grandest world scale. This was clear in the many submis-
sions to the Royal Commission on Drilling for Petroleum in GBR Waters (1974). The
public’s view of the GBR did not just include its coral reefs, but also its land- and
Will the Great Barrier Reef Survive Human Impact? 333
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
seascapes, its coral cays and high-vegetated islands, and its coasts. The public wanted
to enjoy it without oil rigs and tankers, or reef quarries with heavy machinery and silt.

One result of the huge public response to the possibility of oil drilling was that
the Royal Commission recommended that the GBR should never be mined or drilled
for oil. The Federal Government followed this recommendation with the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Act of 1975, prohibiting all recovery of minerals.
A second result was the Federal and Queensland Governments’ application to the
World Heritage Commission for a declaration of the GBR as a World Heritage Site.
Such sites are proclaimed if they have:
“Natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups
of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aes-
thetic or scientific point of view,” or
“Areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals or
plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, con-
servation, or natural beauty.” (Our italics)
The two governments, in their request for World Heritage listing, included the
statements that the GBR “has the largest single collection of coral reefs in the world,”
“provides some of the most spectacular scenery on earth and is of exceptional natural
beauty,” and “provides major feeding grounds of the endangered species Dugong
dugon and contains nesting grounds of world significance for the endangered green
turtle (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta).”
For its technical review of Australia’s application the World Heritage Commission
contracted the IUCN. The IUCN recommendation for acceptance stated: “It seems
clear that if only one coral reef site in the world were to be chosen for the World
Heritage List, the Great Barrier Reef is the site to be chosen” (IUCN, 1981).
The GBR is said to be worth over $1 billion annually to Queensland. About 25%
of the visitors are from overseas, and over the past decade this has been the fastest
growing segment. The Australian Tourist Bureau was aiming to increase overseas vis-
itors to Australia from 2.8 million in 1993 to 8.4 million by 2004. Whether or not
these figures are realised the pressure of tourism on the GBR is likely to increase
greatly over the next few decades (perhaps in part because so many other coral reef
destinations are being degraded) (Queensland Government, 1995; Queensland

Tourist and Travel Corporation, 1998).
While the GBR is a considerable and growing money producer, the concerns
publicly expressed at mining, oil drilling, and inappropriate development show that
Australians value their GBR highly in ways beyond money. It is not just another coral
reef, but the best world coral reef. It is probably also our greatest natural icon. Young
students, demonstrating against the development on the Hinchinbrook Channel,
chanted “this is sacred.” In our primarily secular society they presumably meant that
this spectacular area should be “treated with respect or reverence,” or be “inviolable”
in a non-religious sense (Oxford English Dictionary). Australians generally might
find this reasonable.
For Australian and overseas visitors “survival” of the GBR means the retention
of its wide set of values—the ecological and aesthetic sustainability of these unique
334 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
land and seascapes. With the best example of a coral reef system in the world, and
one so precious to the Australian people, we can do no less than ensure that all usage
must be sustainable.
What would this sustainability mean? Presumably uses should be restricted to
those that would allow:
• Its ecological systems to remain intact
• Its rich underwater reef experience of corals and fish to remain
• Its endangered species (particularly dugong, turtles, cetaceans, and many
birds) to be protected
• Its land and seascape beauty not to be defaced
This list begs many questions for an area as large as the GBR and one that is man-
aged for multiple uses. To satisfy the above points perhaps one of the most serious
problems that needs more understanding by the public, and those using the land, is
the impact of terrestrial uses (including inland pastoral/agricultural areas and coastal
wetland clearing).
Spatial demarcations for different uses (zoning) of both the seascape and the

landscape need also to be carefully and conservatively chosen, and involve consider-
ation of both biological/geological knowledge and landscape aesthetics. It is of inter-
est that the United States plans to set aside as no-take reserves 20% of all coral reefs
in waters under its jurisdiction by 2010 because it is concerned about coral
reef deterioration (Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and NOAA Administrator
D. James Baker, joint press release, March 2000).
For an area of the quality of our GBR,
• Planning and control must be meticulous, and “mistakes” should not be
made for political convenience.
• Highly protected areas (no-take areas) must be carefully chosen and be
much larger than in a less valuable area.
• Monitoring needs to be careful and constant.
WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING,
AND WHAT MIGHT DAMAGE THE GBR?
The major causes of coral reef breakdown or ecosystem changes through human
impact in reef areas are now well documented (Birkeland, 1997). They include: over-
fishing (particularly on grazing fishes); destructive fishing practices (such as explo-
sives, cyanide); engineering works (dredging, airport construction, and building on
reefs and causeways); heavy unregulated tourism; nutrient and silt input (sewage,
land clearing; hinterland forestry and farming, fertilisers, road construction, hous-
ing); and industrial pollution. For the GBR we should add structures, development
works, tree (including mangrove) removal, and engineering that damages or defaces
the land/seascape beauty. We must also add damage from coral bleaching and from
increased cyclonic storm damage through high temperatures (with global warming
Will the Great Barrier Reef Survive Human Impact? 335
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
implicated) and coral diseases (possibly through stressing from other impacts). While
most of these threats do not affect the GBR, some threats are now doing so.
Lowe (1997) has stated of the GBR, “There are worrying signs of deterioration,
mostly associated with activities on the adjoining land.” To this we now need to add

