Posted
The Great Barrier Reef faces a greater risk of being
placed on the World Heritage endangered list if proposed new farm
run-off laws are not put into place soon, Queensland's Environment
Minister has warned.
Key points:
- The Queensland Government expects to pass a bill introducing tougher mandatory run-off regulations
- Some agricultural groups oppose the new measures, citing a dissenting sediment scientist
- In Federal Parliament, the Senate agreed to hold an inquiry into whether run-off is harming the reef
"UNESCO's going to be looking very carefully at the actions we take," Leeanne Enoch told 7.30.
"There is an absolute need to be able to accelerate our efforts in regard to water quality."
The Queensland Government is expected to pass a bill through parliament today to introduce new mandatory farm run-off regulations, despite widespread opposition from agricultural groups.
"It's too detailed, too complex … and that just poses too significant a risk for the industry," Canegrowers CEO Dan Galligan said.
The Queensland rural lobby group AgForce, which represents grazing and horticulture, agrees.
"To have so much extra green and red tape put on a struggling industry is incredibly frustrating and concerning," AgForce CEO Michael Guerin said.
The Queensland Government argues it is responding to both scientific reports and the concerns of the World Heritage Committee, which is to consider progress made on water quality targets next year.
The 2019 outlook report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority finds water quality is improving, but too slowly, and poor water quality continues to affect many inshore areas of the reef.
"Future initiatives need to deliver timely, best practice agricultural land management over a wider area to improve water quality," the authority said.
Plan to extend run-off laws
The Queensland Government is proposing to extend run-off regulations from three to all six major catchments of the reef, and to broaden their application to bananas, horticulture and grains as well as cattle grazing and sugar cane.
Cane farmers say they have already improved their water run-off and further regulation is unnecessary.
"What this is doing is actually devaluing what they [canegrowers] have already done, and also demotivating anyone from being involved in the future," Mr Galligan said.
James Cook University water expert Professor Jon Brodie, who has worked with cane farmers to reduce water pollution, agrees with the stronger run-off laws.
"Yes, they [canegrowers] are still making a little bit of progress, but it's very minor now, and nowhere near enough to reach the targets that have been set," he said.
But he warns agriculture needs more help from governments.
"The [Federal] Government's own estimate of the amount of money we need to fix up water quality on the Great Barrier Reef is about $9 billion to be spent over 10 years," Professor Brodie said.
"That sort of money is just not available."
Questioning the science
Both Canegrowers and AgForce have been questioning some of the scientific assumptions behind the regulations.
"There are a number of eminent scientists who are saying it's important we stop and do a quality check," Mr Guerin said.
"The one who has a lot of publicity at the moment is Dr Peter Ridd."
Dr Ridd, a sediment expert, climate change sceptic and former lecturer at James Cook University, has been addressing farmers' protest rallies, arguing farm run-off is doing very little damage to coral reefs.
"The water quality of the reef is determined by the Pacific Ocean, not by farmers," he told a rally in Townsville.
The Federal Government's independent expert panel says Dr Ridd is misrepresenting the science.
The panel, which includes former chief scientists of the Australian Government and the CSIRO, wrote to Queensland and Federal ministers last month to express "the members' unanimous support for the science that underpins the evidence of the extent and probable causes of damage to the Great Barrier Reef."
The panel said the campaign to cast doubt on reef science was "a strategy to delay suitable policy responses to particular issues that was clearly articulated by the tobacco industry many years ago".
Canegrowers denies it is deliberately trying to cast doubt on the science.
"I don't think we're sowing any seeds of doubt that didn't exist previously," Mr Galligan said.
AgForce argues Dr Ridd should be heard.
"It's tragic when people who want to contribute positively to an important debate, the vitriol that follows, the personal attacks that follow are quite disappointing," Mr Guerin said.
The rural lobby group wants another panel appointed to review the scientific evidence.
"It might just give us some insight and learning that we don't currently have and that would give us an even better outcome," Mr Guerin said.
The push to recheck the science has been supported by the federal Coalition, which has approved a Senate inquiry into reef water quality.
But Ms Enoch says another review is unnecessary.
"We are a responsible government and any responsible government only uses peer reviewed published science."
Professor Brodie agrees.
"We have hundreds and hundreds of scientists looking at thousands of pieces of scientific research and to suggest that's not enough and that Peter Ridd knows more than all those people is just ludicrous," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment