CHAPTER 3
3.1 The Australian Academy of Science stated that the pollution entering
the coastal zone is usually a complex mixture of elements and materials
from a variety of point and diffuse sources:
By their very nature these inputs have a variety of impacts and
must be managed in a variety of ways. Impacts on coastal ecosystems
range from outright toxicity, to stimulation of growth by nutrients,
to smothering by suspended particulate material.[1]
3.2 This chapter describes the major sources of pollution entering
the marine environment and their effects on coastal ecosystems. It begins
by examining the general issue of nutrients and sediments before considering
specific sources of pollution, many of which contribute nutrients and
sediments to the marine environment.
3.3 In recent years, many of Australia's inland waterways have suffered
catastrophic blooms of toxic blue-green algae as a result of high levels
of nutrients from agricultural run-off and urban sewage, exacerbated
by low water flows at certain times. In December 1993, following continuing
public concern over serious occurrences of algal blooms in 1991-92,
the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communication and the
Arts reported on Water Resources - Toxic Algae.
3.4 Eutrophication, increased algal growth resulting from elevated levels
of nutrients, also becomes a major problem in estuaries and coastal waters
when rivers deliver these pollutants to the sea. Professor Leon Zann,
SOMER Coordinator, has stated his belief that: 'elevated sediments and
nutrients are probably the most serious issues affecting Australia's rivers,
estuaries and inshore marine environment'.[2]
3.5 SOMER points out that Australia has a very low surface run-off, citing
the fact that the flow and sediment transport of the Fly River in Papua
New Guinea is similar to that from all of Australia's rivers combined.
Additionally, Australia's soils are extremely poor in naturally occurring
nutrients.[3] Most of the coastal
catchments have been extensively modified by agriculture, forestry, and
urbanisation, and the introduction of intensive agriculture has been a
feature of recent decades. Before European modification of the catchments,
nutrient run-off to the coast was relatively low.
3.6 For these reasons Australian coastal ecosystems are particularly
vulnerable to eutrophication and sedimentation as they have evolved under
very low nutrient and sediment regimes and are widely dominated by nutrient-sensitive
corals in the north, and seagrass in the south. The increase of nutrients
and sediments because of human activities has therefore had a serious
effect on these communities.[4]
3.7 It is estimated that there has been a three to five fold increase
in nutrient and sediment inputs into coastal waters adjacent to the Great
Barrier Reef since European settlement of the adjacent catchments, and
the figure is likely to be higher further south where there have been
greater concentrations of population.[5]
In Western Australia, nutrient exports from the Peel-Harvey and Swan-Canning
catchments have increased by more than 450 and 350 per cent respectively
since the 1960s.[6]
3.8 Large scale and, in some cases, chronic eutrophication occurs in
many coastal regions around the world. Dr Albert Gabric of the Faculty
of Environmental Sciences at Griffith University states that:
In some regions, the link between eutrophication and the destruction
of an ecosystem is obvious, with excessive algal growth and water column
anoxia. In other cases, particularly in more fragile ecosystems such
as coral-reef and seagrass areas, the links are not so obvious, yet
the impacts of eutrophication in such regions can be devastating. Eutrophication
can have more insidious effects such as contributing directly to the
mortality of fish, marine mammals and sea birds and indirectly to disease
or death in humans owing to the accumulation of biotoxins in seafoods.[7]
3.9 The global State of the Marine Environment Report presented a theoretical
sequence of the stages of eutrophication as: (a) enhanced primary productivity,
(b) changes in plant species composition, (c) very dense blooms, often
toxic, (d) anoxic conditions, (e) adverse effects on fish and invertebrates,
(f) impact on amenity, and (g) changes in structure of benthic communities.
Not all these stages will always be present or evident.[8]
3.10 In Australia the environmental impact of elevated nutrients has
been significant. Eutrophication and sedimentation have caused large
areas of seagrass dieback in southern waters. Professor Zann stated
that:
Of particularly grave concern is the implication of elevated
nutrients and sediments in the widespread die-back of temperate seagrass
beds, and the threats they also pose to the corals on the inner Great
Barrier Reef. [9]
Problems associated with the Great Barrier Reef are discussed separately
later in this report. 3.11 Among the most immediately visible effects
of increased nutrients are algal blooms and an increase in aquatic weeds.
Some of the algae are toxic and may cause fish kills while others can
be characterised as nuisance blooms, causing spoiling of beaches, offensive
odours and slimy water. An increasing problem in coastal waters is the
occurrence of toxic phytoplankton blooms which can cause finfish kills
and cause shellfish to become toxic.
3.12 Nuisance and toxic blooms of seaweeds and phytoplankton are now
common in many southern bays and estuaries, resulting from agricultural
or industrial and domestic inputs. The worst affected areas include the
Peel-Harvey system and Cockburn Sound in Western Australia; Holdfast Bay
and Barker Inlet in South Australia; Gippsland Lakes and Port Phillip
Bay in Victoria; and Lake Illawarra, Tuggerah Lakes and Georges River
in NSW.[10]
3.13 One of the best known cases of eutrophication occurred in the Peel-Harvey
Estuary south of Perth. Intensive agriculture in the catchment increased
phosphorus entering the Serpentine and Murray Rivers by nine fold and
fifty fold respectively between 1949 and 1978. As a result, the Peel Inlet
became clogged with macroalgae or seaweeds. The connected Harvey Estuary
experiences massive blooms of blue-green algae every year in late spring
and early summer.[11]
3.14 Eutrophication is also responsible for major losses of seagrasses
in southern Australia. Increased levels of nutrients can favour the growth
of algae attached to seagrass leaves. These shade and weigh down the leaves,
reducing photosynthesis, and can eventually kill the seagrass.[12]
3.15 Australia has the largest number of seagrass species, and some of
the largest and most diverse seagrass beds in the world. Seagrasses are
ecologically critical for the long-term sustainability of the coastal
zone because of their high productivity and their ability to trap sediments.
They are also nurseries for many species and critical habitats for a wide
range of species, including endangered turtles and dugongs.[13]
3.16 Professor Zann told the Committee that in New South Wales, for example,
60 to 70 per cent of commercial fish are associated at some stage of their
life history with seagrass. With a 50 per cent loss of seagrass and an
estimated 60 per cent loss of freshwater wetlands in New South Wales,
there is a considerably smaller habitat for fish nurseries and for adult
fish.[14]
3.17 Between 1954 and 1978, around 3,300 hectares, or 97 per cent, of
the seagrass in Cockburn Sound, WA, was lost from algal overgrowth resulting
from sewage and urban run-off. Establishment of a new outfall halted the
decline but there has been minimal recovery. In Victoria, Western Port
has suffered almost complete destruction of seagrass beds. Coverage of
large benthic plants declined from 25,000 hectares in 1973 to 7,000 in
1984, and in South Australia sewage from Adelaide's three main outfalls
has resulted in the loss of 5,000 hectares of seagrass. [15]
3.18 Algae need nutrients in water to live and reproduce. When the level
of nutrients rises, it can cause algal blooms to occur. These can be harmful
to humans and can damage delicate aquatic ecosystems. If the excess nutrients
have come in a flush, a bloom can occur that then dies when the high level
of nutrients is not maintained. This causes the level of dissolved oxygen
to drop as the bacteria decomposes the dead algae, which in turn can cause
fish to die because there is not enough oxygen for them to breathe.[16]
3.19 The key element in algal growth is the level of phosphorus, as many
species of blue-green algae can fix their own nitrogen levels. The Fertilizer
Industry Federation argued that increased algal blooms cannot be attributed
directly to the use of fertilisers, suggesting that a number of environmental
conditions have coincided in recent years to encourage algal growth in
Australia's waterways and noting that the major algal blooms in 1994 did
not coincide with a period of high fertiliser use.[17]
3.20 The Australian Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
argued that while it is true to say that algal blooms cannot occur without
high levels of phosphates in the water, it is not correct to conclude
that high phosphate levels are the causative factor. In a healthy aquatic
ecosystem, high levels of phosphate may stimulate algal productivity
but total algal biomass is effectively controlled by the natural sequence
of zooplankton grazing and fish development.
3.21 The Association stated that control of algal densities is lost when
zooplankton functioning is impaired, and that impairment can be caused
by loss of vegetation on river or ocean beds, high levels of suspended
sediments, imbalance in fish species and the presence of toxicants in
the water.[18]
3.22 The 1993 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment,
Communication and the Arts on Water Resources - Toxic Algae noted
that while point sources of phosphorus such as sewage outlets were possibly
more significant than release from sediments, total phosphorus levels
in New South Wales rivers had increased 5 per cent annually in the 18
years prior to 1992.[19] The Australian
Water and Wastewater Association (AWWA) suggests that nutrient loss from
rural sources can be more significant than sewage discharges.[20]
SOMER cites estimates that in excess of 85 per cent of all phosphorus
entering Australian waters originates from diffuse sources.[21]
3.23 The Fertiliser Industry Federation noted efforts to use treated
sewage effluent on agricultural land to reduce the total phosphorus input
into waterways. The Federation argued that in general fertilisers are
just one of many sources of phosphorus, and probably a minor one, and
that the net effect of their use is a positive one for the Australian
rural sector.[22]
3.24 For many years eutrophication was thought to be confined to inland
water bodies such as lakes and dams, where through-flow is low and water
residence times are high, allowing accumulation of contaminants. However,
with the increasing destruction of estuarine environments and coastal
wetlands, and with increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture,
eutrophication has become evident in a number of coastal areas around
the world.[23]
3.25 Coastal ecosystems with long water residence times, such as enclosed
bays and estuaries, provide a transition zone between freshwater and
marine environments, where the transfer of nutrients between sediments
and the water column can be important in controlling the occurrence
of algal blooms. However, when overloaded with nutrients, water bodies
with long residence times are particularly subject to eutrophication.
Coastal lagoons, which occur along 11 per cent of Australia's coast,
are especially prone.
3.26 The excessive growth of toxic phytoplankton and attached algae
appears to be related to excess nutrient loading. The bioaccumulation
of toxins in seafoods can result in subsequent poisoning of humans from
paralytic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, diarrhoeic
shellfish poisoning and ciguatera.
3.27 However, it is not only the toxic effect on humans that is of concern
but also the devastating effect such toxins appear to be having on fish,
birds and other marine animals. Incidences of the deaths of birds, dolphins
and whales attributable to algal derived biotoxins appear to be increasing
in North American coastal waters.[24]
3.28 Eutrophication has an impact on the natural diversity of marine
ecosystems. Dr Gabric notes the concern that continuous nutrient enrichment
could lead to permanent shifts in the community structure of coastal
phytoplankton, which forms the basis for the marine food chain: 'The
entire food-web structure could be altered, with possibly severe consequences
for regional fisheries.'
3.29 More moderate nutrient enrichment could still have long-term consequences
for coral reef ecosystems, which are particularly sensitive to increased
growth rates of benthic algae and phytoplankton. Dr Gabric concludes that:
'Clearly, then, the nature of the coastal ecosystem as well as the magnitude
of nutrient loading must be considered in analysing the eutrophication
status of a particular coastal region.' [25]
3.30 Aquatic weeds take nutrients from the water to grow. When these
nutrients increase, so does plant growth, until they get to a stage where
they block irrigation channels, flood gates and boat access. They also
reduce the amount of sunlight entering the water, thus affecting other
organisms in the system. Removal of these weeds is difficult, as many
chemical methods cannot be used in or around water, and manually harvesting
them is time consuming and exhausting.[26]
3.31 As much as 85 per cent of nutrients come from diffuse sources.[27]
The major sources of nutrients and sediments entering the marine environment
are agricultural activities, sewage outfalls and urban stormwater. These
are dealt with below. Other pollutants deriving from those sources are
also discussed.
3.32 Agricultural activity involves diffuse and specific sources of
marine pollution that are often difficult to monitor and to control.
It is recognised as a major cause of the problems suffered by the marine
environment and was the subject of comment by many of those making submissions
to the inquiry or giving evidence to the Committee. Agricultural activities
contribute pollutants to the environment from diffuse sources such as
run-off from pasture and crops and from point sources such as piggeries,
dairies, feedlots and abattoirs. Both groundwater and surface water
can be affected.
3.33 The problems resulting from agricultural activity were summarised
by the Conservation Council of Western Australia, which argued in its
submission that agricultural practices resulting in greatly elevated run-off
were the major source of pollution in the Western Australian marine environment.
The Council argued that loss of natural vegetation, soil erosion and use
of fertilisers and farm chemicals continue to be major factors in the
decline of estuary, river and coastal environments, including increased
sedimentation and decline of water quality from elevated levels of nutrients,
salinity, increased turbidity and bioaccumulation of persistent chemicals
such as heavy metals and organochlorines.[28]
3.34 The agricultural contribution to nutrient loadings includes:
- nutrients washed from the land surface either in solution or attached
to sediments (soil) during run-off erosion events;
- effluent from intensive animal housing and general farm effluent;
- dung and urine from animals drinking from waterways or congregating
near waterways; and
- nutrients, mainly nitrogen, washed through the soil (leached).[29]
3.35 The transport of nutrients from the soil to water bodies by leaching
and soil run-off is a natural consequence of the hydrological cycle and
is essential for the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems. However, where
the export of nutrients has been accelerated by human activity the assimilative
capacity of waterways can be exceeded and eutrophication can result.[30]
Estuaries and coastal lagoons whose upper river catchments have been cleared
for intensive agriculture and whose lower reaches are subject to major
urban and industrial developments are at particular risk.
