EXPERT REACTION: UNESCO declares the GBR should be listed as 'in danger'

I am in full agreement that the Great Barrier Reef is under severe threat and the status should be upgraded to “In Danger”; I was surprised that the government was able to persuade UNESCO otherwise a couple of years ago. In the time since, little has changed; severe bleaching affected large parts of the reef last year. 

The level of bleaching experienced in recent years is not sustainable; there is no opportunity for the reef to recover, and local coastal management concerns, combined with the overarching impacts of climate change, are maintaining and exacerbating the pressure the reef is experiencing.

Denial and a lack of action from the government on climate change, and encouragement of developments strongly linked to climate change, are of grave concern and undermine superficial funding for scientific research into the health of the reef.

While there is some excellent research being conducted on coral health and restoration, these are band-aid solutions to a much larger problem that is not being considered by the government.

The underlying resilience – the ability of the reef to bounce back from impacts – has been eroded, and the Reef 2050 Plan is unlikely to correct that in any useful time frame.

A change of management approach is required to attempt to maintain core ecosystem functions, with the understanding that the Great Barrier Reef has already irreversibly changed.

A strong government response to climate change is required to prevent the reef from deteriorating much further

There are currently 53 sites on the World Heritage In Danger list. But these listings are not permanent. Various sites that were previously listed as In Danger have been removed from the list once concerns were addressed.

While some Committee decisions may be considered political, the facts in this instance are clear: the 2019 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report rated the health of the Reef as ‘very poor’. And the 2020 IUCN Outlook Report listed the Reef as ‘critical’, which is the worst rating on a 4-point scale.

The Committee has been raising concerns about the Reef for a decade – in 2012 the final decision of the Committee stated “... in the absence of substantial progress, the possible inscription of [the Reef] on the In-Danger list”) 

Australia’s Reef 2050 plan previously failed to address the threat posed to Great Barrier Reef by climate change— however, UNESCO suggest the plan must determine realistic pathways for accelerated actions to ensure the conservation of the Reef.

While climate change is a major concern, it is only one of various pressures mentioned in the draft decision. Other major concerns include poor water quality and land clearing—it’s these combined (or cumulative) pressures that are impacting the values of the Great Barrier Reef.

And, let’s be clear that an In-Danger listing would NOT mean an end to tourism on the Reef. Our data and analyses of tourism to World Heritage sites such as the Everglades, Belize and Galapagos show visitors weren’t deterred when these places were listed as In Danger.

In spite of the grim news for the Great Barrier Reef and the marine life it supports, I welcome the recommendation to place the GBR on the list of World Heritage in Danger. This is a call to action to the Australian government to take meaningful steps toward curbing carbon emissions. The growing threat from climate change to the ‘outstanding universal value’ of all UNESCO World Heritage Sites, particularly those where coral reefs are located, should be at the forefront of our attention. Our global environment is changing rapidly and fundamentally.

The consequences of a warming planet for Australia’s people, economy and environment are already here. A recent report by the Australian Academy of Science (2021) outlined how vulnerable Australia is to the impacts of global warming.  The combination of the unprecedented bushfire season last year with the mass mortality of corals on the Great Barrier Reef demonstrates the effects of only 1.1°C of global warming.

The outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is considered ‘very poor’ with climate change seen as the major driver of impacts, acting through more frequent and intense heatwaves and cyclones (GBRMPA 2019). Corals are already suffering from heat stress and mortality: three severe coral bleaching events within five years have caused a loss of over 50 per cent of hard coral cover in the shallow waters of the Great Barrier Reef. Moreover, rising sea levels are amplifying damaging storm impacts on reefs, with corals unable to recover quickly enough as they are compromised by ocean warming and acidification.

The Reef was designated a World Heritage Area in 1981 based on four criteria: i. its superlative natural beauty above and below the water; ii. its globally outstanding example of an ecosystem that has evolved over millennia; iii. its globally significant diversity of reef and island morphologies that reflects ongoing geomorphic, oceanographic and environmental processes; and iv. the richness and complexity of its natural ecosystem, which was highly significant for biodiversity conservation.

