Australian Committee for IUCN Inc. GPO Box 528 Sydney NSW 2001

Tel. +61 2 8202 1207 Fax +61 2 9281 1060 Email:

[email protected] Australia

Mobile : 0416 364 722

Sustaining the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

The ACIUCN Committee This submission to the monitoring mission is made on behalf of the Australian National Committee of members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, (ACIUCN). ACIUCN has a long standing interest and involvement in Australia’s World Heritage Areas. The Committee noted with interest and concern Decision 35 COM 7B.10 of the 2011 meeting of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) concerning the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. After being advised of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre/ IUCN monitoring mission to consider the issues around developments on Curtis Island and other potential threats to the integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property, the Committee resolved to form an expert group. The aim of this group, drawn from IUCN member organisations and senior figures in IUCN Commissions, is to facilitate input into the mission and also to contribute to the strategic assessment of all developments and subsequent planning to protect the Reef’s World Heritage values in the future. The group is chaired by Prof. Richard Kenchington, Centre for Ocean Resources and Security University of Wollongong, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and Commission on Ecosystem Management and convened by the Director of ACIUCN, Penelope Figgis AO.

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

Sustaining the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area The Challenge The issues of actual and potential impacts to the Great Barrier Reef from catchment management and coastal development have been contentious since the mid-20th century. However, despite some advances, stresses and threats to the integrity of the Marine Park and World Heritage Area are currently accelerating. Many of these threats were identified in the 2009 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report. However, the development of the Queensland resources industry and associated infrastructure has increased very dramatically since the report was compiled. It is therefore very timely for a profound reassessment of directions to be made. The recent referral discussions at the WHC in relation to Curtis Island generate two key needs. First, ACIUCN believes the challenge is to undertake a strategic assessment that will establish a strong, reasonable and accountable strategic framework of planning and approvals processes that provide certainty for conservation and development in the immediate and longer terms. Such a framework should clearly identify and address potential and cumulative risks and manage them to safeguard the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). The process for developing the framework needs to be genuinely consultative, transjurisdictional and trans-sectoral. It needs to cover catchments, freshwater flows, estuarine, inshore and reef systems, and all forms of coastal development. Such a framework should avoid multiple or serial “at risk” referrals to the World Heritage Committee (WHC). This path of action needs a whole of government commitment because while elements of such a process exist and are beginning to prove effective in the Queensland regional planning framework, they can be by-passed for major development project proposals. Second, it is essential to establish a transitional phase with robust precautionary conditions to apply to proposals which have been submitted in compliance with arrangements in place at 30 June 2011. This should include the provision that if the proponents of current proposals are not prepared to operate within such conditions, then they can defer and make their case once the strategic framework and associated plans have been established.

Key points 1. The reactive mission needs to consider the Curtis Island issues in the broader context of the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBR WHA) as a whole and to contribute to a strategic assessment process. 2. While resource extraction, processing and transport have been the initial triggers for concern, there are other important processes to consider. The Outlook Report (2009) identifies coastal development and catchment runoff as high impact issues. The Report states that current and predicted future impacts are likely to significantly impact the Region's environmental values and expresses concern about serious ecosystem effects within 20-50 years. 3. The population of Great Barrier Reef coastal catchments is expected to increase by 40% in the next 25 years. This growth and its associated economic development will exacerbate many of the identified threats and hence underscore the profound strategic challenge of seeking the goals of both economic and environmental sustainability and the maintenance of the Outstanding Universal Value of the GBR WHA.