3.36 Clearing of land for pasture development, overgrazing and cropping
have greatly increased soil erosion and consequently the amount of sediments
entering the sea. Increased sedimentation is a major cause of nutrients
entering the sea. In addition, modern farming techniques introduced
in the last two hundred years have required an increasing dependence
on applied nutrients and chemical pesticides. Erosion from land degradation
and general surface run-off carries nutrients and chemicals into rivers
and eventually into the marine environment.
3.37 Sediments move at varying rates depending on a number of factors.
In evidence to the Committee, Professor Tom McMahon of the Cooperative
Research Centre (CRC) for Catchment Hydrology at Monash University noted
that while in some Victorian rivers a pulse of core sediments, sands and
gravel, might take from 100 to 200 years to move from where it first eroded
to the estuary of the river, channelisation of the Lang Lang River in
the 1890s resulted in a pulse of sediment reaching the estuary in 20 years,
blanketing and killing the sea grass.[31]
3.38 Turbidity occurs when suspended material such as soil makes the
water appear dirty or cloudy. The most common source of this material
is erosion from agricultural land and stream banks. While many inland
streams are naturally turbid, excessive sediment can reduce water quality
as many pollutants bind to the soil particles in the water. It also increases
the cost of water treatment, as well as adversely affecting recreational
use and the visual beauty of the water.[32]
3.39 Seagrasses are particularly susceptible to turbidity and the consequently
reduced intensity of sunlight falling on the sea bed. Seagrasses regenerate
very slowly so the effect of one episode of erosion can be significant.
Declines in species diversity are also caused by turbidity, as animals
not equipped to filter out the dirt, or those that rely on sight to hunt,
die out.[33]
3.40 The Fertilizer Industry Federation of Australia states that any
major influx of soil or nutrients to inland or coastal waterways represents
'a cost to the nation's sustainable agriculture program, a loss of productive
assets and a possible adverse effect on our marine environment'.[34]
3.41 Fertilisers are a significant source of nutrients in agricultural
areas. Of the nutrients applied as fertilisers, phosphorus and nitrogen
attract the greatest attention. Because Australia's leached soils are
particularly low in phosphorus, superphosphate fertilisers are applied
to crops and pastures. Superphosphate use has steadily increased since
1950 and is currently about 350,000 tonnes a year. Application of nitrogenous
fertilisers has also steadily increased and is around 370,000 tonnes a
year.[35]
3.42 Nitrogen is more mobile in soils and the environment, and can be
more readily lost through leaching. According to the Fertilizer Industry
Federation, a major input of nitrogen into Australian agriculture comes
from pasture and grain legumes and not from fertilisers. The decomposition
and mineralisation of nitrogen rich plant legume material, when returned
to the soil, releases nitrate nitrogen, some of which is leached.[36]
3.43 According to the Federation, phosphorus is relatively immobile in
soils, with the major loss mechanism from agricultural land being in the
form of soil erosion. The Federation states that after its application
as fertiliser, phosphorus is attracted to and held tightly onto the surface
of clay particles and organic matter in the soil, and except in sandy
soils is not normally subject to leaching. It is then lost through soil
erosion, attached to the soil particles.[37]
3.44 Although the particulate forms of nitrogen and phosphorus cannot
be taken up immediately by phytoplankton they do contribute to the total
coastal zone nutrient pool, being stored in the sediment and recycled
into the dissolved phase at a later time. Soil erosion is a crucial
factor in the export of both nitrogen and phosphorus.
3.45 According to the Queensland Farmers' Federation the primary source
of nutrients into river systems is natural loss from pastoral areas because
of the very significant areas of the catchments. This view has also been
put forward by Dr Gabric.[38]
The Federation states that the pastoral sector is not a major user of
fertilisers.[39] However, simply
converting forested land to pasture, even when fertiliser is not used,
significantly enhances the export of nutrients from terrestrial to aquatic
ecosystems.[40]
3.46 International studies have suggested that if only dissolved nutrients
are considered, agricultural sources account for nineteen per cent of
total nitrogen flux in rivers and four per cent of total phosphorus flux.
However, when particulate fluxes, those attached to eroded soils, are
included the agricultural proportion of the total load increases significantly
to 56 per cent for nitrogen and 59 per cent for phosphorus.[41]
3.47 For intensively cultivated sugar cane areas the sediment load can
be 30 times higher than that of an undisturbed rainforest area. However,
such high losses can be dramatically reduced to values characteristic
of undisturbed rainforest areas by the adoption of green-harvesting and
zero-tillage practices.[42] In
catchments like that of the Herbert River, at Ingham, in north Queensland,
rapid growth in the acreage of sugar cane is increasing the export of
soil particles, nutrients and agricultural chemicals. Almost all of the
erosion and transport occurs in one or two extreme events each year when
cyclones pass down the coast.[43]
3.48 Acid sulphate soils are formed when organic matter that falls onto
estuarine sediments is broken down by bacteria in the absence of oxygen.
The byproducts of this breakdown process are iron sulphide compounds.
Acid sulphate soils occur throughout the eastern and northern coastal
regions of Australia, from Cape Howe on the New South Wales-Victoria border
to Port Hedland in Western Australia.[44]
3.49 According to the National Ocean Watch Centre, acid soils constitute
one of the two biggest water pollution issues in NSW, the other being
nutrients.[45] Dr Russell Reichelt,
Director of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), told the
Committee that the problem has reached major proportions and is a significant
land management issue.[46]
3.50 Clearing of land, agricultural activity and particularly the drainage
of low lying lands and wetlands, can expose acid sulphate soils. These
soils are not a problem until exposed to the air, which causes naturally
formed iron pyrite in the soils to oxidise and, with the addition of water,
form sulphuric acid. Subsequent run-off releases sulphuric acid, iron
and aluminium into waterways and, eventually, the ocean. Each of these
is poisonous to fish and the combined impact can be devastating.[47]
3.51 Drained acid sulphate soils in eastern Australia under pasture and
crop production release between 100 and 300 kilograms of pure sulphuric
acid per hectare per year.[48]
Measurements following a flood on the Richmond River in northern NSW revealed
approximately 1,000 tonnes of pure sulphuric acid runout from a 4,000
hectare catchment, which acidified 90 kilometres of river for seven weeks,
following a single flood event in 1994.[49]
It is a significant land use issue that impacts on the marine environment.
3.52 There are approximately 30,000 square kilometres of acid sulphate
soils around the coast of Australia, containing around one billion tons
of pyrite, a massive reservoir of potential acidification and consequent
habitat degradation and decreased biodiversity in our waterways, if the
soils are not properly managed. This approaches the extent of the salinity
problem, approximately 50,000 square kilometres, faced in the Murray-Darling
Basin, which has been widely recognised as an issue of major concern.[50]
3.53 Numerous fish kills have been blamed on acid sulphate soils and
it is thought that lower doses, while not killing fish, may be leaving
them prone to disease. In one incident in 1987, 23 kilometres of the Tweed
River estuary in NSW was completely acidified, resulting in the death
of all fish, crustaceans and annelid worms.[51]
3.54 According to the Australian Seafood Industry Council, water of pH
1.9 (almost battery acid and 100,000 times more acidic than freshwater)
has been detected flowing from farmland in NSW.[52]
At pH values of less than 4 most animals die due to a mixture of the acidity
and soluble aluminium. At pH levels between 4 and 6, disease, inhibition
of reproduction and reduced hatching success can occur.
3.55 The economically damaging red spot fish disease is linked to acid
water episodes following heavy rain and localised flooding. At times the
commercial sector can lose up to 80 per cent of its catch from the disease.[53]
Mr Richard Callinan, Special Veterinary Research Officer, Fish Diseases,
NSW Fisheries, told the Committee that in one year red spot had cost the
Clarence River Fishermen's Co-op $100,000 in lost production.[54]
In 1995, over $1 million worth of sea mullet was discarded by NSW commercial
fishers because of the disease.[55]
3.56 The Seafood Industry Council stated that whereas the NSW Government
has acted to reduce the exposure of such soils by developers it has baulked
at land use controls on agricultural land and done little to fix the existing
problems.[56] In NSW seven of
the largest rivers have acid problems. On the Richmond River all the main
tributaries have acid problems. The acidity commonly occurs in brackish
sections of the river which prevents fish passage to upstream nurseries.[57]
3.57 Mrs Barbara Radley, Convenor of the Transitional Advisory Council
for Commercial Fishers, told the Committee that:
land management practices have been of concern to the commercial
fishing industry for quite some time ... We are very much on the watch
for any development taking place to make sure that it has been properly
inspected [for acid sulphate soils] before any development takes place,
knowing the potential effect it could have on the community's resource.
It is not just a commercial fisherman's resource, it is the community's
resource.[58]
3.58 Acidified soils and waterways also contribute to the corrosion of
concrete and steel infrastructure such as sewerage systems, bridges and
roads, imposing considerable costs on the general community.[59]
3.59 Agricultural and domestic use of pesticides is very common in Australia
and is a particular concern. A huge variety of chemicals is used and little
is known abut their persistence in the environment and their long-term
impact on coastal ecosystems. Some are metabolised and eliminated quickly
but others remain in the environment for a long time. DDT is still being
detected in sediment samples from the Brisbane River decades after its
use was banned. There is an urgent need to determine the extent to which
various pesticides accumulate in the food chain, their effect on marine
life and whether consumption of seafoods containing these substances causes
health effects and accumulation in humans.[60]
3.60 Around 60,000 different synthetic compounds have been produced
for agricultural and industrial use over the past 50 years and up to
1,000 new compounds are now being produced each year. The persistence
and toxicity of one group of synthetic chemicals, the organochlorines,
have made them very effective pesticides but also potential environmental
threats.
3.61 While organochlorine compounds are present in very low concentrations
in the sea, some are preferentially soluble in animal fats, within which
they may reach as much as 500,000 times the concentration in surrounding
waters. They may also bioaccumulate in food chains, being most concentrated
in higher consumers such as predatory fish, marine mammals, seabirds and
humans.[61]
3.62 According to SOMER most of Australia's sewage is only secondarily
treated and remains high in nutrients. Each year around 10,000 tonnes
of phosphorus and 100,000 tonnes of nitrogen are discharged through
sewage, much of which finds its way into the marine environment. Tertiary
treatment, which removes nutrients, is now being introduced in inland
towns because of eutrophication of rivers.
3.63 Few tertiary plants operate in coastal areas. However, because of
eutrophication and human health problems associated with sewage outfalls
in rivers, coastal lakes and estuaries, many of the major outfalls have
been located in deep water on open and hydrodynamically active coasts
to maximise dilution and dispersion. Examples include Devonport in Tasmania;
the Latrobe Valley and Cape Schanck in Victoria; Sydney's North Head,
Bondi and Malabar; and Lake Macquarie and Tuggerah Lakes in NSW.[62]
3.64 According to the Australian Academy of Science, although dilution
on its own is not the answer to pollution, as long as outfalls are designed
properly and are placed in a coastal environment with adequate mixing
and dispersal, the impacts of these outfalls are quite small. Beyond a
mixing zone 200-300 metres in diameter, it is difficult to detect the
impact of such outfalls on the coastal environment.[63]
Monitoring of the Cape Schanck outfall in eastern Melbourne from before
the commencement of discharge in 1975 until 1988 indicated that macroalgal
communities were restricted to within one kilometre of the outfall.[64]
3.65 The Vaucluse and Watsons Bay districts of Sydney are still served
by three old, small sewer systems which discharge directly into the Tasman
Sea without any treatment. They serve approximately 10,500 people and
discharge volumes estimated at between three and five million litres per
day, compared to the Bondi, Malabar and North Head outfalls which discharge
about 1,100 million litres per day. Discharge is made into normally turbulent
waters some 5-10 metres deep, 3.5 kilometres from the nearest bathing
beaches. The then Water Board reported in 1989 that: 'While there is no
visible pollution field ... the main pollution problem is from an estimated
flow of 550 condoms and 350 pads/plastics per week.' [65]
3.66 However, the new offshore outfalls in Sydney have led to a dramatic
improvement in water quality on the city's beaches.[66]
Mr Chris Davis, Executive Director of the Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, told the Committee in evidence that: 'Sydney seems to be
suffering minimal stress as a result of the ocean outfalls and a major
improvement on the beaches.' [67]
3.67 In Port Phillip Bay the impact of the Western Treatment Plant (WTP)
is smaller than the impact of storm run-off from Melbourne itself. The
WTP provides 1,303 tonnes of phosphorus to Port Phillip Bay annually (73
per cent of the total input) and 4,180 tonnes of nitrogen (61 per cent).[68]
The critical nutrient element is inorganic nitrogen (as nitrate or ammonia).
