Australia's Protection Plan to Preserve the Great Barrier Reef Is Inadequate

Earlier this year, the Australian government released a draft plan entitled "Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan" aimed at implementing a protection plan that would save the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) from further degradation. In response, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) published a report, which outlines the reasons that scientists argue the plan will not work and in actuality will lead to increased degradation rather than protecting the GBR. Scientists argue that the proposal is flawed because it does not address any plans to mitigate critical processes, such as climate change and coastal development. One scientist notes, "The science is clear, the reef is degraded and its condition is worsening," said Prof Hughes. "This is a plan that won't restore the reef, it won't even maintain it in its already diminished state...It is also more than disappointing to see that the biggest threat to the reef - climate change - is virtually ignored in this plan."

Source: Australian Conservation Foundation

AAS notes at least three threats leading to increased degradation of the GBR. First, up to 50% of coral has already been destroyed namely due to acidification caused by global warming. A second issue is an aggressive starfish that has been able to flourish due to fertilizers and farm waste run-off into the ocean. Finally, coal is being shipped for export to Japan, Korea and China, which feeds the economy. The process of dredging, digging out silt to widen the amount channels so bigger ships can move through, produces waste that is then dumped close enough to the GBR to cause further degradation.

The original article notes that there are several conflicts of interests (COI) (which the government proposal does not address) that may be at play. The Australian economy is becoming increasingly dependent on fossil fuels, like coal. As noted above, the environmental degradation and overall impact to the GBR is a clear example as to how competing interests may lead to worsened conditions. Another COI may be "conflict [that] arises when regulators are also among the proponents and co-investors of activities such as port development." There may be inadequate oversight in terms of monitoring and even compliance protocols based on the stake some officials have in extractive industries.

Overall, the BBC article addressed many of the points of the original report; however, it did not mention the COI outlined by the AAS scientists. The COI seemed to be a major component of the original article and are important to convey to the public. If the public has any say over the government officials they select then it would have made sense for the BBC article to shed light on the possible complicit role of the existing COI's listed, above. I would rate this article a 6.5/10 because of its failure to include key points from the original article that may inform public opinion.

Original article: https://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-content/submission-to-the-2015-defence-white-paper.pdf

BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29782610