2

4. There are major and immediate potential impacts from current and projected coal mining and gas extraction and related port development and shipping. These are illustrated by the attached summary of current ports and proposed developments. The full extent of these proposals and their implications are not yet clear, but publicly available information on proposals leads to projections of a ten-fold or greater increase in bulk carrier traffic within the GBRWHA area. It can be expected that the State party report will contain much more substantial and authoritative listing of current and proposed activities, and that agency and NGO submissions will provide further information on concerns regarding ports and upper catchment and coastal land developments. 5. Curtis Island lies within the GBR WHA; however, it directly illustrates the broader challenges of achieving sustainable development, reasonable use and conservation of catchment, coastal and marine ecosystems that are outside but linked to the GBR WHA. 6. While the challenges are profound, the Australian and Queensland governments have illustrated a capacity for cooperation on a large scale basis to address strategic threats to the Reef. Since 1975 the Australian and Queensland governments have developed and maintained an effective and internationally recognised system of management for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and adjacent waters. They have also put in place ‘Reef Plan’, a program in which the majority of Reef Rescue funds ($146 M) over a five year period from 2008 are allocated to Water Quality Incentive Grants. These grants support farmers and land managers enabling them to upgrade their farming practices to better manage their soil and chemical usage, and reduce sediment, nutrient and pesticide inputs to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. 7. It is the view of the ACIUCN expert committee that an effective strategic framework will require a similar high degree of cooperation on agreed goals and priority actions. The Commonwealth and Queensland governments will brief the mission on the development of a framework for integration of Queensland regional planning with Commonwealth strategic responsibilities with respect to the GBRWHA under key legislation - the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act (1975). The main element of this process will be a comprehensive strategic assessment of the adequacy of Queensland coastal plans, including local government strategic planning, for maintenance of the Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA. The terms of reference for the GBRWHA Comprehensive Strategic Assessment are being developed and it is expected that they will be released for public comment around and probably before the arrival of the mission. 8. A key issue for the mission is to develop an understanding of the social, economic and political dynamics that have to be addressed in order to achieve an effective strategic assessment and management framework for long term maintenance of the outstanding universal value of a large marine ecosystem that is a World Heritage Area. 9. The key challenge underlying the whole process is achievement of an effective, open, robust and accountable strategic mechanism that is not capable of being undermined by ‘fast track’ options. The 5 yearly statutory Outlook Reporting requirements under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act provide a good model of a process with substantial separation from the political electoral cycle. This obliges the Minister of the day to require the GBR Marine Park Authority to provide such a report and obliges the Minister to table that report in the Parliament with his/her comments. 10. This submission has been developed by Great Barrier Reef experts and circulated for comment to all members of IUCN in Australia. IUCN member organisations will develop submissions and seek opportunities for discussion with the mission on matters of their specific areas of interest and expertise.

3

Discussion The recent referral discussions at the WHC in relation to Curtis Island raise much broader issues for the GBRWHA. At issue is nothing less than the question of whether the outstanding universal value can be maintained and passed on to future generations in the face of an expanding population, major coastal development and on-going coastal pollution issues as well as the overall threat posed by climate change. The submission stresses the need for an informed consultative trans-jurisdictional and trans-sectoral process to agree and implement a robust and accountable strategic framework of planning and approval processes. Such a framework would lead to improved management of catchment lands and freshwater flows and will help to ensure that all forms of coastal development are consistent with the need to sustain the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef WHA. This will require a substantial effort. ACIUCN also believes there is a need for a transitional phase with robust precautionary conditions to apply to proposals which have been submitted in compliance with arrangements in place at 30 June 2011 with the provision that if the proponents are not prepared to operate within such conditions they can defer and make their case once the strategic plan has been established. Threats There are multiple issues which the monitoring mission needs to consider in seeking assurances from the state party on the future of the WHA. The issue of management of areas within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park boundaries is addressed by the GBR Outlook Report 2009 which identifies levels of risk from coastal development and catchment runoff, such that current and predicted future impacts are likely to significantly affect the Region's environmental values, and expresses concern about serious ecosystem impacts within the next 20 -50 years. There are three main considerations.