that there are also worrying signs of deterioration from activities in the sea and from
global warming.
Activities and decisions in the past decade show disturbing patterns in the way
the GBR is being managed and there are serious problems which may affect its long-
term health. Many basic values of the GBR have been chipped away, as we shall
explain. This may be hotly contested by many involved in the tourist industry, by
those involved in building development and its subsidiary industries, by local coun-
cils, and by state and federal politicians. But pressure to get the most out of the reef
through tourism and fishing is huge, driven by the pursuit of profit and jobs, and con-
sequently supported by political will. There is clear evidence that this pressure has
resulted in decisions that support development, tourism, and fishing at the expense of
the long-term protection of the reef.
Pressure on GBR usage will increase from developments on land, from fishing
(including better technology), and from tourism. As Australians with an important
part of world heritage under our control it can be argued that we have a responsibil-
ity to make it as accessible as is reasonable to world tourism as well as for
Australians; but that in a developing tourist infrastructure we also have the responsi-
bility not to damage its values.
While the GBR is of huge size (which many incorrectly consider makes it safe)
there is at present insufficient care taken
• In the use of its living resources
• In planning its coastal zones
• In environmental impact assessment of developments
• In control of the final development process itself
• In hinterland and coastal land use that affects the GBR
INNER REEFS
Land clearing in the river catchments draining into the GBR has been rapid and is still
continuing, and the landscape has been profoundly altered by human activities (see
Johnson et al., Chapter 3, this book). Land clearing is accelerating; in 1999 over
400,000 ha of land were cleared in Queensland, which accounts for 90% of

Australia’s total land clearing.
Silt loads, with associated nutrients, may have increased four or more times due to
pastoral/agricultural land-use practice in the drainage basins, added to by fertiliser from
intensive agriculture (Baldwin, 1990; Wasson,1997 for a reference list; see Johnson et
al., Chapter 3, this book). All this soil ends up as mud in the estuaries and the coastal
zone. Satellite photography has shown huge, muddy plumes reaching the mid-reefs.
Bays sheltered from the prevailing trade winds, such as Trinity Bay in Cairns, are
a good indicator of human impacts on sediment inputs because their sediment rate
336 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
can be measured. Typically this sedimentation rate has apparently increased by a fac-
tor of 10 to 15 since European colonisation (Wolanski & Duke, 2000; see also Duke
& Wolanski, Chapter 6, this book). These bays do not trap all the sediment and hence
do not protect the inshore coral reefs from major impacts from human-induced soil
erosion. Indeed, extremely muddy waters with concentrations of suspended solids
peaking at 1000 ppm (this water is so turbid that divers could not see their hands
against their masks) have been observed to be exported north of Trinity Bay, thereby
reaching inshore reefs. In addition, even mid-shelf reefs are threatened by mud which
may also spread offshore as a near-bottom nepheloid layer (Wolanski & Spagnol,
2000). The potential impact on the GBR by these muddy intrusions needs much more
attention than it has been given.
As described by Johnson et al. (1997) and Johnson et al. (Chapter 3, this book),
Melaleuca wetlands once covered large areas of the coastal floodplains, areas that are
now used for intensive agriculture. These used to provide extensive buffer strips
which have now been cleared, primarily for agriculture. In the Burdekin catchment
60% of the Melaleuca wetlands are gone, and 50% of the rainforest, and this is con-
sidered typical of other catchments. Approvals for clearing and agriculture in low-
lying and flood-prone areas still continue, increasing both flooding and soil loss.
Supporting Lowe’s statement quoted above is the conclusion by Zann (1995) that
poor catchment use and declining water quality, with increased levels of nutrients and

sediments, are the most serious issues in the coastal environment, with threats to
inshore corals on the GBR. This conclusion is also supported by McCook et al.
(Chapter 8, this book) and by Fabricius and De’ath (Chapter 9, this book).
Mangroves along the GBR coast are efficient at trapping sediments (Furukawa
et al., 1997). Through their detritus, mangroves also enhance flocculation and settling
of fine sediments in coastal waters (Ayukai & Wolanski, 1997). As an example a man-
grove area of 8.22 km
2
was reclaimed 40 years ago by the construction of a levee in
East Trinity Bay, Cairns. The land was first used for cane farming and is now aban-
doned, and has compacted and shrunk and turned acid. There is a proposal for a real
estate development on this land developers see as a wasteland. Yet this area, if left as
mangrove, would have trapped a half million tons of mud in the last 40 years since it
was destroyed—instead this half million tons of mud is now polluting the GBR
(Wolanski & Duke, 2000). Mangroves thus help protect inshore reefs and seagrass
beds from turbidity and siltation. Mangroves are protected by law, but they are still
constantly being sacrificed, by bits and pieces, for a number of activities, including
aquaculture, access roads and discharge canals, marinas, airports, harbours, real
estate developments, golf courses, and roads (see Duke & Wolanski, Chapter 6, this
book). Along heavily fished mangrove creeks and some harbours (e.g., parts of
Cairns Harbour), bank erosion from boat waves is common and results in trees falling
into the water. One strategy is to plant mangroves over emerging mud banks to sta-
bilise the banks and trap the sediment.
Along the Cairns esplanade the seabed has come up by about 1 to 1.5 m in the
last 100 years as a result of increased erosion from deforestation of the hinterland
(Wolanski & Duke, 2000). It is now above mean sea level and suitable for mangroves.
Indeed, mangrove seedlings naturally colonise the area. However, the mangroves are
Will the Great Barrier Reef Survive Human Impact? 337
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
regularly uprooted and destroyed by the Cairns City Council in order to preserve the