This badge of honour has given Australians reason to be proud of their iconic natural wonder. The international prestige has boosted tourism for the Reef, which attracts more than 1.6 million visitors per year. However, Australia’s coral reef scientists have clearly demonstrated the link between climate change, driven by rising global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels, and the demise of the Reef through coral bleaching and ocean acidification. In turn, the lack of action by the Australian government to protect those characteristics for which the Reef was initially designated as World Heritage by abating fossil fuel emissions has jeopardised both the prestige of a World Heritage designation, along with the income it provides.

The list of World Heritage in Danger identifies sites facing major problems. For several years, the Australian Government has been under pressure from the World Heritage Committee to demonstrate significant plans for managing the threat of climate change to the Reef. Their response was the 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan, which set out investments of $1.28 Billion over five years to fund local environmental management initiatives, such as improving water quality, controlling infestations of crown-of-thorns starfish and investing in reef restoration projects. All of this has placed the focus at the periphery, rather than the centre, of the problem.

Despite severe impacts from coral bleaching and ocean acidification on the Reef, the government has up until now chosen to lobby as a member of the World Heritage Committee to avoid the Reef being placed on the list of Heritage in Danger, rather than act to address the core problem of climate change. 

The growing disconnect between Australian responsibilities for stewardship of the Reef and the Federal Government’s support of the fossil fuel industry has to stop. The lack of climate action and lagging national energy policy now means that the Australian Government no longer sets the shining example of responsible reef stewardship it was once renowned for. Now, more than ever, the government must begin urgent work on a credible national plan to achieve domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions at a speed consistent with the survival of the Great Barrier Reef.

The proposed decision released by UNESCO to list the GBR as World Heritage 'in danger' is in some ways a surprise but also not completely unexpected.   

These cards have been stacking up over the past years – GBRMPA’s [Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority] 2019 Outlook of ‘very poor’, the IUCN Outlook assessment of ‘critical’, repeated broad-scale coral bleaching events and cyclone damage, issues around water quality.

It is important to note that this is a draft decision, which will be discussed next month at the World Heritage Committee meeting.   

It certainly shows that the world is watching – in terms of both main threats of climate change and water quality.  

Continued and strengthened action to reduce these threats, at global and local scales respectively, is as important now as ever.  Policy coherence is essential. 

Reliant industries are unlikely to be impacted in the short-term if the GBR is listed as 'in danger'; however, in the long-term, they would be impacted if action is not taken due to deterioration of the reef that provides those goods and services.

UNESCO have based their “in danger” assessment largely on the occurrence of mass bleaching events of 2016, 2017, 2020. Climate change makes the conditions that lead to bleaching more likely. Without substantive action globally and in Australia to cut CO2 emissions we should not be surprised by such assessments.

UNESCO’S proposed ‘in danger’ listing for the GBR is a fair assessment, given the extreme threats to the Reef. It faces a perfect storm of potentially severe impacts that continue to erode its resilience.

The GBR has experienced three mass bleaching events in just five years (2020, 2017, 2016) plus two more in 2002 and 1998.

The science behind the modelling shows the threat to the GBR is real and has been intensifying since the 1980s as global temperatures increased.

Other threats include water quality issues leading to chronic outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and increased intensity and severity of cyclones also associated with climate change. 

Working on the GBR for more than 40 years, I’ve seen the health of the Reef diminish. Greenhouse gas emissions are leading to a warming of the planet which increases ocean temperatures.

This causes more extensive, longer and more frequent coral bleaching events which kill corals at a faster rate than they can naturally recover. Each year, the risks of another marine heatwave and mass coral bleaching are increasing as the baseline sea temperature increases.

We need urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a global consensus on how to more effectively implement international agreements to reduce emissions.

The Great Barrier Reef is a world icon. The draft plan to place it on the ‘in danger’ list is symptomatic of the urgent need for governments to ramp up their plans to reduce emissions.

In the five years since the back-to-back bleaching, Australian businesses and scientists are already pushing for change.

However, the 2019 outlook report clearly states that despite efforts to improve Reef health, there continues to be a decline.

