By Jon C. Day and Scott F. Heron

UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has again raised grave fears for the future of the Great Barrier Reef, highlighting the problems of water pollution, climate change and unsustainable fishing.

The committee this week released draft decisions regarding the conservation of 62 World Heritage properties. This included the Great Barrier Reef, for which it noted:

Overall, while progress has been made, significant challenges remain in achieving water quality targets, managing extreme climate impacts, and ensuring the long-term resilience of the property.

The comments confirm what experts already know too well: despite substantial investments from successive Australian governments, threats to the Great Barrier Reef remain.

Climate change is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs around the world. But water pollution is the most significant local threat. That issue, along with unsustainable fishing, is entirely within Australia’s control.

The World Heritage Committee will consider the draft decision at its next meeting in Paris in July. It may amend the decision, but the concerns are now on the public record.

What’s all this about?

The Great Barrier Reef has been on UNESCO’s World Heritage list for more than 40 years. The listing recognises outstanding natural and cultural places around the world.

The reef is jointly managed by the Australian and Queensland governments. UNESCO’s draft decision expressed “utmost concern” at the findings of last year’s outlook report, published by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It noted:

the overall outlook for the property remains one of continued deterioration due largely to climate change, while the long-term outlook for the ecosystem of the property also remains ‘very poor’.

Poor water quality persists

Poor water quality is a major issue on the Great Barrier Reef. It is caused when sediment, nutrients, pesticides and pollution from land-based activities, such as land clearing, farming and coastal development, are carried into the ocean.

In its draft decision, UNESCO noted with “regrets” that the latest water quality targets for sediment and nitrogen – a key component of fertilisers – were not achieved. UNESCO said the updated water quality plan should ensure targets and actions “are sufficiently ambitious and funded”.

As the below graph shows, actions from 2009 to now have reduced pollution only by about half the desired amounts. At the existing rate of progress and funding commitments, the targets will not be met until 2047 (for sediment) and 2114 (for dissolved inorganic nitrogen).

Huge gaps exist between current pollutants levels and the water quality targets. These and some other targets are well out of reach under existing funding levels.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LGGK1

The draft decision also requests a halt to illegal land clearing while strengthening vegetation laws – both fundamental to reducing water pollution.

Severe weather events exacerbate the water quality problem. In February this year, for example, floodwaters from ten major rivers merged to form extensive flood plumes along 700 kilometres of coastline from Cairns to Mackay, and up to 100 kilometres offshore.

Such plumes can remain present for months after a flood. They can smother seagrass and corals, and cause damaging algal growth.

The wicked problem of climate change

UNESCO’s draft decision noted “the overall outlook for the property remains one of continued deterioration due largely to climate change”.

Ocean heatwaves can lead to coral bleaching and potentially death. Mass bleaching occurred again this year on the Great Barrier Reef – the sixth such event since 2016.

UNESCO described as “deeply concerning” preliminary results showing heat stress was the highest on record during the 2023–24 mass bleaching event.

Climate change is also expected to produce more frequent and intense extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones, which can damage reefs and island ecosystems.

UNESCO called on Australia to align its policies with the global goal of “limiting global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”, and to take steps to mitigate negative impacts from extreme weather events.

https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/1190/68c21ffd20eb1836bc909c6907afc27ab6c2d612/site/index.html

The challenges of fishing

Unsustainable fishing practices damage the Great Barrier Reef. UNESCO’s draft decision noted progress in eliminating gillnet fishing, which is on track for the target of 2027.

The fishing method involves mesh nets which can accidentally kill other wildlife, including threatened species such as dugongs, turtles, dolphins and sawfish.

But smaller nets can still be used throughout much of the World Heritage area, so some threats to threatened species remain.

UNESCO also urged Australia to expand electronic monitoring of commercial fishing vessels, and to ensure the targets in its Sustainable Fisheries Strategy are met. It also called for a comprehensive review of coral harvesting, which primarily supplies the global aquarium trade.

What next?

Despite the significant resources and management efforts Australia expends on the Great Barrier Reef, serious threats remain.

The Great Barrier Reef is struggling under the cumulative impacts of a multitude of threats. The problems outlined above are not isolated challenges.

Both the Queensland and Australian governments could do far more to boost the health of the reef. Clearly, more funding is needed. Without it, the future of the Great Barrier Reef is in jeopardy, and so too its tourism and fishing economies, and thousands of jobs.

UNESCO has now asked Australia to provide more comprehensive results from the recent mass bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, along with an updated plan to improve water quality. Its draft decision maintains the spotlight on conservation concerns for this precious natural asset.