sea view. The result is that the mud is not stabilised, and each time the wind blows,
mud is exported in quantity and threatens seagrass beds and inshore reefs.
In theory neither pastoralists nor sugar farmers want to lose topsoil. In theory inten-
sive farmers like cane growers wish their fertilizers to stay on their crops and not wash
down rivers to the GBR. In practice, however, land use is only loosely controlled by
local councils and control is minimal. Simple measures to help control soil erosion are
available, such as the preservation of a green belt along the banks of rivers and creeks.
In the GBR hinterland these measures are the exception rather than the rule. As a result
of intense tropical rainfall, soil erosion is severe and huge loads of mud and fertilisers
run into inner reef waters. These land management practices are neither sustainable in
the long term for the pastoral/agricultural industries themselves nor for the GBR.
There is both anecdotal and sequential photographic evidence to suggest that the
inner reefs have suffered loss of living coral cover. Because of the natural variability
of coral reefs through time, with damage or breakdown occurring sporadically
through such impacts as cyclones or crown-of-thorns starfish infestation, followed by
regrowth, it is difficult to determine without doubt that this is so. Based on Fabricius
and De’ath (Chapter 9, this book) and McCook et al. (Chapter 8, this book), this
hypothesis appears highly likely. These inner reefs are different from those of the
mid- and outer reefs. Yet all these habitats are linked by migrations, as shown by
Cappo and Kelley (Chapter 11, this book). Any attempt to keep the ecological
integrity of the GBR demands that the inner reefs are also protected. But while they
are the reefs most under threat of damage, they are less protected than mid- and outer
reefs, because the latter “are visible and ‘glamorous’” (Zann & Brodie, 1997).
Remedial landcare measures are well known. When they are judged uneconomical
and not implemented, the GBR is simply being treated as an expendable commodity.
While these inner reefs of all the coral habitats are likely to be the ones under
most threat because of hinterland impacts, special areas used heavily for recreation
(Cairns area, Whitsunday Islands) may also suffer damage. With permits for over 700
tourism operators and 1300 vessels in the Whitsundays, many aiming to anchor in the
same sheltered bays, there is anecdotal evidence of severe loss of coral in some pop-

ular sites (e.g., Butterfly Bay). This has resulted in areas with laid moorings, and also
areas where anchoring is prohibited. This needs to be done before, and not after, most
of the damage has been done, as happened at Butterfly Bay.
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, VULNERABLE, OR RARE SPECIES OF
MARINE MAMMALS AND TURTLES (“CHARISMATIC MEGAFAUNA”)
(
AFTER MARSH ET AL., 1997)
• Dugong numbers have dropped steadily (by over 50%) along the southern
GBR where they have been monitored (1986 to 1994). There was also a
catastrophic decline in the Hervey Bay area in 1992/1993 after the disap-
pearance of 1000 km
2
of seagrass beds due to flooding of the Mary and
Burrum Rivers and heavy silt runoff.
338 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
• Loggerhead turtles breeding in eastern Australia have declined by 50 to
80% since the 1970s.
• Monitoring in the green turtle stock in northern GBR waters suggests a loss
of adults, presumably from unsustainable hunting outside Australian
waters.
• Hawksbill census data from Milman Island indicate a declining population.
• The East Australian humpback whale dropped to a fraction of its estimated
population size through whaling, but is now increasing at a rapid annual
rate.
• We do not have enough information on the dolphins and smaller whales to
come to any conclusions as to their status.
The majority of these species, so fascinating to us and now so sought by tourists
on our GBR, are declining in Southeast Asian seas north of Australia. The general
declines above suggest we are not doing much better, in spite of the huge size of the