1. Pollution of the waters of the GBRWHA with sediments, nutrients and other chemicals from existing agriculture, urban and industrial land use. This is being addressed, in part, under current management arrangements of Reef Plan/Reef Rescue and there has been substantial progress - particularly in the areas of improved understanding of the assimilative capacities of receiving waters, establishing targets for nutrients, sediments and pesticides for the 38 major catchments, and estimating the contribution of existing agricultural practices. A recent Report Card showed progress in shifting a number of critical agricultural practices onto a more sustainable footing. This slow and steady process of adoption of new methods needs ongoing drive and significant additional incentives and resources to increase the uptake of identified improved management practices and implement effective monitoring, evaluation, reporting and adaptive management. A third phase of Reef Plan is now currently being considered by the Partnership Committee at the request of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. Further investment will need to also address the impacts of urbanisation and industrial development.

2. Establishment of major projects involving new, changed or expanded forms of use and infrastructure. While this was raised in the context of the LPG plant on Curtis Island, it is relevant to the whole property including new mining proposals in the pristine Far North of Cape York Peninsula. Impacts will occur from both construction and operation. Construction impacts could affect coastal habitats important for ecosystem processes (such as mangroves and salt marshes) and fauna and flora in the GBRWHA. Operational impacts are likely to be additional and cumulative, such as those arising from sediment, nutrient and chemical pollution of the waters of the GBRWHA. The strategic challenge is to address the issue of cumulative impacts or “death by a thousand cuts” where increasing capacity or multiple replication of an initially approved or pioneer activity leads to unacceptable levels of impact. The scale of this issue is illustrated by the accompanying summary of port development proposals prepared in October 2011.

4

3. Impacts of population growth and consequential development. Substantially larger coastal resident populations will bring increased uses and activities within the GBRWHA such as increased volumes and risks of shipping, impacts of recreational fishing, boating and the aspirations of the nationally significant GBR tourism industry. This presents complex transjurisdictional issues of strategic spatial and regulatory planning and management within and beyond the GBRWHA. Strategic Planning Considerations Most major projects are addressed outside the framework of Queensland regional planning and are the responsibility of the Office of the Coordinator General and Department of State Development in consultation with the Commonwealth on environmental and other matters. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act provides a means to address these issues through provisions concerning Commonwealth waters and matters of national environmental significance. This arises from the international head of power in the Australian constitution which enables the federal legislation to prevail over inconsistent state legislation. However, application of this power can be politically contentious, particularly where the relevant matters are not identified until late in a major development project. For this reason, and because of common law and prejudicial disadvantage considerations, the strategic planning task is complex. Nevertheless it is essential and should involve close coordination with strategic economic, demographic and infrastructure planning for catchments. Any strategic plan should clarify the context of decision making in planning and managing major development proposals. It should also establish a process for allocating permissions within that capacity, preferably with strong commercial/financial/regulatory incentives to operate within allocated impact levels and minimise actual impacts. Addressing the potential for cumulative trans-jurisdictional pollution requires a strategic process for defining environmental receiving capacity of the GBRWHA on a basis of reasonable precautionary scientific understanding of impacts and risks. Addressing these issues generally has spatial elements defining where specific classes of impact or activity should occur and capacity elements establishing allowable impact or capacity levels. A basis for this exists in the current intergovernmental arrangements for water quality management of 35 of the major catchments but needs clarification in relation to WHA commitments. An indication of the scale of the necessary task is that the preparation of the 1994-2019 Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (1994) provided a substantial basis for review and revision of GBRMP zoning to reflect commitments to management of the Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA. The preparation of the 25 year strategic plan involved a 3-year process of substantial and systematic consultation with stakeholders addressing matters at scales from local to international. It developed a 25 year shared vision, consequent 25 year objectives, broad strategies and 5 year objectives and specific strategies. The process identified key strategic issues including World Heritage responsibilities; recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests; fishing; tourism; recreation; water quality and coastal development. It led to commissioning of an independent expert study to review available information on relevant World Heritage values and management criteria (Lucas et al 1997) and subsequently to the 2004 rezoning of the GBRMP which had a primary objective of ensuring high levels of protection to viable representative areas of all bioregions of the GBRMP. The extent to which the identified strategies have been applied and objectives achieved varies. Although the issues of impacts from catchment management and coastal development were identified, the scale of subsequent activity has probably been significantly greater than most participants would have expected in 1994. The potential for substantial, but short term mineral operations, ports with associated infrastructure (with the risk of duplication) and opportunistic associated development is now more widely recognised. A robust, long term strategic framework

