Sustainable shopping: take the ‘litter’ out of glitter

Jennifer Lavers, University of Tasmania

Shopping can be confusing at the best of times, and trying to find environmentally friendly options makes it even more difficult. Welcome to our Sustainable Shopping series, in which we ask experts to provide easy eco-friendly guides to purchases big and small. Send us your suggestions for future articles here.

Scientists often get a bad rap as party poopers. As a case in point, my colleagues and I have provided data on the impacts of balloon releases on marine wildlife.

So when glitter – a highly visible and easily obtained microplastic – comes under the microscope, you might be tempted to groan. The good news is that we’re not out to ruin the fun: with Mardi Gras around the corner (bringing a ubiquity of sparkling Instagrams), here’s how to find ecologically friendly glitter.

Read more:
Mixing glitter and protest to support LGBTQ rights

All glitter goes to the ocean

When something fun or common is revealed to be destructive it should be a point of pride in our society that we adjust, adapt and move on to safer alternatives.

It therefore makes sense to investigate what data exist for glitter, and to consider whether it’s time for a change in attitude. So, what is glitter?

Glitter is typically made from polyethylene, the same plastic found in plastic bags and a host of other products. Despite glitter’s popularity in everything from cosmetics and toothpaste to crafts and clothes, remarkably little is known about the distribution or impacts of glitter on our environment. As a scientist, that worries me. Glitter is incorporated into consumer products without any real knowledge of its safety.

Read more:
Ten ‘stealth microplastics’ to avoid if you want to save the oceans

In contrast, there are dozens of scientific papers on micro-bead scrubbers (tiny plastic beads), which originate from many of the same products (such as cosmetics and toothpaste).

Research on micro-beads suggests that around 8 trillion beads are released into aquatic habitats every day in the United States alone.

Data for glitter are not available, but given its widespread use the situation is likely to be similarly alarming. It’s far too small for waste treatment facilities to capture, so glitter goes straight into your local river and out into the ocean. Because glitter particles are typically 1 millimetre in size or smaller, they can be ingested by a range of creatures, including mussels.

Again, data on micro-beads can tell us why we should be worried about this: a recent study from Australia showed that toxic chemicals associated with micro-beads can “leach” into the tissues of marine creatures, contaminating their bodies. If mussels, fish and other animals are ingesting glitter and micro-beads, these contaminants likely also pose a risk to humans that consume them.

Read more:
Eight million tonnes of plastic are going into the ocean each year

Thankfully, science is here to help. A range of compostable, vegan, 100% plastic-free “bio-glitters” have been created and are readily available online. So, at your next event, you can celebrate in glorious, sparkly style while also educating passers-by about ocean conservation. (I assure you, this is very popular; I do it all the time and I’m the life of the party.)

What to look for

Mica, a naturally occurring sparkling mineral, is often offered as a non-plastic alternative to glitter. However, some brands, such as Lush, are now using “synthetic mica” (made in a lab) because mica mining has been associated with child labour, especially in India.

Some plastics labelled “bio-degradable” will only break down in industrial composting units, at temperatures over 50℃. This is very unlikely to happen in the ocean, so look for terms like “compostable” and “organic” instead. (For more information on the difference between bio-degradable, compostable and everything in between, this United Nations report is very comprehensive – just read the summary if you’re in a hurry).

Fortunately, eco-friendly glitter is becoming much easier to find around the world, and more suppliers are turning to cellulose and other plant-derived bases for their product. Wild Glitter‘s founder, like many in the industry, cites “watching a weekend’s worth of plastic glitter wash down the plughole after a festival” as the impetus to sell an “ethical, eco-friendly, cruelty-free way to sparkle”.

Eco Glitter Fun is a member of the Plastics Ocean Foundation, a global non-profit; Glo Tatts makes beautiful temporary glitter tattoos; and, for an Australian twist, Eco Glitter make their product from Eucalyptus cellulose.

Read more:
Film review: A Plastic Ocean shows us a world awash with rubbish

Bio-glitter can be incorporated into any product. Tasmanian soap maker Veronica Foale switched to bio-glitter last year and hasn’t looked back – if a small business in a rural area can do it, you can too!

The ConversationThis is the key to success in the battle against litter: not all changes are difficult and affordable alternatives do exist. Once you’ve mastered bio-glitter, embrace the next challenge – a bamboo toothbrush perhaps, or reusable Onya produce bags? Never stop learning. Go forth and sparkle responsibly.

Jennifer Lavers, Research Scientist, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


11 billion pieces of plastic bring disease threat to coral reefs

File 20180125 107967 k398f2.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
A plastic bottle trapped on a coral reef.
Tane Sinclair-Taylor, Author provided

Joleah Lamb, Cornell University

There are more than 11 billion pieces of plastic debris on coral reefs across the Asia-Pacific, according to our new research, which also found that contact with plastic can make corals more than 20 times more susceptible to disease.

In our study, published today in Science, we examined more than 124,000 reef-building corals and found that 89% of corals with trapped plastic had visual signs of disease – a marked increase from the 4% chance of a coral having disease without plastic.

Globally, more than 275 million people live within 30km of coral reefs, relying on them for food, coastal protection, tourism income, and cultural value.

With coral reefs already under pressure from climate change and mass bleaching events, our findings reveal another significant threat to the world’s corals and the ecosystems and livelihoods they support.

Read more:
This South Pacific island of rubbish shows why we need to quit our plastic habit

In collaboration with numerous experts and underwater surveyors across Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand and Australia, we collected data from 159 coral reefs between 2010 and 2014. In so doing, we collected one of the most extensive datasets of coral health in this region and plastic waste levels on coral reefs globally.

There is a huge disparity between global estimates of plastic waste entering the oceans and the amount that washes up on beaches or is found floating on the surface.

Our research provides one of the most comprehensive estimates of plastic waste on the seafloor, and its impact on one of the world’s most important ecosystems.

Plastic litter in a fishing village in Myanmar.
Kathryn Berry

The number of plastic items entangled on the reefs varied immensely among the different regions we surveyed – with the lowest levels found in Australia and the highest in Indonesia.

An estimated 80% of marine plastic debris originates from land. The variation of plastic we observed on reefs during our surveys corresponded to the estimated levels of plastic litter entering the ocean from the nearest coast. One-third of the reefs we surveyed had no derelict plastic waste, however others had up 26 pieces of plastic debris per 100 square metres.

We estimate that there are roughly 11.1 billion plastic items on coral reefs across the Asia-Pacific. What’s more, we forecast that this will increase 40% in the next seven years – equating to an estimated 15.7 billion plastic items by 2025.

This increase is set to happen much faster in developing countries than industrialised ones. According to our projections, between 2010 and 2025 the amount of plastic debris on Australian coral reefs will increase by only about 1%, whereas for Myanmar it will almost double.

How can plastic waste cause disease?

Although the mechanisms are not yet clear, the influence of plastic debris on disease development may differ among the three main global diseases we observed to increase when plastic was present.

Plastic debris can open wounds in coral tissues, potentially letting in pathogens such as Halofolliculina corallasia, the microbe that causes skeletal eroding band disease.

Plastic debris could also introduce pathogens directly. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) – a very common plastic used in children’s toys, building materials like pipes, and many other products – have been found carrying a family of bacteria called Rhodobacterales, which are associated with a suite of coral diseases.

Similarly, polypropylene – which is used to make bottle caps and toothbrushes – can be colonised by Vibrio, a potential pathogen linked to a globally devastating group of coral diseases known as white syndromes.

Finally, plastic debris overtopping corals can block out light and create low-oxygen conditions that favour the growth of microorganisms linked to black band disease.

Plastic debris floating over corals.
Kathryn Berry

Structurally complex corals are eight times more likely to be affected by plastic, particularly branching and tabular species. This has potentially dire implications for the numerous marine species that shelter under or within these corals, and in turn the fisheries that depend on them.

Read more:
Eight million tonnes of plastic are going into the ocean each year

Our study shows that reducing the amount of plastic debris entering the ocean can directly prevent disease and death among corals.

The ConversationOnce corals are already infected, it is logistically difficult to treat the resulting diseases. By far the easiest way to tackle the problem is by reducing the amount of mismanaged plastic on land that finds its way into the ocean.

Joleah Lamb, Research fellow, Cornell University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Flying home for Christmas? Carbon offsets are important, but they won’t fix plane pollution

File 20171214 27572 a8rrj.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1

Roey Ahram/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

Susanne Becken, Griffith University and Brendan Mackey, Griffith University

Australia is an important player in the global tourism business. In 2016, 8.7 million visitors arrived in Australia and 8.8 million Australians went overseas. A further 33.5 million overnight trips were made domestically.