GBR and our low population.
Professor Helene Marsh, jointly with six respected scientific observers, makes
the following stinging indictment: the GBR “will not be an effective global refuge for
the charismatic megafauna of the tropical Indo-West Pacific under the present man-
agement regime” (Marsh et al., 1997). So much for the efficacy of one of the great
protected tropical coastal areas left on Earth!
ACID SULPHATE SOILS
Acid sulphate soils are an abiding problem in the coastal zone, where soils that con-
tain iron sulphide minerals (usually iron pyrite) are widespread. While undisturbed
and in oxygen-free conditions they are stable, if dug and exposed they oxidise to sul-
furic acid, which can result in such acid water that it can do major biological damage
and cause fish kills (White, 1998). The sulfuric acid can also transport heavy metals,
which then get deposited in areas such as mangrove swamps and seagrass beds, and
can enter the food chain. Long-lived animals such as dugongs, or top end predators
such as sharks, are then likely to accumulate quantities of heavy metals.
While acid soils can be successfully treated, this does require thorough assess-
ment of acid soils prior to development and the cost of the process must be included
in the development costs. In some cases this might make the development uneco-
nomic, indicating an area is unsuitable for the activity.
TRAWLING AND LINE FISHING
Gribble (Chapter 12, this book) describes the impacts of commercial fishing on
the biomass and biodiversity in the far-north GBR. Only a minor negative impact
on prawn populations by trawling is predicted. However, commercial fishing is
shown to have a dramatic negative effect on sea turtles and small fish omnivores
(comprising most of the discarded bycatch), and possibly a positive effect on species
that feed on the discards such as seabirds, groupers, and sharks/rays. As Cappo and
Will the Great Barrier Reef Survive Human Impact? 339
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
Kelley (Chapter 11, this book) also show, trawling directly modifies the benthos, with
unknown long-term ecological impacts on the entire benthic ecosystem. Trawling

essentially modifies the habitat so that in the long term, entire species may vanish,
as has happened in areas of the North Sea (Bergman & Lindeboom, 1999;
Lindeboom, 2000).
As Cappo and Kelley (Chapter 11, this book) demonstrate, it now emerges that
trawling may also lower the population of reef fish and mangrove crabs as they
migrate across the trawling grounds.
AQUACULTURE
Coastal aquaculture (farming prawns and Barramundi) is developing rapidly. While
some careful work on impacts has been done, in most cases the long-term impacts
of these farms are still largely unknown. It is common practice to extract clean
seawater from one mangrove creek, and to discharge wastewater into another
mangrove creek. Wastewater treatment is often minimal. Development applications
are in for new farms, and newspaper reports of statements by development com-
panies suggest many more. Careful assessments of the impact of the removal of
intertidal salt flats and mangroves and the impact of nutrient input into shallow
coastal waters from prawn and fish farms are only now becoming available (Wolanski
et al., 2000). These studies suggest bank erosion occurs in mangrove creeks receiv-
ing effluent water, and this is made evident by trees falling in the creek. Also, silta-
tion occurs in many mangrove creeks used to draw clean salt water for the farms.
These studies also suggest that creeks may be poorly flushed and eutrophication
results from the input from aquaculture waste. The possibility also exists that wild
prawn stocks may be affected by the discharge of viruses from shrimp ponds
(USEPA, 1998). This may also affect wild crabs and birds. Remedial measures are
simple and readily available, namely, to treat the wastewater. While costly, the GBR
Marine Park deserves no less.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The GBR is threatened by global warming, possibly within only 20 to 50 years
and non-linear and are difficult to quantify at this stage. Nevertheless, they are
serious enough that a large research effort has been initiated at the Australian Institute
of Marine Science to understand how reefs devastated by bleaching from raised

water temperatures may repopulate by coral larvae from heat-tolerant species
from distant locations. This could occur naturally by ocean currents or through active
intervention by man. Biodiversity would certainly be impacted by major die-off
of reefs.
COASTAL PLANNING
Coastal planning failures have been common along the GBR coast.
340 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
(Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Lough, Chapter 17, this book). The effects are complex
HAMILTON ISLAND
One of the developments considered poor planning by conservationists is the placing
of high-rise buildings and an airport for large jets on Hamilton Island in the
Whitsundays. The Whitsunday Islands have a large and developing charter boat sys-
tem for visitors on crewed and self-navigated yachts (“bare boats”). This is lucrative
and expanding, and attracts visitors from all over the globe. They experience the
beautiful set of islands, can walk in rainforest, dive on coral reefs, and enjoy beaches
on uninhabited islands. Most of the island resorts are low, and some use vegetation to
reduce visual impact. However, tourists are now confronted by massive high rise
buildings of up to 20 stories that dominate the western side of the land and seascape.
A large harbour has been dug which includes a marina for boats, and fill has been
taken from a mountain to create an airport for large jets. Some yacht charter compa-
nies now offer to meet their clients at Hamilton, making a hub of the tourist industry
in the middle of the “park” experience, not on the adjacent mainland. Park planners
in America and elsewhere have long decided that developments of hotels, shops, and
businesses are better on the park periphery, and not centrally in a national park area.
Yosemite National Park in the U.S., with hotels and shops, and thousands of visitors
and staff living in its superb valley, is used as the model of what not to do. The devel-
opment of Hamilton Island cannot be brushed off merely as an older planning
approval that would not happen today. Last year a further 16 blocks were put up for
sale on Hamilton Island, with statements reported of $30 million of land for sale over