The WTP emits a steady 3,000-4,000 tonnes of nitrogen per year, mainly
as ammonia. The plant has been operating since 1897 and the effect of
this continuous emission, which is rapidly mixed into the bay, appears
to be the creation of a low level population of very minute unicellular
algae which are rapidly grazed.[69]
3.68 In South Australia, however, such a balance has not been achieved.
The State's largest sewage treatment works at Bolivar discharges approximately
50 billion litres of secondary treated effluent each year. This contributes
an annual load of 2,260 tonnes of nitrogen and 360 tonnes of phosphorus
to the estuarine environment. The accumulated effect of 30 years of
discharge has contributed to:
- the destruction of more than 1,200 hectares of seagrass meadows
crucial to the local fishing industry, and resulting increase of
the susceptibility of the seabed and coast to erosion;
- the proliferation of seaweeds such as the sea cabbage, which is
linked to mangrove decline; and
- the occurrence of toxic algal blooms.[70]
Programs being developed by SA Water and MFP Australia, discussed at
5.59, below, will gradually reduce the discharge. 3.69 The Port Adelaide
Residents Environment Protection Group told the Committee that the water
quality of the Port River estuary was dominated by the effects of the
sewage effluent discharge from the sewerage works at its head. This plant
treats about fifteen per cent of Adelaide's sewage waste. The main effects
of the discharge are algal blooms in the estuary, chlorine byproducts
and the presence of pathogenic, or disease causing, organisms. Among the
red tides which occur are those which cause paralytic shellfish poison,
a neurotoxin. Furthermore, according to the Group, the plant is ageing
and is not functioning efficiently, thus exacerbating the problems associated
with its effluent.[71]
3.70 The Australian Water and Wastewater Association argued in its
submission that despite community perceptions, based on media attention
in the 1980s, the view that discharging purified sewage effluent to
the ocean is not environmentally sustainable cannot be accepted as a
generalisation.
3.71 In some areas treated sewage is used for industrial or agricultural
purposes or for irrigation on golf courses and parks. The Association
argued that while in a small inland community it is often quite realistic
to divert used water for use in agriculture, for large coastal cities
that mechanism is not achievable, so water has to be returned directly
to the water environment, the ocean. According to the Association there
is nothing intrinsically wrong with that approach, provided that the water
has been purified to a standard which will not degrade the environment.
Evidence suggests that beyond the immediate dilution zone there is no
noticeable impact from treated sewage outlets.[72]
3.72 However, whatever use can be made of treated sewage for industrial
or agricultural purposes, or for urban irrigation of parks and golf
courses, reduces the load on the treatment system and the demand for
fresh water from reservoirs or rivers. Extraction of fresh water from
rivers can itself create further problems in river systems as a result
of reduced flow.
3.73 Sewage outfalls can cause problems to coastal vegetation, especially
when they also discharge industrial effluent. According to the Barwon
Coast Committee of Management, research has demonstrated the presence
of surfactants in ocean spray in the vicinity of sewer outfalls. These
surfactants, detergents from both domestic and industrial sources, are
responsible for the degradation of coastal vegetation. Trees and shrubs
on the foreshore of Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads, near Geelong in Victoria,
show defoliation, dieback and death of branches, varying in intensity
according to the degree of exposure to windborne ocean spray.
3.74 The tolerance of Norfolk Island pines to salt spray is due to
heavily waxed cuticles covering the needles, and to waxy fibrous projections
which protect the air pores on the needles. The wax makes the needles
impermeable to salt spray but when the spray contains surfactant damage
occurs and a damaging concentration of salt penetrates the needles.
Deterioration of Norfolk Island pines associated with surfactants from
sewer outfalls has been recorded on Sydney's metropolitan coast and
on beachfronts at Newcastle, Wollongong and Adelaide.
3.75 The Geelong outfall at Black Rock, Barwon Heads, contains waste
from four local wool scouring plants. In 1984 Imperial Chemical Industries
introduced NT 450, a toxic ethoxylate detergent into wool scouring. In
addition, the advent of dishwashers has increased the domestic use of
detergents. The Geelong sewage is discharged into the sea after screening.
However, secondary treatment, with thirty days retention is required to
protect the environment.[73]
3.76 In its submission to the inquiry the Surfrider Foundation argued
that ocean outfalls are a major marine polluter. It claimed that in
Victoria in recent years a number of outfalls have led to severe health
problems among surfers as a direct result of effluent discharge to the
ocean. The Foundation argues that all ocean outfalls should be phased
out and replaced with land based treatment technologies.
3.77 One of the problems noted by the Foundation was the lack of funding
for smaller authorities to facilitate the appropriate upgrades.[74]
According to the Foundation there are 163 ocean outfalls around Australia,
pumping three billion litres of effluent into the sea each day, of which
32 per cent currently discharge raw sewage.[75]
3.78 The Surfrider Foundation, and Dr John Langford, Executive Director
of the Water Services Association of Australia, cited the outfall at Lorne
in Victoria as an example of a completely unacceptable form of sewage
disposal. Dr Langford told the Committee that: 'at the moment it is raw
sewage across a beach ... They also have a major stormwater pipe ... which
is causing a fairly significant amount of pollution.' [76]
3.79 The potential danger posed by the release of untreated sewage
was graphically illustrated early in 1997 by the hepatitis A outbreak
which was traced to oysters from Lake Wallis on the mid-north coast
of NSW, which were contaminated by sewage. More than 300 cases of the
disease were reported and one elderly man died. Although the exact source
of the contamination was not determined possible sources included unsewered
housing along the banks of a river leading into the lake and sewage
from boats on the lake.
3.80 The outbreak also illustrated the potential economic impact of marine
pollution. The NSW oyster industry is worth $300 million a year. During
a two month period following the outbreak oyster sales dropped 85 per
cent.[77]
3.81 Discharges of industrial effluents or trade wastes typically make
up ten to fifteen per cent of total sewage flow. These are more tightly
regulated than domestic inputs.[78]
In Sydney industrial and commercial sources account for more than a third
of the effluent treated at the coastal treatment plants. The quality and
quantity of such effluent entering the Water Corporation's sewers is controlled
under trade waste agreements with each discharger.[79]
There are some 11,000 Trade Waste Agreements in Sydney and 6,200 Agreements
in Melbourne. Agreements limiting the volume and quality of industrial
discharges to sewers have improved the quality of discharges considerably.[80]
3.82 Sewage overflows into stormwater outlets, discussed below, are a
significant problem. There are occasions when sewer overflows constitute
a larger pollution load than run-off or effluent from sewage treatment
plants.[81] It is a significant
infrastructure problem. Sydney Water estimates that it would cost $5 billion
to reduce sewage overflows to once a decade.[82]
3.83 Stormwater quality is a product of population density, land-use
patterns, sanitation and waste disposal practices, soil types, climate
and hydrology, and stormwater management. Stormwater is not usually treated
before discharge to the marine environment. Contaminants in stormwater,
grouped according to their water quality impacts,[83]
are:
- suspended solids and particulates (sewage overflows and surface
run-off);
- nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen);
- biological and chemical demanding materials (organic debris such
as decomposing food and garden wastes, and sewage overflows);
- micro-organisms (bacteria and viruses from septic and sewage overflows
and animal wastes);
- toxic organics (pesticides, industrial chemicals and landfill
leachate);
- toxic heavy metals from motor vehicles, pavement degradation and
water pipe and roof corrosion;
- oils and detergents from road surfaces and washing of vehicles;[84]
and
- litter (paper, plastic, glass, metal and other packaging material).
3.84 Dr John Langford, Executive Director of the Water Services Association
of Australia, said that while the investments made in sewerage have
certainly improved some unsatisfactory positions the next steps are
going to be very expensive and the benefits are diminishing:
We are a lot more likely to get environmental benefit by investing
in cleaning up stormwater. That is definitely the case in Melbourne
and it is definitely the case in Sydney.[85]
3.85 The Australian Water and Wastewater Association suggested that in
terms of general priorities for implementing measures to improve the quality
of water in the coastal environment, the order of attack should be stormwater,
then sewer overflows and finally treated sewer discharges.[86]
Stormwater run-off from cities is high in nutrients from animal and other
wastes and may equal that generated from the city sewage.[87]
3.86 Between Palm Beach and Cronulla in Sydney, 200 large stormwater
outlets discharge water containing high levels of sediments, bacteria,
nutrients, trace metals and organic chemicals.[88]
3.87 Dr Graham Harris of the CSIRO told the Committee in evidence that
the Port Phillip Bay Study found that the major problem in regard to the
impacts of pollution on the Bay was nutrients in stormwater. The biggest
impact on the Bay, he said, comes from major rainfall events over the
city.[89]
3.88 Dr Harris said that our cities are designed to get rid of stormwater
and shed it as fast as possible in order to avoid flooding.[90]
MFP Australia stated that urban drainage systems were designed and constructed
to dispose of water into the sea as quickly as possible, resulting in
pollution of the marine environment and the wastage of large volumes of
fresh water, much of which, in some areas of Australia, previously found
its way underground into aquifer systems.
3.89 MFP pointed out that Adelaide, the capital of the driest state in
the driest continent, consumes 180,000 million litres of water annually,
up to 90 per cent of which has to be pumped from the River Murray, 50
kilometres away. At the same time, approximately the same volume of stormwater
run-off is discharged to the city's waterways and coastal waters.[91]
3.90 At the local level, according to the Cooperative Research Centre
for Catchment Hydrology, little is known about the mechanisms that contribute
to stormwater pollution, such as the way water moves in, through and away
from a typical suburban building block. Yet authorities at all levels,
particularly local water agencies, are required to manage urban waterways
to meet the needs of a growing population.[92]
3.91 Dr Langford of the Water Services Association told the Committee
that:
When it comes to the management of urban stormwater in this country,
it is really all over the place; there are unlimited variations across
the country ... The other point, and the important one, is that the
accountability for the quality of urban stormwater is not assigned to
anybody.[93]
3.92 Mr Davis of the AWWA said that in most cities 'stormwater is actually
an orphan'. He told the Committee that Sydney Water has responsibility
for approximately ten per cent of the length of stormwater channels and
the rest belongs to local government: 'there is no single coherent management
system in place'.[94]
3.93 Dr Harris suggested that for the last hundred years stormwater has
been everybody's problem but nobody's responsibility.[95]
Mr David Hemmings of the Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection
Group told the Committee that although the sewage and industrial discharges
flowing in to the Port River were well known and monitored, nobody knew
the quantity or quality of the stormwater flows. He said that in many
cases the sources of particular outflows were not even known: 'There was
just a pipe sticking out into the river, and no one knew where it was
coming from.' [96]
3.94 Similarly, the Surfrider Foundation referred to a stormwater outfall
at Lorne in Victoria and said that:
No one wants to be responsible for stormwater ... they went to
the local council and they said, 'It's not our problem, go to the water
board.' They went to the water board and they said, 'It's not our problem,
go to the council.' [97]
3.95 Professor Tom McMahon of the CRC for Catchment Hydrology told
the Committee that the volume of urban run-off or stream flow is typically
double that of pre-urban conditions. The peak flow of flood events could
be ten to twenty times greater than the pre-urban conditions. Urban
streams carry about four times the amount of sediment of pre-urban streams
and about six times the amount of phosphorus.
3.96 They also carry large quantities of gross pollutants. CRC research
has shown that about 10,000 tonnes of litter each year, mainly generated
by pedestrians and motorists as food and drink items, is ending up in
Melbourne's waterways. In addition, about 40,000 tonnes of organic matter,
typically leaves, twigs and grass clippings end up in the waterways.[98]
3.97 The Australian Academy of Science stated that storm flows after
heavy rain are a major source of toxicants and nutrients entering the
coastal zone. In Melbourne and Sydney, storm flows from urban catchments
carry bacteria, toxicants and nutrients into coastal waters and have a
much bigger impact on coastal ecosystems than the deliberate disposal
of sewage wastes.[99]
3.98 Sewage outfalls, septic seepage and stormwater may carry disease-causing
micro- organisms into the sea, endangering bathers and seafood consumers
with illnesses such as gastroenteritis, hepatitis, conjunctivitis and
upper-respiratory tract and wound infections.
3.99 Little is known of these disease causing micro-organisms in the
marine environment and how long they stay alive in seawater. Viruses
are particularly poorly understood because of difficulties culturing
them but diseases such as polio and hepatitis A, and E. coli
infections, have been associated with swimming. Viruses may bioaccumulate
in filter feeding bivalves near sewage outfalls and may cause viral
food poisoning in seafood consumers.
3.100 The Surfrider Foundation told the Committee that many people are
not aware of stormwater as an issue. Most importantly, they are not aware
of exactly what viruses they can catch by swimming, fishing or surfing
near a stormwater outlet, particularly after there has been heavy rain.
Many stormwater outlets discharge across beaches with associated health
risks.[100]
3.101 According to the AWWA, the pollution load of storm run-off from
an urban catchment is of the same order of magnitude as sewage effluent
treated to secondary standard. The problem with urban run-off is that
treatment of the flow, especially under the dramatically variable flows
which occur in most parts of Australia, is very difficult. Early attempts
to manage pollution loads from stormwater were directed at an end of
pipe approach, using gross pollutant traps, detention basins and other
mechanisms. These, however, have limited impact on pollution loads,
are expensive to install and even more expensive to operate.