But all this travel comes at a cost. According to the Global Sustainable Tourism Dashboard, all Australian domestic trips and one-way international journeys (the other half is attributed to the end point of travel) amount to 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide for 2016. That is 2.7% of global aviation emissions, despite a population of only 0.3% of the global total.

Read more: Life in a post-flying Australia, and why it might actually be ok

The peak month of air travel in and out of Australia is December. Christmas is the time where people travel to see friends and family, or to go on holiday. More and more people are aware of the carbon implications of their travel and want to know whether, for example, they should purchase carbon offsets or not.

Our recent study in the Journal of Air Transport Management showed that about one third of airlines globally offer some form of carbon offsetting to their customers. However, the research also concluded that the information provided to customers is often insufficient, dated and possibly misleading. Whilst local airlines Qantas, Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand have relatively advanced and well-articulated carbon offset programs, others fail to offer scientifically robust explanations and accredited mechanisms that ensure that the money spent on an offset generates some real climate benefits.

The notion of carbon compensation is actually more difficult than people might think. To help explain why carbon offsetting does make an important climate contribution, but at the same time still adds to atmospheric carbon, we created an animated video clip.

Jack’s journey.

The video features Jack, a concerned business traveller who begins purchasing carbon credits. However, he comes to the realisation that the carbon emissions from his flights are still released into the atmosphere, despite the credit.

The concept of “carbon neutral” promoted by airline offsets means that an equal amount of emissions is avoided elsewhere, but it does not mean there is no carbon being emitted at all – just relatively less compared with the scenario of not offsetting (where someone else continues to emit, in addition to the flight).

This means that, contrary to many promotional and educational materials (see
here for instance), carbon offsetting will not reduce overall carbon emissions. Trading emissions means that we are merely maintaining status quo.

A steep reduction, however, is what’s required by every sector if we were to reach the net-zero emissions goal by 2050, agreed on in the Paris Agreement.

Read more: It’s time to wake up to the devastating impact flying has on the environment

Carbon offsetting is already an important “polluter pays” mechanism for travellers who wish to contribute to climate mitigation. But it is also about to be institutionalised at large scale through the new UN-run Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

CORSIA will come into force in 2021, when participating airlines will have to purchase carbon credits for emissions above 2020 levels on certain routes.

The availability of carbon credits and their integrity is of major concern, as well as how they align with national obligations and mechanisms agreed in the Paris Agreement. Of particular interest is Article 6, which allows countries to cooperate in meeting their climate commitments, including by “trading” emissions reductions to count towards a national target.

The recent COP23 in Bonn highlighted that CORSIA is widely seen as a potential source of billions of dollars for offset schemes, supporting important climate action. Air travel may provide an important intermediate source of funds, but
ultimately the aviation sector, just like anyone else, will have to reduce their own emissions. This will mean major advances in technology – and most likely a contraction in the fast expanding global aviation market.

Read more: Friday essay: smile and stay thin – life as a 60s air hostess

Travelling right this Christmas

In the meantime, and if you have booked your flights for Christmas travel, you can do the following:

  • pack light (every kilogram will cost additional fuel)

  • minimise carbon emissions whilst on holiday (for instance by biking or walking once you’re there), and

  • support a credible offsetting program.

The ConversationAnd it’s worth thinking about what else you can do during the year to minimise emissions – this is your own “carbon budget”.

Susanne Becken, Professor of Sustainable Tourism and Director, Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University and Brendan Mackey, Director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Griffith University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


Delhi suffers second smog crisis in 12 months, as wake-up calls go unheeded

Vijay Koul, CSIRO

A year ago Delhi was choking, as smog in the Indian capital soared to 16 times the government’s safe limit for particulate pollution. Now the same thing has happened again.

Levels of the most dangerous particles, called PM2.5, have once again reached last November’s levels: more than 700 micrograms per cubic metre in some parts of the city. Experts say that prolonged exposure to this level of pollution is equivalent to smoking more than two packs of cigarettes a day.

Just 12 months after the record-breaking pollution that should have been a major wake-up call, Delhi is again plunged into darkness. It is a big embarrassment that authorities were not better prepared for this year’s smog season.

Read more: As another smog season looms, India must act soon to keep Delhi from gasping

In July, I released a detailed analysis of the factors that cause Delhi’s November smog.

Based on data from India’s Central Pollution Control Board and from NASA, I concluded that Delhi’s record-breaking pollution in November 2016 was largely due to slow wind speeds and prevailing northerly winds, as well as Diwali fireworks, and the widespread practice of burning crop residues. Others, including the Delhi government, reported similar findings.