the next decade (Courier Mail, Property Section, 30 June, 1999).
A HOUSE LEASE IN LIZARD ISLAND NATIONAL PARK
Lizard Island is a national park with one thoughtfully planned resort. A research sta-
tion, studying reef questions, is single storied and shelters behind Casuarina trees and
other coastal vegetation; a camping area on the island is well used. On this big island
these structures at present make modest environmental impacts, visual or otherwise.
The original lease of land for the resort lay behind a large northern beach. It was
later extended to stretch behind a row of small beaches to the west.
The original owners of this national park lease later sold the resort, but were
allowed to keep a subdivided portion of the lease on a prominent ridge above the
small beaches. A house was planned, with a caretaker’s cottage, on the site. In the
design outline (sent to the author by the leaseholders), no attempt was made to keep
the park experience paramount with a low, non-obtrusive building. On the contrary,
the architect apparently designed it to be prominent (as his documentation states).
One might assume that the public trust would be properly served by not permitting
private dwellings in a national park. The Queensland State Government did not
intervene. Cook Shire Council could have disallowed the development applica-
tion but it approved it. There is a complex stone bora ground close to the
ridge, which has apparently strong aboriginal religious significance. The aboriginal
group concerned is fighting the application through the courts, and decisions are still
pending.
Will the Great Barrier Reef Survive Human Impact? 341
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
HINCHINBROOK CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT
Though this case is well documented (Hinchinbrook Channel Inquiry, Report of the
Senate Committee, 1999), some aspects of its approvals have never been aired,
though should be, for there may be fundamental lessons to be learnt which have
major future implications for the GBR.
This site is on the mainland side of scenic Hinchinbrook Channel, and faces
Hinchinbrook Island and its high forested and spectacular mountains. The channel is

aesthetically remarkable, and there is no other like it on the GBR. The Queensland
National Parks Management Plan describes the Hinchinbrook area as “one of the most
valuable, yet accessible wilderness areas in Australia.” Author Neville Shute writes of
it in his book A Town Like Alice, as “one of the most beautiful coastlines in the world.”
The GBR World Heritage Site and the GBR Marine Park include the channel (but see
below) and both stop at low tide mark, followed by a narrow Queensland Marine Park
which borders on the leasehold of Cardwell Properties. Large and craggy old-growth
mangroves did cover much of the Queensland Marine Park.
Tekin Australia, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Resort Village Cardwell,
received approvals for a resort development and a marina. There was potential impact
on the channel by the development, not only from the land and marina, but also
because a side channel had to be dug a quarter of the way into the main channel to
get sufficient depth for boats entering the marina. The GBR Marine Park Authority
(GBRMPA) requested an environmental impact statement under Commonwealth law
(the Environmental Protection [Impact of Proposals] Act).
The lessees went into voluntary liquidation and never produced the required EIS.
After a complex set of transactions, Cardwell Properties took over the site from the
original developer. It proposed a substantially larger development, with a huge resort
(1500 visitors and about 600 staff) and a port with a marina designed originally for
350 boats (now reduced to about 250 boats, with parking for another 100 trailed
boats). The published schematic plans showed large wave-piercing catamarans to
take visitors out to the GBR through the Hinchinbrook Channel. The developer also
wanted to cut down old growth mangroves in the Queensland Marine Park to get
views, and also requested approval to lay a sandy waterfront beach over the channel’s
muddy banks.
GBRMPA did not request an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under
Federal law for this development. The channel is, however, included in the GBR
Marine Park Central Section (detailed in Proclamation Gazettals No. S 195, 31/8/83;
and S 409, 15/10/84, 2.31, 2.32), with the park limit being low tide mark on the main-
land. This is also clearly shown in the Authority’s own map of the Great Barrier Reef,

and this map states “As per Schedule to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act
1975.” Proclamation S 409 states that the GBR Marine Park line reaches the main-
land at the Herbert River mouth, and thence along the low water mark through the
Channel. It seems clear that the original intent of the proclamation was to include the
channel.
On 16 December 1991 the Chairman of GBRMPA wrote to the Office of General
Counsel, Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, about the Hinchinbrook
342 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
development, saying (inter alia): “The site has recently been auctioned and further
development may be considered. The Authority will need to consider whether any
part of the proposed development is in the Marine Park. Part of this project extends
into the adjacent waters and therefore there is a fundamental question of whether
these waters are in the Marine Park or Region.” The Chairman requested, “would you
kindly advise whether Oyster Point and the rest of the Hinchinbrook Channel is
within the Great Barrier Reef Region” (letter obtained under Freedom of Information
legislation).
The Attorney General’s Department did so advise. It did not, however, state that
the Authority had or did not have jurisdiction, but wrote that if its jurisdiction were
to be challenged in law, it might lose such a case. No knowledge of any potential chal-
lenge has come to light.
At first GBRMPA mentioned this ambiguity in its letters (e.g., Chairman to
Friends of Hinchinbrook, 17 November 1993) stating that “a court would most likely
find” it had no jurisdiction. But in mid-1994 it was writing “the entire project is out-
side the GBR Marine Park, and therefore not under Authority jurisdiction; the marine
part of the project (channel and breakwater) is in the World Heritage Area but outside
the Marine Park” (Authority Chairman to Minister, 15 July, 1994).
There has been no revocation of the original marine park proclamation or a
change of the boundary to our knowledge, and no legal case. GBRMPA had appar-
ently withdrawn from this development and from the Hinchinbrook Channel, leaving

