Great Barrier Reef progress report: We have to do better on water quality, says Australia

Australia needs to work faster on lifting water quality to save the Great Barrier Reef, according to its first progress report to Unesco since the world heritage site was spared an “in-danger” listing.

The report admitted that a key plank of Australia’s conservation plan – land-clearing reforms in Queensland to staunch water pollution – had failed. It also highlighted climate change, which is the biggest threat to the reef and led to the worst recorded coral bleaching in its history this year, but which the plan makes no attempt to address.

But the Australian government reports “good progress” over the first 18 months of its Reef 2050 plan, citing limits on new port developments and a ban on dumping in reef waters the spoil from the dredging of shipping channels.

Australia had clinched an “investment framework” that mapped out $1.28bn in spending over the next five years, with $716m from the federal government, $409m from the Queensland government and $161m from “other sources”.

The report noted “no undertaking of comparable scope, complexity and financial commitment has been attempted in a marine environment or world heritage site”.

While the priority was to lift the quality of water running into the reef and things were “steadily” improving, the update flagged the “need to accelerate our progress towards the ambitious targets that have been set”.

The update pointed to the 2015 reef report card – written before bleaching this year wiped out about a quarter of all coral – which still gave the reef a “D” for its overall health for the fifth year in a row.

Progress in cutting nitrogen pollution was “very poor” and improving farm practices “poor”, it said, with Queensland poised next year to bring in tougher laws governing use of fertiliser.

On funding the water-quality targets, the report acknowledged a Queensland government study showing it would cost $8.2bn over 10 years. But it then indicated it wasn’t willing to invest the required amount.

“The diminishing return on investment for the more expensive interventions makes these options impractical to implement at this time,” the update said.

The Queensland environment minister, Steven Miles, said he was confident the report would be enough to avert fresh consideration of a Unesco “in-danger” listing as it “demonstrates that we’ve done everything we can to be on track” with conservation plans.

Miles said a “lot of those big important things” such as the ban on dredge spoil dumping, limits on new ports and reef water-quality investment were under way.

“However, given the bleaching event, given the failure of the Queensland parliament to pass the land-clearing laws, and also given the continuing slow progress towards the water-quality targets, there’s obviously some concerns out there,” he said.

“If this goes to a debate about in-danger listing, the responsibility will rest at the feet of the [state Liberal National opposition] who, despite claiming credit for the plan, then refused to support a key element of the plan, land-clearing laws.

“We know that land clearing is driving massive amounts of sediment out on to the reef and that is one of the biggest threats to the reef.”

Miles said bleaching had increased the focus on the failure of the promised land-clearing reforms, which the Queensland Labor government vowed to push through if it won the next election.

“Having said that there is a lot of progress and a lot of commitment particularly from the state and commonwealth governments and I think the global community is likely to see that for what it is and recognise we need more time to demonstrate we can get these things on track,” he said.

The federal environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, said the report showed “significant progress” and that “the blueprint for a new era in reef protection has been established for ongoing cooperation and collaboration involving governments, science, industries and communities”.

“The update highlights that of the 151 actions scheduled in the initial five years, 32 have been completed and another 103 are under way and on track.”

Miles said Australia’s reef conservation plan mainly dealt with “localised” threats. A market-based mechanism for pricing carbon was needed to address the reef’s biggest threat of climate change, he said.

“We’ve actually been damaging the reef for decades through what we’ve done up and down the coast. So we need to address those things if we’re going to give the reef any chance of surviving.”

Miles said Queensland was poised to introduce tougher regulations about the use of fertiliser in early 2017, with the sugar cane industry in particular having “a long way to go” in cleaning up its act “enough to actually have an impact on water quality”.

The report made frequent mention of the bleaching event that hit the reef this year but it didn’t earmark any further funding for conservation action in response.

Ian Chubb, chair of the independent expert advisory committee and former Australian chief scientist, wrote an introductory note emphasising the dire threat climate change meant for the reef.

Chubb said global action on climate change would be “paramount” but that it must be coupled with initiatives to reduce other pressures.

Penelope Wensley, chair of reef 2050 advisory committee, said in an introductory note that the plan “represents the best possible chance for the reef” and “we cannot afford to fail”. Progress was pleasing, she said, but “we have to quicken the pace”.

She said many committee members were “calling for stronger action and a greater investment of effort and resources to accelerate progress towards achieving the targets, objectives and outcomes of the reef 2050 plan”.

Before seeing the update, the Greens senator Larissa Waters said the government risked “failing its homework” by underfunding the reef plan, delaying water quality targets, spruiking new coal and ignoring global warming.