5

that provides focus and reasonable predictability for development and conservation is not only needed to meet WHA obligations but may provide a broader precedent for an ecosystem approach to strategic planning. The 2009 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report provides a substantial account of the current status and threats to the GBRWHA noting that “the GBR remains one of the world's most healthy coral reef ecosystems” although “its condition has declined significantly since European settlement” and “the overall resilience of the ecosystem has been reduced”. It concluded that “the effectiveness of management is challenged because of complex factors that have their origin beyond the Great Barrier Reef region, namely climate change, catchment runoff and coastal development cause some of the highest risks to the ecosystem”. It would seem logical to design and conduct a process to address the adjacent coasts and catchment as well as the GBRWHA in parallel with the preparation of the 2014 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report which is required by legislation. Additionally, the current arrangements for Reef Plan continue to 2013 and discussions are commencing on what is required beyond this date. Thus, the proposed Strategic Assessment to be undertaken in response to the WHC’s decision should include: • Reef-wide assessment of cumulative risks and conservation priorities to ensure the maintenance of the Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA; • Assessment of the adequacy of existing legislative, policy and management arrangements and the extent of implementation and challenges to implementation of the 1994 GBR Strategic Plan and Reef Plan; • Effective consultation with all relevant stakeholders; and • Assessment of adequate levels of resources to ensure effective compliance, research, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and review to underpin long term management that maintains the Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA. These assessments should then contribute to the proposed review of Reef Plan and a parallel process to review the 1994 GBR Strategic Plan. The challenge then will be to proceed from assessment to implementation of effective catchment management and coastal development that will directly address obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

6

Working Group membership Chair: •

Prof. Richard Kenchington, Centre for Ocean Resources and Security University of Wollongong, IUCN WCPA and Commission on Ecosystem Management

Expert Members: •

Graeme Kelleher AO, former Director GBRMPA, Senior Advisor to the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

•

Imogen Zethoven AO, Pew Environment Group, Coral Sea, IUCN WCPA

•

Chris Smyth, Healthy Oceans, Australian Conservation Foundation, IUCN WCPA

•

Darren Kindleysides, Director, Australian Marine Conservation Society, IUCN WCPA

•

John Tanzer, Director, Environmental Pathways and Solutions, IUCN WCPA

•

Richard Leck, National Marine and Coastal Policy Officer, WWF Australia , IUCN WCPA

•

Dr. Lea Scherl, Vice Chair Oceania Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP)

•

Diane Tarte, Director Marine Ecosystems Policy Advisors Ltd, IUCN WCPA

•

Dr. Jennifer Strickland-Munro, IUCN WCPA

•

Gavan Mc Fadzean, Northern Australia Campaigner, The Wilderness Society

•

Jim Muldoon, Environment al Consultant IUCN WCPA

The Director of the Australian Committee for IUCN Penelope Figgis AO provided support to the group.