3.102 There is now a growing awareness that source control is the most
cost-effective method. It is thus more effective to reduce pollution loads
at source, rather than attempting treatment of the polluted stormwater.
In California, recent work has shown that fallout from vehicle exhausts,
plus tyre rubber and brake pad residue, constitutes a larger threat to
the water environment than other pollutants. In Australian cities uncontrolled
construction sites can be a major contributor to sediment loads in stormwater,
with attendant soil losses and problems in receiving waters.[101]
3.103 Sewer overflows are an important aspect of urban run-off. In Sydney,
when it rains stormwater intrudes into already full sewers, increasing
flow rates by as much as ten times the average dry weather flows in some
areas. Such flows are beyond the capacity of an old, leaky system, and
the overflow - stormwater, raw sewage and other chemical and biological
contaminants - is discharged through as many as 3,000 overflow points
around the city.[102]
3.104 Sydney Water figures show that 9 billion litres of wastewater are
deliberately released through overflows in Sydney, Wollongong and the
Blue Mountains every year to stop sewer systems backing up.[103]
The Academy of Science argued that dealing with the impact of pollution
from storm run-off and sewer overflows is one of the highest priorities
for coastal pollution control.[104]
3.105 The introduction into Australia's coastal waters of exotic marine
organisms and disease pathogens threatens ecological communities and
the integrity of the natural environment, human health, aquaculture,
tourism and the enjoyment of coastal amenity.
3.106 Mr Denis Paterson, Assistant National Operations Manager for the
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), suggested that while
other major pollutants such as oil, sewage and garbage, can be cleaned
up or managed by the marine environment itself, exotic species, once introduced,
are almost always present for ever, often with serious consequences.[105]
Similarly, Mr Richard Martin, Executive Officer of the CSIRO's Centre
For Research on Introduced Marine Pests said that the introduction of
exotic species to Australian waters is 'one of those actions that is irreversible'.[106]
3.107 Exotic marine species can be introduced by ship hull fouling and
boring, as a result of mariculture, through dry and semi-dry ballast and
through water ballast. While the impact of exotic organisms on the marine
environment appears to have been relatively minor in the past, the adoption
of water ballasting for steel hulled vessels introduced a new dimension
to the trans-oceanic movement of exotic species because it provided a
mechanism for moving whole communities of planktonic organisms across
ocean barriers.[107]
3.108 Consequently there is now great concern about the threats posed
by the introduction of exotic marine species via ships' ballast waters.
The introduction of exotic species also creates the possibility of concurrent
introduction of pathogens. Introduced organisms may themselves be hosts
to parasites and pathogens. In addition, water and sediment discharged
from ballast tanks may contain viruses and bacteria which could have an
impact on local marine flora and fauna and which may also pose risks to
human health.[108]
3.109 According to AQIS, around 150 million tonnes of ships' ballast
water are discharged into Australia's 64 international ports each year
by 10,000 vessels from 300 overseas ports. In addition, some 34 million
tonnes of ballast water is moved by domestic shipping each year from one
Australian port to another. Most ballast water is brought into Australia
from Japan and the northern Pacific, usually in bulk carriers.[109]
3.110 While ballast water is certain to be a major and growing medium
for exotic introductions, recent studies have indicated that hull fouling
is still likely to be a significant vector for encrusting and fouling
species. The shift away from the use of highly effective but toxic, tin
based anti-fouling paints is likely to increase transportation by hull
fouling (see below, 3.160).[110]
3.111 A recurring theme of submissions to the inquiry was the rudimentary
state of knowledge of Australian marine fauna and flora (3.225-232, below).
It is therefore likely that there are exotic species in Australian ports
that have not been reported or that are currently not recognised as exotic.[111]
3.112 Several species of fish, around 50 species of marine invertebrates
and a number of seaweeds are known to have been introduced into Australia,
either intentionally, for aquaculture, or, more generally, accidentally
in ships' fouling and ballast waters. Six species are regarded as pests.
Principal organisms of concern are the toxic alga Gymnodinium catenatum,
which causes red tides, the seaweed Undaria pinnatifida, which
smothers native kelps, the northern Pacific seastar Asterias amurensis,
and fish pathogens such as Myxosoma cerebralis.[112]
3.113 However, introduced organisms which are not high profile or targeted
species because they appear to have no noticeable impact on their new
environment, may still be causing subtle and profound changes to local
marine ecosystems. The impacts of such species may not become visible
until after they have become prolific.[113]
3.114 Dinoflagellates are microscopic planktonic bloom-forming marine
algae which can form an important part of the diet of shellfish. A small
proportion of species produce toxins. During the last twenty years, toxic
dinoflagellates that produce a range of poisons, including paralytic shellfish
poisons, have spread to areas where they were previously unknown. Dinoflagellates
are particularly resilient and can be transported either as planktonic
algae suspended in ballast water or as resting cysts which settle into
ballast tank sediment.[114]
3.115 Blooms of introduced toxic dinoflagellates are a serious marine
environmental and fisheries problem in Tasmania and Victoria, and are
a potential threat to other states. Gymnodinium catenatum was probably
introduced via ships' ballast waters around Hobart in 1971. It is now
established along the Tasmanian east coast, where it is a problem for
aquafarms and is responsible for the periodic closure of shellfish farms.[115]
3.116 Filter feeding organisms such as mussels, scallops and oysters
can bioaccumulate toxins from feeding on dinoflagellates in the water
column. These neurological toxins can be transmitted to humans via consumption
of contaminated fish and shellfish. Hundreds of humans world-wide have
died or become ill as a result of toxic dinoflagellate outbreaks.[116]
Blooms may kill other marine organisms through oxygen depletion, toxins
and physical damage to gills. On aquafarms severe damage is caused to
caged fish as they cannot escape.[117]
3.117 The northern Pacific seastar, a voracious shellfish feeder, was
first recorded in Hobart in 1986 and is now widely established in Tasmania.
It is believed to have been transported via ships' ballast water from
Japan. Outbreaks are spreading along eastern Tasmania, threatening marine
life, aquaculture farms and scallop and abalone fisheries. In the Derwent
River it has virtually eliminated bivalve molluscs. It is also a significant
potential threat to the marine environment as it may affect populations
of prey species and natural competitors. It is thought that total eradication
will not be possible.
3.118 The seastar is regarded as a major threat by fisheries management
authorities in Victoria. Its larvae are long lived and may be transported
considerable distances on currents or translocated across Bass Strait
to mainland Australia in the ballast water of domestic shipping.[118]
Its distribution is likely to be limited only by temperature, which would,
on the east coast, suggest a northern limit of Sydney. Its possible spread
along the coast towards the west is more difficult to predict.[119]
3.119 The problem of introduced diseases is a serious one in the light
of the almost certain irreversibility of successful introductions to marine
waters. In the past Australia's isolation was its main natural protection
against the introduction of exotic diseases. Now, in addition to the problems
posed by ballast water and hull fouling, live aquatic animals can arrive
by air from any part of the world in less than two days, greatly increasing
the risk of them bringing disease. Imported fish meal can also carry disease.[120]
3.120 Mr Peter Marchant of the Conservation Council of South Australia
referred to tuna farming at Port Lincoln and the 15,000 tonnes of pilchards
imported annually as feed. He expressed concern at the possibility of
diseases being imported in stocks of pilchards and infecting local pilchard
populations. Mr Marchant cited the mass mortality of pilchards in southern
Australia in mid-1995 as evidence that natural diseases do occur in pilchard
populations, and expressed opposition to any relaxation of inspection
requirements for imported pilchards.[121]
3.121 Much of Australia's coast has been significantly altered by urban,
industrial and port development, and by facilities for tourism and recreation.
Coastal shoreline developments result in changes to foreshore areas, including:
destruction of foreshore vegetation, pollution and sedimentation during
construction works, potential for pollution from urban and industrial
waste, dredging and channel formation which alters bottom structure and
drainage or current flows, and loss of habitat complexity.[122]
3.122 Coastal development outside the metropolitan centres is a major
issue. As indicated in Chapter 2, above, half of Australia's population
growth in the last two decades has occurred in non-metropolitan parts
of the coastal zone. As a result there has been significant housing and
infrastructure development. The value of new building in the coastal zone
between 1983 and 1991 was around $70 billion. Australia's most severe
marine environmental problems are adjacent to the ten per cent of the
coast which urbanised or urbanising.[123]
3.123 According to the Australian Water and Wastewater Association, inappropriate
land use approvals provide the greatest obstacle to achieving good environmental
outcomes in the coastal zone.[124]
Mr Davis of the Association told the Committee that:
It seems to me that one of the major issues is coastal ribbon
development, where tourism and housing developments always want to be
in the most scenic possible location, which is probably the worst possible
place in terms of creating run-off. I would imagine that if you really
took pollution minimisation seriously, you would probably force a lot
of developments well away from waterways so that they could have a buffer
and a fringe of vegetation in there to act as a filter and to trap pollution.[125]
3.124 He also said that:
We have got local government addressing local concerns, generally
quite dollar driven in terms of outcomes for the local community and,
in seeking to attract industry and to attract developments, not necessarily
wanting to force them to be at an appropriate distance from a waterway
or in an appropriate site.[126]
3.125 As noted above, uncontrolled construction sites, whether in major
cities or in small coastal developments, can be a major contributor to
sediment loads in stormwater, with attendant soil losses and problems
in receiving waters.[127] Dr
R J Morris stated in his submission that:
The extensive coastal developments, which have been such a recent
feature of SE Queensland, the Hervey Bay area and the area around Cairns,
have caused much disturbance of the coastal sedimentary deposits. This
has resulted in a dramatic increase in the turbidity of coastal waters
and widespread contamination of the associated marine ecosystems. One
consequence is almost certainly major health problems for the local
dugongs and turtles.[128]
3.126 Coastal developments often involve the reclamation or drainage
and filling of coastal wetlands and mangroves. This degrades nurseries
and habitats vital to many species and also affects the transition that
such areas provide between freshwater and marine environments. According
to the Australian Academy of Science, it is important to note that freshwater
is toxic to many coastal marine organisms. In the tropics in particular,
where there are large freshwater inputs into coastal waters, mangrove
swamps and coastal wetlands play a vital role in controlling the movement
of floodwaters offshore. Destruction of these ecosystems is of vital concern.[129]
3.127 Dr Ian McPhail, Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority, told the Committee that:
If you do not have healthy mangroves, you do not have healthy
fish breeding areas, you do not have natural siltation traps - you do
not have all of those things which protect fisheries.[130]
3.128 The Australian Seafood Industry Council pointed out that the vast
majority of Australian fishing vessels are small in size (78 per cent
in NSW are less than one tonne) and utilise the estuaries and nearshore
zone, to the edge of the continental shelf. A large number (two thirds
in NSW) of commercially valuable seafood species spend part of their lifecycle
in estuaries.[131]
3.129 A Queensland Fisheries Management Authority discussion paper
states that:
Habitat is of paramount importance to fisheries productivity
and sustainability. Habitat destruction, degradation or alteration caused
by urbanisation (pollution, reclamation, dredging) directly affects
the capacity of the natural environment to support fish populations.
Most species targeted by recreational and commercial fishers have an
estuarine phase in their life cycle. However, estuaries continue to
suffer from urbanisation and agricultural practices ... Some urban developments
have destroyed estuarine and foreshore fish habitats. Agricultural practices
in coastal catchments have destroyed riparian zones, and contaminants
such as sediments, pesticides and fertilisers have adversely impacted
on fisheries production.[132]
3.130 The National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology (NRCET)
argues that coastal estuaries are invaluable in their ability to reduce
the toxicity of contaminants but also states that they are disappearing
at an alarming rate as a result of coastal development. It states that
the capacity for mangrove and other saline coastal swamp areas to absorb
and store harmful contaminants from inland rivers is enormous and that
these areas therefore play a crucial role in the protection of the sea.
Furthermore, since Australian coastal waters are often characterised
by currents which follow the coastline and are less readily able to
transport contaminants to deeper waters, the loss of swamp areas may
lead to widespread, not only localised, problems of coastal pollution.
3.131 The NRCET cites Lake Macquarie in NSW as an example of the destruction
of a natural estuarine habitat as a result of toxic discharges. The positioning
of many industries along the lakeside and direct discharge of waste products
into the lake has damaged the aquatic life and consequently the ability
of the lake to carry out natural detoxification of waters that enter the
sea. The lake, formerly known for its beauty and extensively used for
recreational purposes, now poses serious hazards to human health.[133]
3.132 Drainage works often involve the channelisation of flow, resulting
in reduced residence times and access of water to habitat, effectively
making some former habitats inaccessible to fish. This is particularly
important in larval recruitment that relies on currents to move larvae
into favourable habitats. A related problem is the loss or reduction
of shallow water habitats, particularly tidally inundated areas. Even
if mangroves are not physically removed, the isolation of these areas
from tidal inundation will result in plant death.