Jon C. Day, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University and Scott F. Heron, UNESCO Chair on Climate Change Variability of Natural and Cultural Heritage and Professor in Physics, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

By Samuel Cornell and Amy Peden

Almost 700 rescues had been carried out in New South Wales by Friday morning as record-breaking rainfall pounds the state. Tragically, four people have died in floodwaters.

Amid the chaos, videos posted on social media show people deliberately entering or standing above swollen rivers and flooded roads. It is a pattern of dangerous behaviour that occurs frequently during natural disasters in Australia.

Filming unsafe acts for social media is not just risky for participants. It may inspire copycat behaviour, and, if things go wrong, can endanger the lives of rescuers. It’s a public health problem which requires new remedies.

Selfies in floods: a risky business

During a flood, water can be deceiving. Just 15cm of water can knock an adult off their feet or cause a car to lose traction and float. Submerged debris and contaminated water add to the dangers.

Emergency services routinely warn the public not to enter floodwaters – on foot or in vehicles. But many people ignore the warnings, including those out to create social media content.

In a startling example posted on Tiktok during the current floods, a young man stands on a mossy log which has fallen over a flooded river. The video, accompanied by dramatic music, shows swirling floodwaters surging beneath him. One wrong step, and the man could easily have drowned.

In other examples posted on Tiktok in recent days, a woman wades through murky floodwaters, and a person films as the car they are travelling in drives down a flooded road.

Similar behaviour was observed during floods in Townsville earlier this year. Residents filmed themselves diving and wading into floodwaters, and towing each other on inflatable rafts.

And during ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, social media was filled with images of people in Queensland surfing dangerous swells and wading in rough surf.

A worrying trend

Our research explores the links between social media and adverse health outcomes.

Selfie-related injury has become a public health concern. People are increasingly venturing off-trail, seeking out attractive but hazardous locations such as cliff edges and coastal rock platforms.

These behaviours can lead to injury and death. They can also put emergency services personnel in harm’s way. In 2021, for example, a woman fell into a swollen river on Canberra’s outskirts while trying to take a selfie with friends, prompting a police official to warn:

There is no photo or social media post that is worth risking your life to get. Any water rescue puts the lives of not only of yourself but those of emergency services personnel at risk.

Getting to grips with the problem

How should the problem be tackled? Previous research by others has recommended “no-selfie zones”, barriers, and signs as ways to prevent selfie incidents. But our research suggests these measures may not be enough.

The phenomenon of selfie-related incidents requires a public health approach. This entails addressing the behaviour through prevention, education, and other interventions such as via social media platforms.

In the latest floods, unsafe behaviour has occurred despite a series of official flood, weather and other warnings. Residents also continue to drive into floodwaters, despite repeated pleas from authorities.

Official warnings compete with – and can lose out to – more emotionally compelling, visually rich content. If the public sees other people behaving recklessly and apparently unharmed, then even clear, fact-based warnings can be ignored.

This is especially true in communities experiencing “alert-fatigue” after having gone through disasters before.

Sometimes, vague terminology in warnings means the messages don’t necessarily cut through. We’ve seen this before in relation to surf safety. Technical phrases such as “hazardous swell” don’t change behaviour if people don’t understand what they mean.

For warnings to work, they need to be clear and provide instruction – stating what the danger actually is, and what to explicitly do, or not do.

For social media users, that might mean spelling out not to go into floodwaters to capture content for social media.

We’ve also previously called on social media companies to be held more accountable for the dangerous content they publish – by flagging risky content and supporting in-app safety messaging, especially at high-risk locations or during extreme weather events.

What to do right now

If you’re in or near a flood zone, follow guidance from emergency services to keep yourself and your loved ones safe.

When it comes to using social media in an emergency:

• stay entirely out of floodwaters, even for a quick photo
• think before you post. Your safety is more important than your content. No post is worth risking your life
• avoid glamourising risk. Sharing risky photos or videos can influence others to do the same, potentially with worse outcomes
• follow official advice. Floodwaters are unpredictable. Warnings are issued for a reason
• use your platform for good. Share verified information, support affected communities and help amplify safety messages.

As extreme weather becomes more frequent in Australia under climate change, so too will the urge to document them. But we risk turning disasters into digital spectacles – at the expense of our lives and that of rescuers.

Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney and Amy Peden, NHMRC Research Fellow, School of Population Health and Co-founder UNSW Beach Safety Research Group, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

By Paul Chad

Australia has become world-famous for its wine, but the industry faces an uncertain future. Too many grapes grown amid falling consumer demand, an oversupply of budget wine, and an undersupply of premium wine are just some of the problems besetting the industry.