it in Queensland’s care.
It is difficult to find a reason for this withdrawal. If GBRMPA considered the
development a sound one, what was there to fear from a proper EIS under the
Commonwealth Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act? GBRMPA did
request the Queensland Government to undertake a proper EIS. Instead, an
Environmental Review Report was put together with no full study of the dynamics of
the area, nor an assessment of what might really happen in the short or long term if
the development went ahead. When this document was put on display, over a hundred
scientists signed a letter of objection to the Minister. Even the conservative Academy
of Sciences (often used for advice by the Commonwealth) expressed concern at the
inadequacy of the assessment. The President wrote that there were “some serious
deficiencies in the environmental impact process” and “the process failed to consider
adequately the World Heritage status of areas adjacent to the development”
(Professor Sir Gustav Nossal to the Minister for the Environment, 14 January, 1997).
The Academy also offered assistance in this letter. This was not accepted.
But there was still a possibility of enforcing a proper EIS through the Australian
Heritage Commission, which has a duty of care over World Heritage Areas, and its
GBR World Heritage includes the channel to the mainland low tide mark. The
Heritage Commission, however, decided that the likelihood of damage definitely did
not exist. In so deciding, the Executive Director of the Commission used GBRMPA
advice and wrote, “GBRMPA has assessed that at this stage it would not be appro-
priate for it to request to the Minister that she promulgate the WHPC Act” (Sharon
Sullivan to Friends of Hinchinbrook, 11 January, 1993). Three years later the Chair
of the Heritage Commission wrote to the Federal Minister: “In conclusion, the
Will the Great Barrier Reef Survive Human Impact? 343
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
Commission considers that the decision to grant consent to the proposals will have
direct adverse effects on the national estate in the immediate vicinity of the proposal
and a high likelihood of leading to significant indirect effects in the region” (Wendy
McCarthy, Chair, Australian Heritage Commission to Senator Hill, 9 August, 1996).

The Minister chose not to trigger the act.
The GBR “provides some of the most spectacular scenery on earth and is of
exceptional natural beauty,” to quote the words the Federal Government used to get
World Heritage status. Yet there may not have been much consideration given to
wilderness scenery, beauty, and aesthetics by GBRMPA, by the Queensland
Environmental Review, or by Federal Ministers of the Environment in the develop-
ment approvals. The Chairman of the Australian Heritage Commission mentions
“outstanding scenic landscapes,” in the letter quoted above, but that led to nothing.
By this time, in response to public outcry, a Senate Inquiry into Hinchinbrook
was under way. In her foreword to the final report the Chair of the Inquiry wrote: “In
the committee’s view the management of development proposals at Oyster Point has
been a tragedy of errors, the results of which have been unsatisfactory to all.” Visually
the Hinchinbrook Channel has been forever changed. Dredging of the boat channel
into the main Hinchinbrook Channel will be a regular activity in this high silt area.
Any impact on the seagrasses and on dugongs and other rare fauna will only become
apparent through time.
Why did all this happen? The politicians in both governments may have chosen
short-term political gain in spite of potential damage—aesthetic damage immedi-
ately, and biological damage likely in the long term—to a remarkable portion of the
GBR. The precautionary principle was not invoked. The seductive lure of develop-
ment and its impact on the local economy and on voting patterns were too great.
Why did the Heritage Commission and the GBRMPA, which both care for the
GBR on our behalf, withdraw from this issue? One can only assume that they may
just have been responding to political will, for support for the development came pub-
licly from the Prime Minister (in a number of speeches), and from the Premier of
Queensland (who opened the development in its early stage).
I document this case in some detail to show that, in spite of good environmental
acts, short-term political considerations seem to have been the primary factors in
decision-making, outweighing long-term environmental and scenic values.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The history of environmental impact assessment (EIA, EIS) in Australia also shows
that typically, once a development is being assessed for impact, it is usually firmly
under way and will not be stopped, and this seems to have been the case for
Hinchinbrook. An EIS may be used to ameliorate impacts and perhaps alter some
aspects of a development, but it seldom stops a development. EIS seem also to avoid
assessing scenic damage to a beautiful natural area. In the cases mentioned above the
EIS process, however flawed in other ways, did not take sufficiently into account the
aesthetic changes the developments would make to the GBR. Why not, when the
beauty of the GBR was one of our clearly stated reasons for protecting it?
344 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
One can only consider the environmental assessment here to fit the comments of
Canadian W. E. Rees, “that EIA is still largely a reactive, quasi-regulatory instrument
where the economy and the proposal are the driving variables and the environent and
the EIA the dependent ones” (Rees, 1988).
Preliminary environmental assessment and zoning of an area—sometimes called
strategic environmental assessment (SEA)—help a developer to consider the right
areas to develop that fit within broad management plans (Court et al., 1996). The
GBR MPA has a set of zoning plans, and the coast needs the same. The recently pro-
duced Position Paper, “Cardwell-Hinchinbrook’s Coast: Managing Its Future,” which
is a step toward creating a Draft Regional Coastal Management Plan (under the
Queensland Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995), may help with further
developments, though the horse has already bolted through the open stable door in
these cases. This act among other things would “identify key coastal sites and coastal
resources,” “planning for their long term protection.” Hinchinbrook is recommended
as a key coastal site, but it could be considered too late. The act may help elsewhere,
though this still needs to be demonstrated.
CONCLUSION
1. Marine protected areas are insufficient, or are ill chosen, particularly in the
inter-reefal areas (e.g., areas protected from trawling chosen because they