3.133 An example of the impact of coastal development is provided by
Port Botany, where a dredged channel resulted in storm waves being redirected
onto seagrass and mangrove areas causing some plant loss and sedimentation
of channels. The dredging also resulted in a change in bottom type from
sand to mud, resulting in changes to the fish assemblages over the habitat.[134]
3.134 A major boom in aquaculture began in Australia in the mid-1980s.
By 1990-91 production was valued at around $237.5 million. There are approximately
4,400 mariculture farms in Australia, of which 90 per cent are in New
South Wales. Positive environmental consequences of aquaculture include
restocking of over exploited species, reduced fishing pressure on wild
stocks and improved scientific understanding and management of wild stocks.[135]
3.135 Aquaculture can be both culprit and victim when it comes to marine
pollution. As noted above (3.79), pollution can have serious effects
on oyster farms and other aquaculture activities. On the other hand,
possible negative environmental consequences, some of which are related
to general issues addressed elsewhere in this report, include:
- a high demand for coastal foreshores, estuaries, mangroves and
saltmarshes for farms;
- loss or alteration of these habitats;
- waste production leading to local increases in nutrients and excessive
algal growth;
- a high demand for wild capture fisheries (e.g. pilchards and anchovies)
for aquaculture stock food;
- the culling of natural predators such as seabirds and seals;
- the use of chemicals and antibiotics to control diseases;
- a reduction of genetic diversity; and
- an increased risk of introducing exotic species and diseases.[136]
3.136 Aquaculture often requires considerable quantities of coastal land
and water (fresh, brackish or salt, depending on the species being farmed).
Clearing or alteration of foreshores, mangroves and saltmarshes may have
a harmful effect on coastal habitats (3.126-129, above). Wastes from intensive
cultivation may elevate phosphorus and nitrogen loads in the surrounding
waters, inducing eutrophication. In north Queensland, concerns have been
expressed about the clearing of swamp communities for prawn ponds and
about the potential effects of wastes from floating barramundi cages in
the vicinity of coral reefs on the Great Barrier Reef.[137]
3.137 One example of the consequences of increased nutrients resulting
from aquaculture was given by Mr Peter Marchant of the Conservation
Council of South Australia. He told the Committee that studies had indicated
that the nitrogen load from a 100 tonne fish farm is equivalent to the
wastewater discharge from a human population of 7,000 people. Of every
15 tonnes of pilchards thrown into tuna pens as feed, 14 tonnes ends
up as pollutant in the form of unconsumed fish, faecal material and
dissolved urine.
3.138 Mr Marchant said that in April 1996, before the deaths of large
numbers of tuna, the nitrogen load from the Port Lincoln tuna farms
was greater than if all the coastal towns and cities of South Australia
had been discharging untreated sewage into the marine environment.
3.139 Mr Marchant referred to a paper by Associate Professor Gustaf Hallegraeff
of the University of Tasmania, which states that the 1996 tuna mortalities
'were associated with a bloom of the neurotoxic raphidophyte flagellate
Chatonella marina'. Mr Marchant argued that the tuna did not die
as a result of mud stirred up by a storm, as suggested in a government
report, but by a toxic algal bloom caused by the high nutrient levels
which resulted from the volume of pilchards being thrown into the bay
as feed for the tuna. 'In fact,' he said, 'the management practices of
the tuna farmers may have killed their own fish.' [138]
3.140 The Resource Assessment Commission's Coastal Zone Inquiry identified
mariculture as an industry for which research was inadequate, particularly
in relation to the environmental impacts of production.[139]
3.141 Crude oil and refined petroleum are complex substances made up
of hundreds of different compounds of two types, alkanes and aromatic
hydrocarbons. The latter include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
which are carcinogens and which have been implicated in a wide range
of human health problems and diseases in aquatic organisms. PAHs also
strongly accumulate in food chains and bind to organic material in sediments.
3.142 While large oil spills from ships attract public attention and
provide dramatic illustrations of the catastrophic effect of oil on marine
organisms, more oil enters the marine environment from industrial, sewage
and stormwater discharges and these have a chronic effect on coastal marine
life, especially in sheltered bays such as Moreton and Port Phillip Bays,
which receive waters from cities and industrial centres. The largest number
of spills into the sea result from accidents during refuelling of vessels
in ports.[140]
3.143 It is estimated that sewage systems and drains discharge 16,000
tonnes of oil a year into Australian waters. Globally, it is estimated
that 36.3 per cent of oil pollution enters the sea from terrestrial sources,
45.2 per cent from shipping, of which only 12.5 per cent (or 5.65 per
cent of the total) comes from tanker accidents, 9.2 per cent from the
atmosphere, 7.7 per cent from natural sources and 1.5 per cent from offshore
oil exploration and production.[141]
3.144 The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), which is responsible
for the prevention and control of ship sourced marine pollution, notes
that the long-term release of oil from repeated smaller spills, such
as in-port spills, can be more serious than isolated larger spills from
a collision or break-up of a tanker, as ecosystems may not have time
to recover between pollution episodes.
3.145 The Authority also notes that Australia enjoys some degree of protection
from the ultimate catastrophic spill by virtue of its relatively shallow
refinery ports. The resulting draught limits tankers visiting Australian
ports to around 100,000 tonnes, while some overseas ports handle tankers
in excess of 400,000 tonnes.[142]
Concerns continue to be expressed regarding the potential impact of a
major oil spill in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.
3.146 In 1991 the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics estimated
that the probability of one or more major oil spills (over 1,370 tonnes)
in Australian waters from oil tankers over five years was 49 per cent,
and that over 20 years it was 84 per cent.[143]
3.147 Australia's largest oil spill was the loss of some 17,000 tonnes
of light crude oil from the Greek tanker Kirki off the coast of
Western Australia in July 1991. In international terms this was a relatively
small spill. According to AMSA it resulted in minimal environmental damage.
The recent Iron Baron incident involved the loss of 300-400 tonnes
of heavy fuel oil off the entrance to the Tamar River in northern Tasmania
in July 1995.[144]
3.148 The former Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
Professor Graeme Kelleher, stated in a submission to SOMER that:
Marine environmental managers are faced with the difficult task
of managing the environment to maintain biodiversity and achieve ecologically
sustainable development, while balancing conflicting uses and aspirations.
While the economic and strategic value of the Australian offshore petroleum
industry is obviously great, and the environmental record of the industry
has been excellent to date, the risk of oil spills cannot be considered
to be insignificant... Marine environmental managers might not see hydrocarbon
exploration and production as being fundamentally incompatible with
large multiple-use marine protected areas in which some areas are completely
protected. The issue is one of assessment of risk.[145]
3.149 Heavy metals occur naturally in the marine environment but are
also a major anthropogenic contaminant of estuarine and coastal ecosystems.
While many metals are essential trace elements for living organisms, above
certain concentrations they may become toxic. In general the greatest
pools of chemicals occur in the sediment.[146]
3.150 Heavy metal pollutants include copper, lead, cadmium, zinc, mercury,
arsenic, cobalt, nickel and chromium from urban run-off, industrial effluents,
mining operations and atmospheric fallout, and organometals such as tributyl
tin from antifouling paints.[147]
3.151 According to the Australian Seafood Industry Council, heavy metals
are the most widespread substances which make their way into the tissues
of aquatic organisms. Most are naturally occurring and reflect either
broad scale geological features or the physiology of the organisms. For
example, mercury tends to accumulate naturally in higher order predators
like sharks and billfish while copper is common in many crustaceans because
the oxygen-carrying molecule in their blood is copper based, compared
to iron based haemoglobin in human blood.[148]
3.152 The principal concern is bioaccumulation in the food chain and
eventual consumption by humans. Unlike organic contaminants which are
metabolised by organisms, heavy metals are persistent and consequently
can be transferred, bioaccumulated and biomagnified through the food web.
The changes they induce can be irreversible and the damage which results
to living organisms may be permanent.[149]
3.153 According to the Water Services Association of Australia, atmospheric
fallout in the form of dust is a major source of heavy metals. The Association
referred to a Swedish study which concluded that more than half the arsenic,
chromium, mercury and lead in urban stormwater comes from atmospheric
fallout. The corrosion of roofing materials can contribute zinc, copper
and lead to urban run-off.[150]
3.154 Heavy metals readily attach to suspended particles and accumulate
in bottom sediments. This is particularly so in estuaries where increasing
salinity causes the precipitation of iron hydrous oxides which scavenge
and coprecipitate soluble metals.[151]
3.155 Heavy metals were identified as a major global pollution threat
in the 1960s. The Derwent River in Tasmania was found to be particularly
contaminated by metallurgical wastes, pulp mill effluents and partially
treated sewage and was then regarded as one of the most polluted places
in the world.[152]
3.156 Significant advances have been made in reducing the problem in
Australia and according to SOMER, the problems of heavy metal contamination
in Australia are minor compared with the widespread contamination of coastal
waters in the northern hemisphere. Heavy metal hotspots are confined to
fewer than a dozen cities in Australia. Concerns exist regarding relatively
widespread, high levels of cadmium in prawns and mercury in sharks.[153]
3.157 Heavy metal levels in sediments, seagrass and shellfish samples
in Queensland coastal waters were cited by Dr R J Morris as a serious
concern. Dr Morris suggested that the rate of entry of these metals into
the inshore marine environment was directly related to the extent of coastal
development and the degree to which coastal sediments are disturbed by
such development.[154]
3.158 Heavy metal contamination of the marine environment and consequent
health risks to some groups of indigenous Australians is a particular
concern. The Torres Strait Islanders and coastal Aboriginal people living
in Torres Strait are among the world's highest consumers of seafoods.
Their traditional diet of shellfish and fish is supplemented with dugong
and turtle offal and meat, which hold considerable cultural significance.
These foods often contain cadmium levels which exceed limits set by the
Food Safety Authority. The populations concerned suffer a high prevalence
of renal disease and may be at particularly high risk of renal toxicity
due to heavy metals.[155]
3.159 Tailings from Papua New Guinea's gold mines, transported by the
Fly River, have been nominated as possible sources of heavy metal contamination
in the Torres Strait. A pilot study for the Torres Strait Baseline Study
by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in 1993 found that the
Fly River was a source of fine-grained sediments containing a number of
major and trace metals.[156]
However, according to the Final Report of the Study, the concentrations
in sediments of cadmium and certain other metals in the Torres Strait
are unlikely to have been significantly influenced by the Fly River discharge.[157]
3.160 A major concern has been the use of tributyl tin (TBT) as an active
ingredient in antifouling paints since the early 1970s. During the 1980s
TBT was found to affect the growth of oysters and to affect the reproductive
systems of gastropods. A worldwide ban on its use on vessels below 25
metres in length was recommended and has been in effect in most Australian
states since 1988.[158] However,
TBT is still used for large ocean vessels. Antifouling poses a particular
problem for tropical waters where higher concentrations of TBT are required
for effectiveness in limiting the growth of organisms.[159]
3.161 Australia's beaches are increasingly littered with plastic bottles,
plastic bags, tangled fishing lines, nets and other rubbish. The major
sources of beach litter are: items left behind by beachgoers such as food
packaging, cans and bottles, clothing etc; land litter, such as domestic
garbage, street waste, sewage and industrial wastes washed from catchments
via stormwater drains and streams; maritime litter such as ships' domestic
garbage, fishing gear, bait boxes, nets and lines etc; and oceanic litter
from distant sources beyond the continental shelf.[160]
3.162 Although urban beaches are worst affected even the most remote
coastal and island beaches are not free from litter. Items as large as
refrigerators and television sets have been found washed ashore on remote
and uninhabited Pacific atolls.[161]
Surveys of metropolitan beaches have found that most litter comes from
streets and garbage dumps while systematic surveys of beaches in the isolated
south west of Tasmania found that fishing litter constituted 80 per cent
of all beach litter.[162]
3.163 Figures from Greenpeace's Adopt-a-Beach surveys indicate that
plastic constituted around 61 per cent of all items collected. Packaging
formed the bulk of the litter (65 per cent) and 52 per cent of all articles
collected were beverage containers sold as disposable products. Around
20 per cent of all items collected were related to recreational or commercial
fishing.
3.164 Litter not only reduces the beauty of beaches but may also endanger
marine life. Thousands of marine mammals, turtles and seabirds die each
year from swallowing plastic bags and other objects or from becoming trapped
in discarded fishing gear. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
has estimated that around 150,000 tonnes of fishing gear is dumped or
lost at sea each year. It is estimated that at any one time around 500
seals in Tasmanian waters have 'collars' of net fragments.[163]
3.165 Mr Chris Gray, in evidence to the Committee, referred to the problem
of large quantities of small plastic particles carried by sewage outfalls
and urban stormwater, which pass through the mesh screens on outlets.[164]
These often become part of the diet of seabirds, which may mistake them
for food particles.
3.166 Mr Gray stated that one of the most serious effects of the plastic
particles is the reduction in birds' stomach volume leading to smaller
meal sizes and the inability to feed adequately. This may contribute to
increased mortality under various conditions.[165]
In one study it was found that 90 per cent of Laysan albatross chicks
contained plastic litter in their guts, with an average of 36 grams in
each affected chick.[166]
3.167 It is estimated that each day over 600,000 plastic containers are
discarded by ships into the world's seas, a total of around 6.4 million
tonnes per year. Much of this litter is buoyant and may drift for months
or even years until cast ashore. Some plastic items are virtually indestructible
and may take centuries to degrade.[167]
3.168 According to the Australian Chamber of Shipping, the major sources
of ship sourced marine litter are small boats, pleasure craft and foreign
fishing vessels operating in Australian waters and not commercial shipping,
which is guided by international regulations.[168]
3.169 The Great Barrier Reef, consisting of 2,900 separate reefs and
extending over 2,500 kilometres, is the largest complex of coral reefs
in the world. Almost all of the Reef is protected in the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park (GBRMP), the world's largest marine protected area,
the largest multiple-use managed marine area and the only large marine
ecosystem which is comprehensively managed with the explicit goal of
ensuring that its use is ecologically sustainable, in perpetuity.
3.170 The GBRMP covers an area of around 344,000 square kilometres,
larger than the area of Victoria and Tasmania combined, and includes
940 islands. It was established under the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Act 1975 and is managed by the Commonwealth's Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), with the Queensland Department
of Environment and Heritage responsible for day to day management.
3.171 Diverse interconnected habitats and ecosystems are represented
in the GBR World Heritage Area, including: shores (soft, sandy, rocky);
estuaries; mangrove wetlands and seagrasses; coral reefs (platform,
fringing and ribbon); sub-tidal benthos (ranging from algal- and sponge-dominated
communities of the shelf, to the little known communities of the continental
edge and slope); and pelagic communities.
3.172 Coral reefs are among the most diverse ecosystems in the biosphere.
The GBRMP supports a rich and diverse flora and fauna, including some
400 different species of corals, 4,000 molluscs, thousands of other invertebrate
species, over 1,500 fish, 16 sea snakes, six turtles, 35 seabirds (plus
30 waders and over 150 land birds) and 23 sea mammals. Major populations
of the endangered species of giant clams, turtles and dugongs are also
present.[169]
3.173 According to GBRMPA, marine pollution, particularly from land based
sources, is one of the principal management issues facing the Great Barrier
Reef.[170] The circulation and
flushing rates of the GBR lagoon are restricted, and hence the ever increasing
loads of contaminants have a relatively high residence time within the
lagoon and tend to accumulate.[171]
3.174 According to the Australian Academy of Science, land use change
in the tropics is having a major impact on the coastal reefs of the GBR
because clearing and levelling for sugar cane, the destruction of mangroves
and rapid urban development along the Queensland coast lead to more erosion
and run-off and a greater offshore impact. Coastal reefs are very sensitive
to smothering by particulate material.[172]
3.175 GBRMPA cited a 1992 study which estimated that in 1990 15 million
tonnes of sediment, 77,000 tonnes of nitrogen and 11,000 tonnes of phosphorus
were exported via river discharge to coastal Queensland waters. These
annual exports were considered to be three to five times greater than
levels prior to European settlement of the adjacent catchments. Much of
that increase has occurred in the last forty years. Fertiliser use has
increased dramatically on all the major catchments in that period.[173]
3.176 The Authority stated that diffuse catchment run-off is the principal
source of nutrient and sediment loss to the coastal zone, accounting for
more than 90 per cent of total annual exports of nutrients and sediments.
Of that figure, approximately 80 per cent derives from grazing, the dominant
agricultural land use in Queensland. The majority of this loss probably
reflects increased erosion of natural soils from overgrazing and clearing.
Cropping areas, particularly those under sugar cane, account for 15 per
cent, largely nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilisers, which are extensively
used.[174]
3.177 As noted above (3.14), eutrophication is responsible for major
losses of seagrasses in Australia. Seagrasses are critical habitats for
a wide range of species, including endangered dugongs. In June 1997, GBRMPA
reported that the number of dugongs between Cooktown and Mackay had dropped
from 240 to less than 30 in eight years and that the total number in Queensland
now stands at only 1,700, making them critically endangered. Pollution
and sediment from agriculture and housing developments are seen by the
Authority as the major problems.[175]
3.178 Dugongs are particularly vulnerable because although they may
live for 70 years, they produce, on average, only one calf every five
years. Professor Helene Marsh, Head of the School of Tropical Environmental
Studies at James Cook University, argues that mainland farming practices
have contributed to the dieback of seagrass by greatly increasing levels
of sediment through erosion. She also says that reclamation for coastal
development has destroyed many shallow inshore places used by dugongs
as nurseries.
3.179 In areas where pollution is minimal dugong populations are more
stable. Professor Marsh described the 17,000 square kilometres of seagrass
in Torres Strait as 'an underwater Serengeti ... by far the most important
dugong habitat in the world'.[176]
3.180 Sewage discharges are a minor source of terrestrially derived nutrient
inputs into GBR waters, accounting for less than ten per cent of the total,
but are significant at local scales adjacent to urbanised areas. Diffuse
urban discharges account for less than one per cent of total annual terrestrial
nutrient inputs. For larger coastal cities such as Cairns and Townsville,
sewage and urban run-off contribute a significant proportion of local
nutrient inputs. Given the expected population growth along coastal Queensland
the contribution of urban sources may increase proportionally.[177]
3.181 The Cairns and Far North Environment Centre stated that charter
vessels visiting the area are discharging untreated sewage onto the reef.
CAFNEC said that about one million people visit the reef in Cairns each
year, with the result that sewage from a million people annually is being
discharged into reef waters. Cairns does not have offloading facilities
for vessels with sewage holding tanks.[178]
Green Island, off Cairns, the most heavily visited Cay in the GBRMP, is
often cited as being significantly altered by raw sewage discharge onto
the reef.[179]
3.182 Overall, it would seem that the total nutrient input to the GBR
has risen by about 30 per cent in the last 140 years. However, in the
inshore part of the GBR lagoon (less than 20 metres in depth and 20
kilometres from the coast), this increase may be much greater as it
contains only five per cent of the volume of the lagoon but receives
the full impact of terrestrial inputs.
3.183 River flood plumes resulting from intense monsoonal rain episodically
intrude into the GBR lagoon carrying large amounts of nutrients and
sediments. These events affect the underlying benthic communities.
3.184 GBRMPA argues that there is very little real evidence, other than
at local scales, that clearly demonstrates that the GBR lagoon has been
degraded by eutrophication and states that nutrient concentrations are
generally low throughout the GBR region.[180]
3.185 However, Dr Peter Bell of the University of Queensland's Department
of Chemical Engineering, Director of the Low Isles Research Station, argued
that increased nutrient and sediment loads have already caused large scale
eutrophication of the GBR lagoon and widespread destruction of shallow
water coral reefs. Dr Bell referred to work at Low Isles, north of Cairns,
the site of extensive water quality studies in 1928-29. Repeat studies
show that the level of fertility of the GBR lagoon waters as a whole is
much higher than it was in 1928-29, and there is evidence that detrimental
effects have already occurred in a number of regions of the GBR.[181]
3.186 Analysis of coral cores from around Green Island indicates that
since 1950, around the time when intensive agriculture began on the adjacent
Barron catchment, there have been changes in the chemistry, crystallography
and internal morphology of the coral skeleton, which have been attributed
to terrestrially derived nutrients.[182]
3.187 In relation to land use change on the Queensland coast, Dr Graham
Harris of the Australian Academy of Science told the Committee that:
We simply do not know what we have done in terms of increasing
the run-off from the land and increasing pollutants and nutrients, in
particular, and soil erosion and so on. We are not yet in a position
to tell what the last 200 years of human impact has done or even what
the last 50 years has done ... We are just coming to grips with the
science, the monitoring and the understanding of the interactions of
land-use change and run-off.[183]
3.188 Water quality is considered a critical management issue in the
GBRMP. In inshore areas elevated nutrients from soils, chemical fertilisers
and sewage may stimulate the growth of algae which compete with coral
for light and space, while enhanced phosphorus may weaken the coral skeleton.
Suspended sediments from changing land use and port channel dredging decrease
light available for corals, inhibiting their growth and physiologically
stressing the polyps.[184]
3.189 The effects of nutrient enhancement on coral reefs are well known.
In Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii, a large, partially enclosed bay with an extensive
barrier reef system, treated sewage effluents were discharged from the
late 1940s until 1977. Extensive reef degradation occurred, with areas
near the outfalls becoming dominated by filter-feeding organisms and
in areas further from the outfalls coral was replaced by algal communities.
3.190 Under conditions of nutrient enrichment phytoplankton density can
increase, leading to a decrease in water clarity and reduced light penetration.
This can reduce the growth rate of deeper corals. The increased phytoplankton
crop also encourages the growth of filter-feeding organisms such as sponges,
tube worms and barnacles, which compete for space with corals. Many of
these organisms bore into the reef, reducing its structural integrity.
In addition, nutrients enhance the growth of turf and macroalgae which
overgrow the reef.[185]
3.191 There is also evidence that eutrophication contributes to outbreaks
of the crown-of-thorns starfish by increasing the survival and dispersal
rate of larvae as a result of the greater availability of the phytoplankton
on which the larvae feed. The coral-eating starfish has devastated parts
of the GBR.[186]
3.192 Increased sediment loads lead to turbidity, which affects coral
and seagrass. Coral is highly sensitive to turbidity, due to its symbiotic
association with zooxanthellae which require full penetration of light
through the water. Smothering of the coral itself can occur as a result
of increased sediment loads. Loss of the coral has serious impacts on
other reef life.[187]
3.193 Over two million tourists visit the GBR and neighbouring coasts
each year. The value of GBR tourism is over one billion dollars annually.
Negative environmental effects of tourism may include: localised modification
of islands, shorelines and reefs through resort and marina construction;
clearing of vegetation and wetlands; siltation of coral reefs during channel
and marina dredging activities; increasing levels of nutrients from sewage,
pollution from run-off, antifouling paints and hydrocarbons from shipping;
increasing fishing pressure; and damage to corals from anchors, divers,
pontoon shading and mooring chains.[188]
3.194 The GBR is a major shipping route, with over 2,000 ships, ten
per cent of which are oil tankers, passing through the inner route of
the GBR each year, servicing ten major ports along the coast. Navigation
of the GBR is not simple, involving reefs, islands, cays, narrow and
shallow channels, strong trade winds and tidal currents, occasional
cyclones and incomplete charting. Shipping can be expected to increase
in line with population growth and further resource development.
3.195 To date there have been no major spills or strandings and the major
source of oil entering the marine environment of the GBR is urban run-off.
However, up to 200 of the vessels which pass through GBR waters are oil
tankers, carrying up to 60,000 tonnes of crude or refined oil product.
Most of the key habitats or organisms within the GBR are highly sensitive
to oiling and there is little doubt that a major oil spill could cause
serious environmental and economic impact.[189]
3.196 However, minor groundings and 'near miss' shipping mishaps do occur
in GBR waters, five in 1995-96 according to GBRMPA reports.[190]
3.197 The Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA), located 80 kilometres
north of Rockhampton, is used by Australian and overseas defence forces.
The marine sections of SWBTA fall within the GBRMP and military uses
of these areas are carried out in consultation with GBRMPA and the Queensland
Department of the Environment.
3.198 Some concern was expressed during the course of the inquiry about
the possible effect of the joint Australia-US military exercise Tandem
Thrust 97, held in March 1997, on the environment in general and the
marine environment in particular. Attention was drawn to the possible
impact of amphibious landings on the endangered populations of dugongs
and green turtles in Shoalwater Bay and to the possible discharge of
oil and other wastes in GBRMP waters.
3.199 Shock waves from explosions can lead to cardiac arrest, stroke
and lung haemorrhaging in dugongs. More than 150 devices of up to 500
kilograms are detonated in the bay during diving exercises each year.
The Navy is also considering sending mine countermeasure vessels to the
bay, from which up to eight 105 kilogram devices would be exploded each
year, but has agreed to restrict explosions to less sensitive areas.[191]
3.200 However, the initial site selection for the explosives training
area in Shoalwater Bay considered dugong protection issues, and ensuring
that the area is clear of turtles and dugongs before detonation is standard
procedure. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation, in cooperation
with civilian experts, is undertaking research into the effects of remote
blasts on dugong physiology and behaviour. The Office of the Minister
for Defence pointed out to the Committee that the reported decline in
dugong numbers has occurred relatively recently compared to the period
in which Defence has been active in the area.[192]
3.201 Following the completion of Tandem Thrust 97 the Department of
Defence released an environmental report which stated that no accidents
had occurred and that there had been no dugong related incidents or sightings.