There are still many small and medium-sized wineries across Australia. But the industry is dominated by a few large players, as well as “vertical integration” with ownership linkages between wineries and retailers.

Just this month, a merger between global drinks giant Pernod Ricard’s Australian, New Zealand and Spanish wine brands and Accolade Wines (one of Australia’s largest winemakers) was completed, creating a new giant – Vinarchy – to be based in Adelaide with A$1.5 billion in annual revenue.

This move will involve an estimated cull of up to 50 wine brands, which speaks to a broader story of growing concentration. Numerous Australian wine companies have come up for sale in recent years, and the industry is undergoing rationalisation.

The current pressures will require an overall reduction in wine production, and a focus on premium over ordinary wines. Grape-growers and some smaller wineries are likely to be most affected.

Still the top drop

According to Wine Australia, the Australian wine industry currently has about 6,000 grape growers and 2,156 wineries. It employs 163,790 people (full- and part-time) and contributes $45 billion to the Australian economy each year.

This large size shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. Wine is the most popular alcoholic drink in Australia. But troubles have been brewing for the industry for years.

Domestic wine consumption has been in steady decline, down 9% since 2016–17.

This trend isn’t confined to Australia; it is global. The decline reflects cost-of-living pressures, growing health concerns about alcohol, and Gen Z questioning traditional drinking norms.

Shifting tastes

However, the picture is nuanced. Wine isn’t a staple product; it is a discretionary purchase. Prices in Australia can range from less than $5 to well over $1,000 per bottle, and palates vary significantly among consumers.

Price is generally regarded as an indicator of quality. Wine selling in Australia in the “ordinary” price range of less than $15 per bottle is declining, but wine selling in the “premium” ($15 per bottle and above) price range is increasing.

In the face of decreased global wine consumption, Australia’s shrinking domestic market has also been faced with a steady decline in wine exports. This is problematic for producers looking to exports to offset declines in domestic sales.

A warm country

These woes are impacting the wine industry in different ways at different points along the supply chain. Let’s start with grape-growing.

The current challenge is for growers of “ordinary-quality” grapes in the shrinking marketplace. The Riverina and Riverland areas are the main grape-producing areas of Australia and achieve a low price per tonne.

There is still high demand for “premium-quality” grapes but these are generally grown in select regions of Australia, typically with a cooler climate.

Unsurprisingly, grapes from warm inland regions of Australia account for 72% of wine grape production, at an average price of $345 per tonne, whereas grapes from cool temperate regions achieve an average price of $1,531 per tonne.

The future impacts of climate change need to be assessed, and are already playing into growers’ decisions. Cooler regions are becoming more highly sought after for grape-growing.

Coupled with increased demand for premium grapes, this will make warm inland regions increasingly problematic. Unlike seasonally planted crops such as vegetables and grain, new grape vines require three years after planting before bearing decent levels of fruit. Farmers must determine the most appropriate long-term use of their land.

The challenge of standing out

Many of Australia’s 2,156 wineries are small-scale (typically privately owned). Other wineries are much larger, with extensive resources. Most consumers are largely unaware of most of these wineries – how many wine brands can you list?

Such diversity already presents a challenge for various wineries trying to market themselves. Adding to this, a large number of Australian wine brands are owned by just a few large industry players, some with links to retailers via vertical integration.

Retailers such as Endeavour Group (formerly part of Woolworths) and Coles own hundreds of wine brands. Some of these brands are marketed to look like independent wineries. Some commentators have even suggested a wine duopoly exists at the retail level.

How can wineries survive?

With the trend towards less consumption overall, and towards premium-quality wines instead of ordinary-quality wines, some wineries may need to shift their focus.

On the challenges facing the industry, acclaimed Victorian winemaker Rick Kinzbrunner told me:

We need a better balance of supply and demand and especially more emphasis on top quality wines at reasonable prices.

Why this matters to you

If you’re a wine drinker, current wine industry issues may seem irrelevant. But the ongoing oversupply of ordinary-quality wine for the near future offers plenty of price discounts.

For consumers of premium wines, given current high demand, be wary: does what you’re getting quality-wise match the price? Some wines marketed at high prices don’t have the quality to match.

Consumers may wish to increase direct contact with wineries (via cellar doors, websites and mailing lists) and independent retailers to expand their options.

Winners and losers will emerge as inevitable industry change occurs.

Paul Chad, Honorary Fellow, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Business, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.