The Reef 2050 plan, submitted to UNESCO under Environment Minister Greg Hunt, has yet to show widescale improvements.  

UNESCO is now calling for an acceleration of the Reef2050 plan, particularly towards urgently countering the effects of climate change and accelerating water quality improvement and land management measures.

Australia’s federal environment minister Sussan Ley acknowledges that climate change contributes to the Great Barrier Reef’s decline; the Queensland government has taken steps to improve water quality.

However, without balancing the type of industrialisation on the land, climate change will continue to be an issue. The UNESCO draft plan is an opportunity for Australia to lead the world, not look overseas for blame.

The Great Barrier Reef acts as a ‘flagship’ conservation location, representing Australia’s stance on Climate Change. Therefore, action to protect the reef should be taken seriously.

The Unesco report states that “accelerated action at all possible levels is required to address the threat from climate change”, and therefore this should not only include research and actions to directly minimise climate change, but also research and action to understand how the Great Barrier Reef can be used as a way to educate the public on climate change impacts.
 
Much of my research focuses on the psychology of conservation, including how the public perceives the risks of threats (e.g. how serious do people think the risk of climate change is?). We know that people are more likely to perceive a risk as being real and serious if we are exposed to information. We are flooded with news about how sharks may pose a threat to humans, but we see very little information about the coral bleaching that is occurring in the reef.

We also know that locations such as the Great Barrier Reef are powerful at connecting people with nature. It is a popular tourist location, and if tourism is conducted sustainably this is another important way of exposing people to the impacts of climate change and how as a country, we are working to mitigate these.

I don’t know why Sussan Ley was blindsided as the push to have the GBR on the endangered list has been on the agenda for some time.

Australia is not playing its part in reducing CO2 emissions and we have a lot to lose. It's estimated that the GBR contributed $6.4 billion (p.5) in 2015-16 financial year, according to Deloitte.

In the latest UNEP Global Environmental Outlook 6, which came out in 2019 (I was the lead author on Oceans and Coasts), in the Technical Summary we stated: 

'Reef bleaching events currently have a recurrence interval of about six years, while reef recovery takes more than ten years (established but incomplete) (Figure 3.8). This means that, on average, reefs will not have enough time to recover between bleaching events. Consequently, a steady downward spiral in reef health is anticipated in coming decades. SDG [sustainable development goal] target 14.2 (‘by 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans’) may not be attainable for most tropical coral reef ecosystems. The limited resilience of coral reef ecosystems to climate change could be further reduced if other pressures on them are not managed sustainably (established but incomplete){Chapter 7, ExecSum, 7.3.1}.'

And in the Summary for Policymakers we said: 

'The rate of human-induced release of greenhouse gases is driving rising sea levels, changes in ocean temperatures and ocean acidification. Coral reefs are being devastated by those changes (well established). Mass coral bleaching, induced by chronic heat, has damaged many tropical reefs beyond recovery (well established). The collective value of coral reefs has been estimated at US$29 billion per annum. The loss of coral reefs has an impact on fisheries, tourism, community health, livelihoods and marine habitats (well established). Interventions based on emerging technologies and sustainable management approaches (such as resilience-based management, integrated coastal zone management and ecosystem-based management) are key to building resilience and may help to preserve some areas of reef (unresolved), but governments should prepare for a dramatic decline (if not a collapse) (well established) of coral reef-based industries and ecosystem services, as well as negative effects on food chains related to the decline and collapse of coral reefs. {7.3.1, 14.2.1}.'

This decision is unfortunate but probably not surprising.

The GBR has been hit by three consecutive bleaching events in the last five years and there are now only a few places on the reef that have avoided impact.

While there are a host of programs aimed at addressing problems, some as part of the Reef 2050 plan and, more recently, the work being done as part of the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, the most important issue is also the most challenging to tackle…ocean warming driven by climate change.

Bleaching events are becoming more frequent and thus there is little time for recovery (which can occur) before the next event happens.

It's certainly unfair to put the blame for global warming on Australia alone but we are one of a long list of minor contributors.  

Our position as a major global supplier of fossil fuels raises concern about how committed Australia is to tackling the major issue affecting this very special place.