Vessel traffic restrictions had applied to sea grass beds which support
the dugong population. According to the report, there had been no oil
spills or other adverse impacts reported during the exercise.[193]
3.202 As yet, there have been no ballast water introductions of exotic
organisms identified within the GBR, although GBRMPA points out that the
potential certainly exists, noting that Hay Point, near Mackay, receives
the third largest volume of ballast water for Australia per year.[194]
3.203 According to the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories:
High quality scientific knowledge of the marine environment,
down to the level of individual ecosystems, habitats and species, is
critical in identifying impacts of marine pollution and monitoring the
success of amelioration measures over the longer term.[195]
3.204 However, the lack of adequate scientific understanding of the
marine environment, and the lack of support for research into the area,
were recurrent themes of submissions and evidence presented to the Committee
during the course of the inquiry. This was the case both in terms of
research for the sake of 'pure' scientific knowledge and in terms of
the need for knowledge to enable suitable management of the marine environment
and our uses of it.
3.205 The report Australia: State of the Environment 1996 states
that Australia lacks basic data on catchment characteristics, water quality
and various aspects of the marine environment and that where they do exist
figures are often not collated nationally or are unavailable because of
issues of ownership. Information is often of poor quality, incomplete
and not comparable between agencies, localities and over time.[196]
3.206 A major finding of SOMER was that there are serious gaps in scientific
knowledge and understanding of the marine environment in Australia, both
geographically and by issue. One explanation is the vast length of coastline
and area of our seas, the great majority of which is uninhabited or sparsely
inhabited, and Australia's relatively small scientific population.[197]
3.207 SOMER stated that the lack of long-term data on the marine environment
reflected the lack of a strategic approach to coastal zone planning and
management in Australia and specifically the lack of a long-term marine
science strategy. According to SOMER, it also reflected a trend for marine
science funding in Australia to favour short-term basic research projects.[198]
3.208 Mr Glen Eagle, of the Australian Marine Industries and Sciences
Council (AMISC), told the Committee that: 'Little is known about the potential
of our EEZ, except in relation to a few resources such as fisheries and
oil and gas, and even there resource assessment has been fairly patchy.'
[199]
3.209 Mr Eagle also said that:
Along with the exciting opportunities provided by a vast EEZ,
there are also important obligations, the major one being the collection
of basic scientific, physical and biological data on our marine systems.
That data is necessary for the responsible development of the industries
we have been talking about. Basic data is essential both for industry
and for governments, and is highly relevant to managing marine pollution
issues ... The data is important as governments need baseline data for
effective environmental management. AMISC strongly supports development
and implementation of a national marine data program.[200]
3.210 In his submission to the inquiry, Professor Leon Zann stated
that Australia 'lacks a coherent national policy on marine science'.
Professor Zann cited four recent reviews on marine sciences in Australia,
which pointed to:
a serious lack of focus in Australia's marine research, the absence
of committed technological effort, the imbalance of research efforts,
the inadequacies in resource management information, and the poor use
of infrastructure. [201]
3.211 Professor Zann argued that proportional to its population Australia
is among the world's top ten nations in marine research effort and output.
However, proportional to the vast area of the EEZ the research effort
remains minuscule. He said that the scientific services of Commonwealth
agencies such as CSIRO and AIMS should be channelled into applied, long-term
strategic research and monitoring of the EEZ and its management. However,
a more management-related research and monitoring capability is probably
also required.[202]
3.212 The Resource Assessment Commission's 1993 inquiry found that: 'There
are serious deficiencies in the knowledge available for management of
coastal resources, and there are deficiencies in the arrangements for
access by coastal resource managers to the information they need.' [203]
The inquiry identified the following issues as priorities for further
research:
- impacts and management of non-point sources of pollution, including
agricultural and urban run-off;
- social and economic impacts of urban development;
- criteria for determining adequacy of protected areas;
- cumulative impacts of development;
- coastal ecosystems, habitats and species, including ecology of
seagrasses, mangroves, sandy beaches, mud flats and saltmarshes;
and
- natural physical processes operating in the coastal zone.[204]
3.213 Evidence to the Resource Assessment Commission's inquiry suggested
that information about coastal zone management issues was fragmented and
often not accessible to those who could use it to advantage. Reasons for
this included: data being collected by agencies for particular purposes
and not shared with others; lack of communication between researchers
and managers; proprietorial sensitivities; lack of communication between
disciplines and a move by some agencies to a more commercial approach
to marketing data.[205]
3.214 The Centre for Maritime Policy also stated that the establishment
of a comprehensive data-base and the ongoing collection of data are necessary
for the effective development and management of all maritime and coastal
zones, particularly for the management and control of land based pollution.
The Centre suggested that government policy, directed primarily towards
specific, project based research funding, militates against such research.[206]
3.215 In relation to an ANZECC consultancy on The Quantification of Marine
Debris, Dr Nigel Wace expressed concern at 'the sort of bureaucratic and
legalistic constraints that are increasingly being put upon independent
researchers by treating scientific knowledge as commercially valuable
trade secrets'.[207]
3.216 Mr Nelson Quinn told the Committee that a lot of the research
that is needed is what he called 'public good' research, as opposed
to research that is logically within the province of particular industries
to carry out:
When you get on to baseline activities - such as ... sorting
out where some of the heavy metals come from in the Torres Strait -
unless it is done on a collective, public good basis there is no way
that anybody has an incentive to do it at all. [208]
3.217 Mr Chris Davis, Executive Director of the Australian Water and
Wastewater Association, spoke of the need for more research on marine
pollution and referred to the Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study.
He said that it 'threw a completely new light on what happens in that
body of water. Without that study, people would have been flying blind
indefinitely.' He went on to compare the tens of millions of dollars
for research of that kind on a major area with the hundreds of millions
of dollars possibly required to solve the relevant problems:
So it is probably a good first investment to have the area studied
and to understand it and then to move forward to set priorities for
taking remedial action.[209]
3.218 In its submission to the inquiry the Academy of Science stated
that more research is needed because Australia does have some special
environmental problems. The Academy noted that lack of knowledge is frequently
an impediment to informed decision making and cited the example of sediment
toxicity guidelines developed recently in Canada and the USA for metals
and pesticides, and the fact that it is not known whether they are applicable
to organisms in the Australian marine environment.[210]
3.219 Similarly, in relation to the problem of nutrients and sediments
in terrestrial run-off, Dr Bradley Eyre of the Southern Cross University,
stated that Australia offers a unique set of hydrological and climatic
variables which excludes the extrapolation of a lot of overseas knowledge
to local environments. He argued that there is a lack of understanding
of nutrient sources and sinks within Australian estuaries, the extent
to which nutrients are cycled between different forms, and the role highly
variable flows play in nutrient processing, and that what is needed is
long-term, process oriented applied research.[211]
3.220 Dr Peter Bell of the University of Queensland stated in his submission
that:
The Australian scientific community as a whole do not recognise
the seriousness of the problem of coastal marine pollution due to nutrients
and hence it is difficult to get funding through the Australian Research
Council (ARC) for projects which they consider are not 'fundamental'
enough.[212]
3.221 The CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science stated
that effective environmental management relies on an understanding of
the way in which natural systems work, and of the way in which anthropogenic
influences may affect them. They referred to 'a current lack of knowledge
of coastal and ocean ecosystems', and 'a clear need for an integrated
system of data retrieval for information relating to marine pollution'.[213]
3.222 CSIRO and AIMS said that key requirements for the understanding
of marine pollution are the existence of long-term data sets of relevant
environmental variables, and an appropriate understanding of the processes
relating these variables. Short-term studies, typically one year in
length, are not long enough to resolve reliably variability over longer
time scales in the marine environment.
3.223 Long-term research and monitoring studies, many of which are process
oriented, are often difficult to support and justify in the current era
of output-oriented, user-focused, cost-recovered research with short-term
publication and justification horizons, but they are invaluable for demonstrating
the extent of environmental change and providing benchmarks against which
management strategies can be assessed. Similarly, there is a pressing
need for the development of databases that are appropriate to the variability
of space and time scales inherent in the marine environment.[214]
3.224 Mr Wolfgang Zeidler, Senior Curator of Marine Invertebrates at
the South Australian Museum, made the same point, saying that long-term
monitoring of the marine environment is essential. He said that while
industry does fund some research, it is only interested in economic species,
in short-term gains; not in twenty-year studies.[215]
3.225 On the subject of the most fundamental baseline research, Dr
Graham Harris of the CSIRO said that:
it is hard to get funding for basic taxonomy, which is classification
and naming of organisms - it is not exactly sexy in this day and age
... The problem of funding to know what we have got is actually a national
problem ... The problem with living in Australia is that it is a very
biodiverse region, it is a very unusual region compared to the rest
of the world and we have not been here very long ... There is widespread
ignorance about the Australian flora and fauna.[216]
3.226 Similarly, Dr Brian Robinson, Chairman of the Environment Protection
Authority of Victoria, told the Committee that:
taxonomy is not a science that is generally attractive to funding.
It is a long-term baseline information provider. It does not produce
any kind of output of a commercial nature or even generate public interest
... So funding for long-term basic scientific research, which provides
the foundation ultimately for good management, is not something that
attracts very much funding attention at all from whatever source.[217]
3.227 Mr Richard Martin, Executive Officer of the CSIRO's Centre For
Research on Introduced Marine Pests told the Committee that:
the recognition of the species in Australian waters is ... very
behind the times ... taxonomy is not, if you like, a currently in vogue
sort of thing. It is a long haul scientific problem.[218]
3.228 Mr Zeidler told the Committee that one of the most crucial impediments
to assessing the effects of pollution is the lack of taxonomic knowledge,
particularly of marine invertebrates. He cited a number of reports since
1980 which had emphasised the central importance of taxonomy to the understanding
and maintenance of the marine environment and its biodiversity, and which
had noted the lack of trained taxonomists in Australia and the inadequate
facilities for storing and preserving collections.[219]
3.229 The South Australian Museum stated in its submission that the
lack of knowledge of the marine environment is:
much worse than the general public realise or the scientific
community is sometimes prepared to admit. There have been few base-line
surveys of marine environments so we have little or no knowledge of
the marine community structure. Comments on the effect of pollution,
commercial fisheries or coastal development are thus largely guess-work
based on experience elsewhere. ... our taxonomic knowledge, particularly
of marine invertebrates, is poor. It is estimated that about sixty per
cent of the fauna is still to be discovered and described. There are
many animal groups for which there is no specialist in any Australian
museum.[220]
3.230 The Museum argued that the situation in marine taxonomy had actually
become worse, with fewer taxonomists employed now than in 1980. Mr Zeidler
told the Committee that taxonomy does not require a lot of money but does
require long-term funding and positions.[221]
The Museum stated that: 'Without a long-term allocation of resources for
basic marine taxonomy we cannot manage our marine and coastal resources
or make informed comment on conservation issues.' [222]
3.231 Mr Zeidler cited the example of the northern Pacific seastar, referred
to above at 3.117, and suggested that had a taxonomist in benthic invertebrates
been in Hobart at the relevant time, and had there been long-term monitoring
of the Derwent estuary, the arrival of the seastar might have been noticed
in time to prevent its establishment in Tasmanian waters, where it is
now doing such damage.[223]
3.232 Mr Zeidler noted the location of the Australian Institute of Marine
Science in Townsville and acknowledged the national obligation to study
the Great Barrier Reef because of its international significance, but
he also pointed out that Australia has the longest east-west coastline
in the southern hemisphere and that there remain hundreds of thousands
of species that have not been identified and described. He suggested the
need for a group of federally funded scientists located in Adelaide, which
is centrally placed for the study of southern waters.[224]
3.233 Ms Roberta Rice, Managing Director of Geo-Oceans Horizons Pty
Ltd, argued in her submission to the inquiry that Australia should be
ashamed of its lack of knowledge of its own coastal and oceanic zones
and that something can only be done about marine pollution when we have
pre-disturbance base-line data to compare with post-disturbance data,
covering flora and fauna, chemical properties of water, currents, sediments
and a range of other matters.
3.234 She said that what data there was was spread among academic institutions,
government agencies and in other locations, and that the lack of a common,
accessible data collection centre was a serious shortcoming in marine
management in Australia.[225]
Footnotes:
[1] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 1.
[2] Professor Leon Zann, letter
to the Committee, 14 October 1995. Also, Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia: State of the Environment 1996,
p. 8.10; Our Sea, Our Future: Major Findings of the State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia, p. 55.
[3] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 238.
[4] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 238.
[5] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority, Submission No 25, p. 1.
[6] Government of Western Australia,
Submission No 81, p. 9.
[7] Albert J Gabric and Peter R
F Bell, 'Review of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal
Ecosystems', Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research,
1993, Vol 44, p. 261.
[8] GESAMP 1990, cited in Jon Brodie,
'The problems of nutrients and eutrophication in the Australian marine
environment', in Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories,
The State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia: Technical
Annex 2, Canberra, 1995, p. 10.
[9] Professor Leon Zann, letter
to the Committee, 7 September 1995.
[10] Our Sea, Our Future: Major
Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 56.
[11] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, pp 240-241.
[12] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia: State of the Environment 1996,
p. 8.6.
[13] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 40.
[14] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 462.
[15] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 240.
[16] Richmond Catchment Management
Committee, Richmond Catchment Management Strategy, p. 32.
[17] Fertilizer Industry Federation,
Submission No 15, p. 6.
[18] Australian Chemical Specialties
Manufacturers Association, Submission No 39, p. 2.
