MARCH 2003 EDITORIAL

The Great Barrier Reef is one of the natural wonders of the world, drawing tourists from around the globe who are eager to experience one of the greatest ecotourism attractions on the planet. So on economic grounds alone you’d think that any threats to this precious, priceless resource would be tackled with the sort of gusto reserved these days for refugees and dictators.

Indeed authorities here have managed to shield the GBR from much of the devastation that has been wreaked upon coral communities elsewhere in the world.

But many scientists say that the writing is on the wall for the GBR. The last issue of Australasian Science published the “Townsville Declaration” by 16 international and cross-disciplinary experts who agreed that while more research is needed, we must act now to save reefs like the GBR from further damage.

Their expertise was flatly rejected on 4 January when an article in New Scientist claimed that coral researchers were crying wolf, saying that “far from being in on its last legs, the reef is in glowing health”, with “no direct evidence of any damage to the reef” and only “small areas ... even under threat”. The article said that “the problem lies with scientists and conservation groups who have been distorting the health of the reef for their own ends,” and quoted one who admitted: “We push the worst-case scenarios to show how important our research is”.

Five of the six researchers quoted in the article complained to New Scientist that extensive evidence to the contrary had been ignored or placed in an unbalanced context. In their response to the magazine they also wrote: “The fact that the GBR is among the least degraded of coral reef ecosystems should spur us to address the serious challenges that this critically important and beautiful treasure now faces. We must do so while it is relatively easy to make changes and prevent further degradation.”

While skeptics muddy the waters surrounding reef research it will be difficult to gain political support to rectify the factors behind the deaths of reefs, such as global warming and agricultural run-off. Despite the tourism value of the GBR it faces stiff opposition from industry and agricultural lobby groups keen to see that the cost of saving the reef isn’t at their expense.

Before their objections can be silenced it will be necessary to produce unequivocal evidence of the mechanisms responsible for coral death.

We can only hope that a $24 million study sponsored by the World Bank and UNESCO (see pp.14-17) will provide sufficient evidence to persuade our political leaders to save these living treasures.

Guy Nolch
Editor