7

APPENDIX Ports in the GBR-WHA Existing Ports There are currently 12 commercial ports within the WHA that have officially declared Port Limits and Port Authorities under the Queensland Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and Queensland Transport Infrastructure (Ports) Regulation 2005, as follows (listed from north to south): Quintell Beach Cape Flattery Cooktown Cairns Mourilyan Lucinda Townsville Abbot Point (including Bowen) Mackay Hay Point Rockhampton (Port Alma) Gladstone These are shown on Figure 1 and further details of each are provided in Table 1. Of the 12 existing declared ports, eight have areas of water that are excluded from the Marine Park for port purposes (but which are still within the WHA). However, for all of these, the Port Limits do not align with the areas excluded from the Marine Park, and in some cases significant areas of the declared Port Limits extend into the Marine Park; these are Lucinda, Townsville, Abbot Point/Bowen, Mackay, Hay Point, Rockhampton and Gladstone. Two of these also have areas excluded from the Marine Park that are not included in their Port Limits; these are Lucinda and Gladstone. Four of the existing declared ports have their Port Limits wholly within the Marine Park; these are Quintell Beach, Cooktown, Cairns and Mourilyan. There are also a number of smaller non-commercial ‘ports’ such as Port Douglas north of Cairns, Airlie Beach and Shute Harbour on the Whitsunday’s coast and Rosslyn Bay near Yeppoon, which do not have declared Port Limits nor designated Port Authorities, being managed by the State Government through Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ). Of these, water areas off Airlie Beach and Rosslyn (Statue) Bay are excluded from the Marine Park (but still within the WHA). For clarity and efficiency of port regulation and management in the WHA and adjacent to and within the Marine Park, there is a clear need to rationalize the alignment of Port Limits and Marine Park boundaries where there are currently misalignments. Port expansions & new port proposals Major development is currently under way, planned or proposed at seven of the existing commercial ports, as follows (listed from north to south): Cooktown:

Proposed: Channel dredging. Proposed: New Marina.

Cairns:

Planned: Marina expansion Proposed: Channel deepening for cruise ships (dredge

8

spoil dumped in Marine Park). Townville:

Underway: Industrial Marine Precinct on Ross River, inc. reclaiming 34 ha of WHA. Planned: New outer harbour, inc, breakwaters, six new berths, reclaiming 100 ha of WHA and deepening/extending channel (inc. into Marine Park).

Abbot Point:

Underway: Tranche 1 (T1) coal terminal expansion from current 20 mtpa coal exports to 50 mtpa, includes new stockpiles, wharf and berth. Planned: Tranches T2 to T7, each of 30 mtpa coal exports, with ultimate capacity of 230 mtpa (inc. new onshore coal terminal in Abbot Point State Development Area - APSDA). Planned: Muti-Cargo Facility (MCF) inc, breakwaters, 12 new berths, reclaiming 400 ha of WHA and dredging 250 ha of WHA. Planned: Petroleum and general cargo imports. Planned: LNG processing and port facilities.

Hay Point:

Underway: Expansion of Hay Point Coal Terminal (HPCT) from current 44 mtpa to 55 mtpa, inc. new wharf and berth and dredging (inc. dumping in Marine Park). Planned: Several new coal terminals at Dudgeon Point with offshore jetties, 8 new berths and export capacity up to 150 mtpa.

Rockhampton:

Planned: Balaclava Is. coal terminal initially 35 mtpa. Planned: Fitzroy River coal terminal initially 30 mtpa (barges and at sea loading).

Gladstone:

Underway: LNG processing and port facilities on Curtis Island (several). Underway: Western Basin Masterplan - dredging 35 million m3 from the WHA and reclaiming 235 ha of WHA. Underway: Wiggins Island Coal Terminal staged to > 84 mtpa - dredging of 6 million m3 from WHA and reclaiming 300 ha of WHA. Planned: Fisherman’s Landing Northern Expansion - inc. reclaiming 173.5 ha of WHA and six new wharves to serve Gladstone State Development Area (GSDA). Planned: Coal terminal expansions to 300 mtpa.

9

Proposed: Oil shale While responsibility for management of shipping rests with the Commonwealth Department of Transport, there are clear provisions within the Queensland Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and Queensland Transport Infrastructure (Ports) Regulation 2005 to declare new ports, with Port Limits and designated Port Authorities, as required. There are proposals to develop new ports at several ‘greenfield’ sites in the WHA which are not currently declared as ports, including but not limited to a proposed coal-barging operation at Bathurst Bay to service the proposed Wongai coal mine north of Cooktown.

Figure 2, provided by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority illustrates the increase in vessel traffic between 2000 and 2010 and provides a basis for implications of proposals received by January 2012 for expansions of port capacity.

FIGURE 1: Declared and proposed ports in the GBR WHA (at 1 November 2009)

FIGURE 2: Reported ship locations in the GBRWHA 2000 and 2010

10