are not commonly used for trawling, rather than on scientific grounds).
2. Those areas protected are not effectively policed (e.g., no satellite position
monitoring yet on fishing boats; too few patrol boats).
3. Fishing effort by trawl is considered unsustainable at the present rate
(800ϩ registered trawlers), and its impact on the bottom biota within the
GBR lagoon is considered serious.
4. Tourist pressures are strong, and numbers of tourists are increasing. While
increases in tourism development and infrastructure on the GBR may be
sustainable if well planned, the absence of coastal planning and the almost
overwhelming political/monetary pressures for development are resulting
in haphazard development, with developments often wrong in scale, type,
and place.
5. Areas where charter yacht usage is increasing are considered by some
marine biologists to be showing signs of damaging impact.
6. Dugong populations have been decreasing seriously in the southern
GBR—down 50 to 80% in one decade.
7. Green and Hawksbill turtle breeding numbers are measurably decreasing.
8. The coastal wetlands and moist paperbark forest areas are being steadily
cleared for sugarcane farming. This, with riparian tree removal, is dimin-
ishing the coastal sponge effect, and increasing silt and nutrient loads.
9. Land clearing continues, and in fact has seriously accelerated in 1999 to
2000 with the highest clearing rate ever recorded yet since European set-
tlement. Farming/pastoral activities are often not accompanied by sustain-
able, long-term landcare practices. Cleared or over-grazed land can suffer
Will the Great Barrier Reef Survive Human Impact? 345
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
severe sheet and gully erosion with typically heavy tropical rainfall, deliv-
ering huge loads of mud and nutrient to the GBR. A number of scientists
now believe that inner reefs are being affected.
10. Mangroves are still being destroyed, when they should be being replanted.

Their natural role in protecting inshore seagrass beds and corals from silt
is therefore lost.
11. Acid sulphate soils are common in the coastal region, and the resulting
sulphuric acid links to heavy metals and moves them into the shallow
coastal seas. It is considered possible that these are getting into the food
chain and are being accumulated in dugongs.
12. Aquaculture is developing, with many more aquaculture farms forecasted.
Their impacts are considerable, including loss of mangrove areas and
changes to mangrove creeks (important nursery areas).
13. Often even elementary assessment of environmental impact (EIA, EIS) is
not done, or not done adequately.
14. Efficient coastal planning has only just begun and is well behind the rate
at which development is taking place.
This set of indictments suggests that due care for the GBR is lacking. In dis-
cussing the failures in the care and control of the GBR one is often told that this could
never happen again with the latest planning and environmental laws. While the laws
are now stronger (particularly the Commonwealth Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) we believe this to be misconceived. These case
studies show us that whatever good environmental acts have decreed in the past, gov-
ernments will not follow their own rules if they feel a community seeks development
over environment.
The message of slow “chipping away” through hundreds of small decisions has
not been learnt. Vastly more rigour must be shown in integrated coastal planning, as
well as control of activities both in the Great Barrier Reef WHA and outside it that
are affecting it now, or are to affect it in the future.
Perhaps the political process itself is inimical to the long-term survival of the
GBR as we would like to enjoy it. Too often the demands of governments trying to
remain in power in the short term overwhelm sound long-term planning, effective
control of development, and many uses (e.g., fishing), in spite of the best of inten-
tions. The answer to the question posed in the title has to be that — without fresh