[19] Senate Standing Committee
on Environment, Communication and the Arts, Water Resources - Toxic
Algae, Canberra, 1993, pp 6-7.
[20] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 4.
[21] Brodie, 'The problems of
nutrients and eutrophication in the Australian marine environment', The
State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia: Technical Annex
2, p. 2.
[22] Fertilizer Industry Federation,
Submission No 15, pp 7-8.
[23] Gabric and Bell, 'Review
of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', pp
262-263. Also, Australian Water and Wastewater Association, Submission
No 28, p. 4.
[24] Gabric and Bell, 'Review
of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', p.
268.
[25] Gabric and Bell, 'Review
of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', p.
263.
[26] Richmond Catchment Management
Committee, Richmond Catchment Management Strategy, p. 32.
[27] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia: State of the Environment 1996,
p. 8.13.
[28] Conservation Council of
Western Australia, Submission No 95, p. 2.
[29] Fertilizer Industry Federation,
Submission No 15, p. 4.
[30] Gabric and Bell, 'Review
of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', p.
262.
[31] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 334.
[32] Richmond Catchment Management
Committee, Richmond Catchment Management Strategy, p. 32.
[33] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 2. Richmond Catchment Management Committee, Richmond
Catchment Management Strategy, p. 32.
[34] Fertilizer Industry Federation,
Submission No 15, p. 1.
[35] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 55.
[36] Fertilizer Industry Federation,
Submission No 15, p. 4. Also, 'In addition to applied fertilisers, mineralisation
of plant residues, especially legumes, is a major source of N and P in
agricultural drainage waters.' Gabric and Bell, 'Review of the Effects
of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', p. 266.
[37] Fertilizer Industry Federation,
Submission No 15, pp 2, 5. Also, Queensland Farmers' Federation, Submission
No 40, p. 8.
[38] Gabric and Bell, 'Review
of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', p.
266.
[39] Queensland Farmers' Federation,
Submission No 40, p. 9.
[40] Gabric and Bell, 'Review
of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', p.
261.
[41] Gabric and Bell, 'Review
of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', p.
265.
[42] Gabric and Bell, 'Review
of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal Ecosystems', p.
266.
[43] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 3.
[44] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 2.
[45] National Ocean Watch Centre,
Submission No 6, p. 2.
[46] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 20 May 1997, p. 532.
[47] National Ocean Watch Centre,
Submission No 6, pp 1-2. Also, Australian Academy of Science, Submission
No 109, p. 2.
[48] Draft National Strategy
for the Management of Acid Sulfate Soils, p. 6.
[49] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 472.
[50] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 469.
[51] Draft National Strategy
for the Management of Acid Sulfate Soils, p. 15.
[52] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 68, pp 13-14.
[53] National Ocean Watch Centre,
Submission No 6, p. 2.
[54] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 496.
[55] Draft National Strategy
for the Management of Acid Sulfate Soils, p. 19.
[56] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 68, p. 14.
[57] National Ocean Watch Centre,
Submission No 6, p. 2.
[58] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 493.
[59] Draft National Strategy
for the Management of Acid Sulfate Soils, p. 19.
[60] National Research Centre
for Environmental Toxicology, Submission No 1, pp 9-10. Also, Australian
Academy of Science, Submission No 109, p. 2.
[61] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 255.
[62] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, pp 239-240.
[63] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 4.
[64] Brodie, 'The problems of
nutrients and eutrophication in the Australian marine environment', The
State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia: Technical Annex
2, p. 16.
[65] The Vaucluse Progress Association,
Submission No 10, pp 1-2.
[66] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 4.
[67] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 376.
[68] BAYECO No 2, Winter
1994, p. 2.
[69] CSIRO Institute of Natural
Resources and Environment, Submission No 4, p. 1.
[70] MFP Australia, Submission
No 97, Appendix A, p. 2.
[71] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, pp 163-164.
[72] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 5.
[73] Gretna Weste and David Ashton,
'Damage to Vegetation Along the Foreshore at Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads',
attachment to Barwon Coast Committee of Management, Submission No 47.
[74] Surfrider Foundation Victoria,
Submission No 48, p. 5.
[75] The Byron Shire Echo,
February 18, 1997, p. 1.
[76] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 358.
[77] AAP, 20 March 1997.
[78] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, p. 13.
[79] Neale Philip, 'Sewage: Sydney
(NSW) - a case history', in The State of the Marine Environment Report
for Australia: Technical Annex 2, p. 42.
[80] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, p. 13.
[81] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 4.
[82] Sydney Morning Herald,
15 February 1997, p. 37.
[83] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 244.
[84] The Surfrider Foundation
Australia cites a study which concludes that 37 per cent of the world's
ocean oil pollution is derived from urban run-off, Michael Legge Wilkinson,
Human Impact on Australian Beaches, Dee Why, 1996, p. 32.
[85] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 355.
[86] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 2.
[87] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 55.
[88] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia: State of the Environment 1996,
p. 8.9.
[89] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 282.
[90] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 288.
[91] MFP Australia, Submission
No 97, Appendix C, pp 3-4.
[92] Cooperative Research Centre
for Catchment Hydrology, Submission No 43, p. 3.
[93] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 354.
[94] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 377.
[95] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 288.
[96] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, p. 169.
[97] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 366.
[98] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, pp 333-334.
[99] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 3.
[100] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 361. Also, Scarborough and Districts Progress
Association, Submission No 83, p. 2.
[101] Australian Water and
Wastewater Association, Submission No 28, p. 4.
[102] Sydney Morning Herald,
15 February 1997, p. 37.
[103] Sun-Herald, 23
March 1997.
[104] Australian Academy of
Science, Submission No 109, p. 4.
[105] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 412.
[106] Official Hansard Report,
Hobart, 21 April 1997, p. 436.
[107] CSIRO Centre for Research
on Introduced Marine Pests, Submission No 98, p. 1.
[108] Environment Protection
Authority of Victoria, Ballast Water, Hull Fouling and Exotic Marine
Organism Introductions via Ships - A Victorian Study, Melbourne, May
1996, p. 11.
[109] Australian Quarantine
and Inspection Service, Submission No 112, p. 1.
[110] CSIRO Centre for Research
on Introduced Marine Pests, Submission No 98, p. 1.
[111] CSIRO Centre for Research
on Introduced Marine Pests, Submission No 98, p. 2.
[112] Our Sea,
Our Future: Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report
for Australia, pp 64-65.
[113] Environment Protection
Authority of Victoria, Ballast Water, Hull Fouling and Exotic Marine
Organism Introductions via Ships - A Victorian Study, p. 11.
[114] Environment Protection
Authority of Victoria, Ballast Water, Hull Fouling and Exotic Marine
Organism Introductions via Ships - A Victorian Study, pp 21-22.
[115] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 269.
[116] Environment Protection
Authority of Victoria, Ballast Water, Hull Fouling and Exotic Marine
Organism Introductions via Ships - A Victorian Study, p. 22.
[117] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 269.
[118] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 270.
[119] Environment Protection
Authority of Victoria, Ballast Water, Hull Fouling and Exotic Marine
Organism Introductions via Ships - A Victorian Study, p. 17.
[120] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 271.
[121] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February, pp 210-212.
[122] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 68, p. 27.
[123] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, pp 7-8.
[124] Australian Water and
Wastewater Association, Submission No 28, p. 3.
[125] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 378.
[126] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 378.
[127] Australian Water and
Wastewater Association, Submission No 28, p. 4.
[128] Dr R J Morris, Submission
No 96, pp 7-8.
[129] Australian Academy of
Science, Submission No 109, p. 3.
[130] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 20 May 1997, p. 546.
[131] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 68, p. 2.
[132] Queensland Fisheries
Management Authority, Discussion Paper No 3, Queensland Subtropical
Inshore Finfish Fishery, 1996, p. 5.
[133] National Research Centre
for Environmental Toxicology, Submission No 1, pp 2, 5-6.
[134] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 28, p. 27.
[135] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 199.
[136] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 42.
[137] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 200.
[138] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February, pp 210-211.
[139] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 263.
[140] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 58.
[141] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 58. However, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority cites US National
Academy of Sciences figures, based on a 1990 review, which found that
2.3 million tonnes of oil enter the sea each year, of which 50 per cent
was from land based sources. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Submission
No 13, p. 2.
[142] Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Submission No 13, pp 1-2.
[143] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 221.
[144] Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Submission No 13, p. 2.
[145] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, pp 217-218.
[146] National Research Centre
for Environmental Toxicology, Submission No 1, p. 6.
[147] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 250.
[148] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 68, p. 12.
[149] National Research Centre
for Environmental Toxicology, Submission No 1, p. 6.
[150] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, p. 18.
[151] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 250.
[152] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 59.
[153] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, pp 251-252.
[154] Dr R J Morris, Submission
No 96, pp 5-6.
[155] National Research Centre
for Environmental Toxicology, Submission No 1, p. 8.
[156] Cited in The State
of the Marine Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary,
p. 252.
[157] William Gladstone, Trace
Metals in Sediments, Indicator Organisms and Traditional Seafoods of the
Torres Strait, Townsville, 1996, p. 1.
[158] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 252.
[159] National Research Centre
for Environmental Toxicology, Submission No 1, p. 9.
[160] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 258.
[161] Nigel Wace, 'Garbage
in the oceans', Bogong, Vol 12 No 1, 1991, p 16.
[162] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 62.
[163] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, pp 260-261.
[164] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 315. Also, Mr Chris Gray, Submission No 23,
p. 1.
[165] Mr Chris Gray, Submission
No 23, p. 4.
[166] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 261.
[167] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 258.
[168] Australian Chamber of
Shipping, Submission No 3, p. 2.
[169] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 416.
[170] Dr Ian McPhail, Chair,
GBRMPA, letter to the Committee, 28 September 1995.
[171] AMBIO, Vol 24
No 4, June 1995, p. 208.
[172] Australian Academy of
Science, Submission No 109, p. 2.
[173] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 17.
[174] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 17. Also, GBRMPA, Submission, Annex
9, Brodie J, 'Nutrients and the Great Barrier Reef', unpublished article.
[175] AAP, 1 June 1997.
[176] Sydney Morning Herald,
18 June 1997, p. 11.
[177] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 18.
[178] Cairns and Far North
Environment Centre, Submission No 62, p. 3.
[179] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 19.
[180] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 18.
[181] Dr Peter R F Bell, Submission
No 31, pp 1, 3. Also, AMBIO, Vol 24 No 4, June 1995, pp 213-214.
[182] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 19.
[183] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 February 1997, p. 274.
[184] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 421.
[185] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, Annex 9, Brodie J, 'Nutrients and the
Great Barrier Reef', unpublished article.
[186] AMBIO, Vol 24
No 4, June 1995, pp 214-215. Also, GBRMPA, Submission No 25, Annex 9,
Brodie J, 'Nutrients and the Great Barrier Reef', unpublished article;
The State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia: Technical
Summary, p. 278.
[187] National Research Centre
for Environmental Toxicology, Submission No 1, p. 5. Also, Gabric and
Bell, 'Review of the Effects of Non-point Nutrient Loading on Coastal
Ecosystems', p. 269.
[188] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 420.
[189] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, pp 23, 25-26.
[190] Sunday Mail (Qld),
20 April 1997, p. 13.
[191] Sydney Morning Herald,
18 June 1997, p. 11.
[192] Letter to the Committee
from the Office of the Minister for Defence, 3 July 1997.
[193] Directorate of Environment
and Heritage, Department of Defence, Exercise Tandem Thrust 1997, Environmental
Report, p. 4.
[194] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 24.
[195] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 12.
[196] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia: State of the Environment 1996,
Executive Summary, p. 36.
[197] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 67.
[198] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 384.
[199] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, pp 296-297.
[200] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, pp 299-300.
[201] Professor Leon Zann,
Submission No 12, p. 3.
[202] Professor Leon Zann,
Submission No 12, pp 3-4.
[203] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 255.
[204] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 263.
[205] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 270.
[206] Centre for Maritime Policy,
Submission No 58, p. 8.
[207] Dr Nigel Wace, letter
to the Committee, 13 August 1995.
[208] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 11 February 1997, p 145.
[209] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 380.
[210] Australian Academy of
Science, Submission No 109, pp 7-8.
[211] Dr Bradley Eyre, Submission
No 85, pp 1-2.
[212] Dr Peter R F Bell, Submission
No 31, p. 3.
[213] CSIRO and Australian
Institute of Marine Science, Submission No 45, pp 8, 12.
[214] CSIRO and Australian
Institute of Marine Science, Submission No 45, pp 8-9, 13.
[215] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, p. 184.
[216] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, pp 293-294.
[217] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 327.
[218] Official Hansard Report,
Hobart, 21 April 1997, p. 441.
[219] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, p. 180.
[220] South Australian Museum,
Submission No 54, p. 1.
[221] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, p. 182.
[222] South Australian Museum,
Submission No 54, p. 2.
[223] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, p. 185.
[224] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, pp 183, 186.
[225] Geo-Oceans Horizons Pty
Ltd, Submission No 53, pp 9-10.