But this knowledge has not stopped it happening again, much to the frustration of Delhi residents who now face a second consecutive pollution-plagued winter.

Of course, the authorities do not control the wind speed or direction. But they can and should take steps to curb the other crucial factors.

Burning issue

In Haryana and Punjab states to the north of Delhi, farmers routinely burn their croplands after the summer harvest, ridding their fields of stubble, weed and pests and readying them for winter planting.

This agricultural event coincides with Diwali, India’s festival of lights, which features three or four nights of fireworks before and after the festival, in October or early November.

This series of NASA satellite images clearly shows the pollution plume moving across the landscape during the first two weeks of November. Red dots indicate live fires.

November 1.
November 8.
November 14.

These images show that crop burning is still continuing, especially in parts of Punjab. As the graph below shows, crop burning produced significant amounts of pollution from November 2, 2017, after an earlier pollution spike around October 20 due to Diwali.

Other countries have taken measures to limit crop burning. In Australia, the Victorian state government strongly encourages farmers to retain crop stubble residues, although it allows sporadic burning. In some Canadian provinces, stubble burning is allowed by permit only.

There is no such legislation under consideration in India. But without a ban on crop burning, Delhi’s pollution woes are likely to continue.

It is high time that the government responded, before Delhi’s pollution gets even more out of hand. Particles in the PM2.5 size range can travel deep into the respiratory tract, reaching the lungs. Exposure to fine particles can cause short-term health effects such as eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose and shortness of breath.

Exposure to fine particles can also affect lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart disease. Studies have linked increases in daily PM2.5 exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions, emergency department visits and deaths. More than a million deaths in 2015 were attributed to India’s air pollution.

What governments and residents can do

There is a range of short- and long-term options to combat the problem.

Farmers in Haryana and Punjab should be banned from residue crop burning during October and November, and should be given financial compensation for the inconvenience.

Meanwhile, Delhi’s residents should consider driving less, either by carpooling or using public transport. The city’s authorities, meanwhile, could restrict the entry of polluting trucks and heavy-duty goods vehicles, gradually phase out and ultimately ban older vehicles, and increase parking charges or restrict families to a single car.

A reliable 24-hour power supply would help to reduce the reliance on heavily polluting diesel generators in offices and factories. Subsidies for cleaner fuels or electric or hybrid cars would also help.

Read more: Air pollution causes more than 3 million premature deaths a year worldwide

Authorities also have a duty to keep the public informed of pollution levels, through daily television, radio and social media updates, as well as pamphlets warning of the effects of air quality on health. On the worst days, schools should be closed and children and older people urged to stay indoors.

In the longer terms, a “green belt” could be planted around the city, to help soak up traffic-induced air and noise pollution.

The ConversationMany of these policies would involve significant upheaval. But Delhi needs action before it is too late. The alternative is to be plunged ever deeper into the murk.

Vijay Koul, Honorary fellow, CSIRO

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


Mercury from the northern hemisphere is ending up in Australia

File 20170915 16298 iyi3gv
Mercury pollution, often released from gold mining and coal power stations, is a global problem.

Jenny Fisher, University of Wollongong; Dean Howard, Macquarie University; Grant C Edwards, Macquarie University, and Peter Nelson, Macquarie University

Mercury pollution has a long legacy in the environment. Once released into the air, it can cycle between the atmosphere and ecosystems for years or even decades before ending up deep in the oceans or land.

The amount of mercury in the ocean today is about six times higher than it was before humans began to release it by mining. Even if we stopped all human mercury emissions now, ocean mercury would only decline by about half by 2100.

To address the global and long-lasting mercury problem, a new United Nations treaty called the Minamata Convention on Mercury came into effect last month. The treaty commits participating countries to limit the release of mercury and monitor the impacts on the environment. Australia signed the Convention in 2013 and is now considering ratification.

Read more: Why won’t Australia ratify an international deal to cut mercury pollution?

Until now, we have only been able to guess how much mercury might be in the air over tropical Australia. Our new research, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, shows that there is less mercury in the Australian tropics than in the northern hemisphere – but that polluted northern hemisphere air occasionally comes to us.

A global problem

While most of mercury’s health risks come from its accumulation in ocean food webs, its main entry point into the environment is through the atmosphere. Mercury in air comes from both natural sources and human activities, including mining and burning coal. One of the biggest mercury sources is small-scale gold mining – a trade that employs millions of people in developing countries but poses serious risks to human health and the environment.

Small-scale gold mining is an economic mainstay for millions of people, but it releases mercury directly into the air and water sources.

Once released to the air, mercury can travel thousands of kilometres to end up in ecosystems far away from the original source.

Measuring mercury in the tropics

While the United Nations was gathering signatures for the Minamata Convention, we were busy measuring mercury at the Australian Tropical Atmospheric Research Station near Darwin. Our two years of measurements are the first in tropical Australia. They are also the only tropical mercury measurements anywhere in the Maritime Continent region covering southeast Asia, Indonesia, and northern Australia.

We found that mercury concentrations in the air above northern Australia are 30-40% lower than in the northern hemisphere. This makes sense; most of the world’s population lives north of the Equator, so most human-driven emissions are there too.

More surprising is the seasonal pattern in the data. There is more mercury in the air during the dry season than the wet season.

The Australian monsoon appears to be partly responsible for the seasonal change. The amount of mercury jumps up sharply at the start of the dry season when the winds shift from blowing over the ocean to blowing over the land.

In the dry season the air passes over the Australian continent before arriving at the site, while in the wet season the air usually comes from over the ocean to the west of Darwin.
Howard et al., 2017 (modified)

But wind direction can’t explain the whole story. Mercury is likely being removed from the air by the intense rains that characterise the wet season. In other words, the lower mercury in the air during the wet season may mean more mercury is being deposited to the ocean and the land at this time of year. Unfortunately, there simply isn’t enough information from Australian ecosystems to know how this impacts local plants and wildlife.

Fires also play a role. Mercury previously absorbed by grasses and trees can be released back to the atmosphere when the vegetation burns. In our data, we see occasional large mercury spikes associated with dry season fires. As we move into a bushfire season predicted to be unusually severe, we may see even more of these spikes.

Air from the north

Although mercury levels were usually low in the wet season, on a few days each year the mercury jumped up dramatically.

To figure out where these spikes were coming from, we used two different models. These models combine our understanding of atmospheric physics with real observations of wind and other meteorological parameters.

Both models point to the same source: air transported from the north.

Australia is usually shielded from northern hemispheric air by a “chemical equator” that stops air from mixing. This barrier isn’t static – it moves north and south throughout the year as the position of the sun changes.

A few times a year, the chemical equator moves so far south that the top end of Australia actually falls within the atmospheric northern hemisphere. When this happens, polluted northern hemisphere air can flow directly to tropical Australia.

We observed 13 days when our measurement site near Darwin sampled more northern hemisphere air than southern hemisphere air. On each of these days, the amount of mercury in the air was much higher than on the days before or after.

Tracing the air backwards in time showed that the high-mercury air travelled over the Indonesian archipelago before arriving in Australia. We don’t yet know whether that mercury came from pollution, fires, or a mix of the two.

The highest mercury is observed when the air comes from the northern hemisphere.
Howard et al., 2017 (modified)

A global solution

To effectively reduce mercury exposure in sensitive ecosystems and seafood-dependent populations around the world, aggressive global action is necessary.

The cross-boundary influences on mercury that we have observed in northern Australia highlight the need for the type of multinational collaboration that the Minamata Convention will foster.

The ConversationOur new data establish a baseline for monitoring the effectiveness of new actions taken under the Minamata Convention. With the first Conference of the Parties having taken place last week, hopefully it will only be a matter of time before we begin to see the benefit.

Jenny Fisher, Senior Lecturer in Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Wollongong; Dean Howard, , Macquarie University; Grant C Edwards, Senior lecturer, Macquarie University, and Peter Nelson, Pro Vice Chancellor (Research Performance and Innovation), Macquarie University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


New Zealand Pollution


The new Great Barrier Reef pollution plan is better, but still not good enough

Jon Brodie, James Cook University; Alana Grech, James Cook University, and Laurence McCook, James Cook University

The draft water quality improvement plan, released by the federal and Queensland governments this week, aims to reduce the pollution flowing from water catchments to the Great Barrier Reef over the next five years.

It is part of the overarching Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan to protect and manage the reef until mid-century.

Water quality is one of the biggest threats to the reef’s health, but the new guidelines still fall short of what’s required, given the available scientific evidence.

Read more: Cloudy issue: we need to fix the Barrier Reef’s murky waters.

The draft plan, which is open for comment until October, presents several important and commendable advances in the management of water quality on the Great Barrier Reef. It addresses all land-based sources of water pollution (agricultural, urban, public lands and industrial) and includes social, cultural and economic values for the first time.

The principal sources of pollution are nitrogen loss from fertiliser use on sugar cane lands, fine sediment loss from erosion on grazing lands, and pesticide losses from cropping lands. These are all major risk factors for the Great Barrier Reef.

The draft plan also presents updated water quality targets that call for reductions in run-off nutrients and fine sediments by 2025. Each of the 35 catchments that feeds onto the reef has its own individual set of targets, thus helping to prioritise pollution-reduction measures across a region almost as large as Sweden.

The reef’s still suffering

The Great Barrier Reef suffered coral bleaching and death over vast areas in 2016, and again this year. The 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement, released with the draft water quality plan (and on which one of us, Jon Brodie, was an author), reports:

Key Great Barrier Reef ecosystems continue to be in poor condition. This is largely due to the collective impact of land run-off associated with past and ongoing catchment development, coastal development activities, extreme weather events and climate change impacts such as the 2016 and 2017 coral bleaching events.

Stronger action on the local and regional causes of coral death are seen to be essential for recovery at locations where poor water quality is a major cause of reef decline. These areas include mid-shelf reefs in the Wet Tropics region damaged by crown of thorns starfish, and inner-shelf reefs where turbid waters stop light reaching coral and seagrass. Human-driven threats, especially land-based pollution, must be effectively managed to reduce the impacts on the Great Barrier Reef.

But although the draft plan provides improved targets and a framework for reducing land-based pollution, it still doesn’t reflect the severity of the situation. The 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement reports that “current initiatives will not meet the water quality targets” by 2025.

This is because the draft plan does not provide any major new funding, legislation or other initiatives to drive down land-based pollution any further. As the statement explains:

To accelerate the change in on-ground management, improvements to governance, program design, delivery and evaluation systems are urgently needed. This will require greater incorporation of social and economic factors, better targeting and prioritisation, exploration of alternative management options and increased support and resources.

Read more: The Great Barrier Reef’s safety net is becoming more complex but less effective

The draft plan calls on farmers to go “beyond minimum standards” for practices such as fertiliser use in sugar cane, and minimum pasture cover in cattle grazing lands. But even the minimum standards are unlikely to be widely adopted unless governments implement existing legislation to enforce the current standards.

The draft plan is also silent on the impact of land clearing on water quality, and the conversion of grazing land to intensively farmed crops such as sugar cane, as proposed in the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia.

The federal and Queensland governments have committed A$2 billion over ten years to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Under the draft plan, about half of this (A$100 million a year) will be spent on water quality management. This is not an increase in resourcing, but rather the same level of funding that has been provided for the past seven years.

More than loose change

There is a very strong business case for major increases in funding to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Even with conservative assumptions, the economics firm Jacobs has estimated that protecting the industries that depend on the reef will require A$830 million in annual funding – more than four times the current level.

Read more: What’s the economic value of the Great Barrier Reef? It’s priceless.

The draft water quality plan acknowledges the need for a “step change” in reef management, and to “accelerate our collective efforts to improve the land use practices of everyone living and working in the catchments adjacent to the Reef”.

This need is echoed in many other reports, both government and scientific. For example, the 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement makes several wide-ranging recommendations.

One of them is to make better use of existing legislation and policies, including both voluntary and regulatory approaches, to improve water quality standards.

This recommendation applies to both Commonwealth and Queensland laws. These include the federal Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, which restricts or bans any activities that “may pollute water in a manner harmful to animals and plants in the Marine Park”, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which prohibits any action, inside or outside the marine park, that affects the Great Barrier Reef’s World Heritage values.

Another recommendation is to rethink existing land-use plans. For instance, even the best practice in sugar cane farming is inconsistent with the nitrogen fertiliser run-off limits needed to meet water quality guidelines. One option is to shift to less intensive land uses such as grazing in the Wet Tropics region – a priority area for nitrate fertiliser management because of its link to crown of thorns starfish outbreaks. This option is being explored in a NESP project.

The ConversationThese changes would require significantly increased funding to support catchment and coastal management and to meet the draft plan’s targets. Government commitment to this level of management is essential to support the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change.

Jon Brodie, Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University; Alana Grech, Assistant Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, and Laurence McCook, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, Partner Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.