thinking and fundamental attitudinal and management changes, the Great Barrier
Reef will not “survive” as we enjoy it today . . . it will be slowly and continuously
degraded both biologically and aesthetically.
REFERENCES
Ayukai, T. & Wolanski, E. 1997 Importance of biologically mediated removal of fine sedi-
ments from the Fly River plume, Papua New Guinea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 44 (5), 629–639.
Baldwin, C. 1990. Impact of elevated nutrients on the Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority 20, 1–75.
346 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
Bergman, M.J.N. & Lindeboom, H.J. 1999 Natural variability and the effects of fisheries in the
North Sea: towards an integrated fisheries and ecosystem management? pp. 173–184 in
Gray, J.S. et al. (eds) Biogeochemical Cycling and Sediment Ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Birkeland, C. (ed) 1997 Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman & Hall, New York, 527 pp.
Bryant, D., Burke, L., McManus, J., & Spaulding, M. 1998 Reefs at Risk. World Resources
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Court, J., Wright, C., & Guthrie, A. 1996. Environmental assessment and sustainablility. Are
we ready for the challenge? Australian Journal of Environmental Management 3, 42–57.
Furukawa, K., Wolanski, E., & Muller, H. 1997. Currents and sediment transport in mangrove
forests. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 44, 301–310.
GBRMPA (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) Workshop. 1997. Protection of
Wetlands Adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. Workshop Series, Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Townsville, 25–26.
Harvey, N. 1992 The relationship between sustainable development and environmental impact
in Australia: a critique of recent national reports. Environmental Planning and Law
Journal 9(4), 265–273.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1999 Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral
reefs. Marine Freshwater Research 50, 839–866.
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) 1981 Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Nomination Technical Evaluation. International Union for the Conservation of
Nature, IUCN, Gland.
Johnson, A.K.L., Ebert, S.P., & Murray, A.E. 1997 Spatial and temporal distribution of wet-
land and riparian zones and opportunities for their management in catchments adjacent to
the GBR Marine Park. Workshop Proceedings: Protection of Wetlands Adjacent to the
Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, 82–98.
Lindeboom, H.J. 2000 The need for closed areas as conservation tools. pp. 290–301 in Kaiser,
M.J. & de Groot, S.J. (eds) Effects of Fishing on Non-Target Species and Habitats.
Blackwell Scientific, U.K.
Lowe, I. 1997 Can the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area be managed sustainably?
pp. 379–402 in The Great Barrier Reef: Science, Use, and Management, a National
Conference. Proceedings, Vol. 1, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
Marsh, H., Arnold, P.W., Limpus, C.J., Birtles, A., Breen, B., Robins, J., & Williams, R. 1997
Endangered and charismatic megafauna, pp. 124–138, in The Great Barrier Reef:
Science, Use and Management, a National Conference. Proceedings, Vol. 1, Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
Queensland Department of Tourism, Sport and Youth 1995 Towards a Queensland Tourist
Strategy. Queensland Government, Brisbane.
Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation 1998 Great Barrier Reef Snapshot. No. 7, QTTC,
Brisbane.
Rees, W.E. 1988 A role for environmental assessment in achieving sustainable development.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8, 273–291.
Royal Commission on Drilling for Petroleum in GBR Waters 1974 Report. Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
Senate Environment Committee 1999 The Hinchinbrook Channel Inquiry, Report.
Commonwealth of Australia, 170 pp.
UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage, adopted by UNESCO General Conference, Paris.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1998. Report on the Shrimp Virus Peer
Review and Assessment Workshop: Developing a Qualitative Ecological Risk Assessment.

Report No. US EPA/600/R-97/136, Washington, D.C., 38 pp.
Will the Great Barrier Reef Survive Human Impact? 347
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
Wasson, R.J. 1997 Run-off from the land to the rivers and the sea, in Great Barrier Reef
Science, Use and Management, Symposium Proceedings. Vol. 1, Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
White, I. 1998 Submission to the Commonwealth Senate Environment, Recreation,
Communications and the Arts Reference Committee: Hinchinbrook Channel Inquiry.
Submission 127, Canberra.
Wilkinson, C. (ed) 1998 Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine
Science, Townsville, 184 pp.
Wolanski, E. & Spagnol, S. Pollution by mud of Great Barrier Reef coastal waters. Journal of
Coastal Research, in press.
Wolanski, E. & Duke, N. Mud threat to the Great Barrier reef of Australia, in Wang, Y. & Healy,
T. (eds) Muddy Coasts of the World. Springer-Verlag, in press.
Wolanski, E., Spagnol, S., Thomas, S., Moore, K., Alongi, D.M., Trott, L., & Davidson, A.
2000 Modelling and visualizing the fate of shrimp pond effluent in a mangrove-fringed
tidal creek. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 50, 85–97.
Yap, H.T. & Gomez, E.D. 1985 Coral reef degradation and pollution in the East Asian Seas
region. pp. 185–207 in Dahl, A.L. & Carew-Reid, J. (eds) Environment and Resources in
the Pacific. United Nations Environment Program Regional Seas Reports and Studies
No. 69.
Zann, L.P. 1995 Our Sea Our Future. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 112 pp.
Zann, L.P. & Brodie, J. 1997 Towards a scientifically based implementation plan for ecologi-
cally sustainable use and biodiversity conservation in the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage area. pp. 128–136 in The Great Barrier Reef: Science, Use, and Management.
Proceedings, Vol. 2, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
348 Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC