The fate of Australia's dugongs and sea turtles

The fate of Australia’s dugongs and sea turtles due to declining numbers, loss of habitat, pollution, unmonitored legal hunting and illegal poaching is once more being debated in the media.

Tropic Now, 14 November 2016:

Traditional hunting advocates say the practise represents a small component of the issues facing sea turtles and dugongs.

Pic: David Reid

Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion has defended traditional hunting at a graduation ceremony for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers in Cairns.

Native title laws allow traditional owners to hunt endangered turtles and dugongs.

Wildlife identity Bob Irwin has recently called for a moratorium on current practices but Mr Scullion says hunting isn’t the problem.

“There is evidence to demonstrate it is sustainable and there is no evidence to demonstrate it isn’t,” he says.

“Yes, there are some threats to dugongs and turtles. But none of them come from the ocean, they all come from the land and they’re all associated with degradation of habitat.”

Indigenous ranger Mick Hale runs a turtle hospital, Yuku-Baja-Muliku, with his wife, Larissa, at Archer Point more than 300 kilometres north of Cairns.

“We started about six years ago,” Mr Hale says. “It came about around the time Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Yasi decimated our seagrass beds.

“We noticed a lot of sick turtles around [with no food], so instead of letting them die we started a turtle hospital.

Traditional hunting can be sustainable, Mr Hale says.

“The biggest challenge for us is getting the public to understand that traditional hunting is the smallest percentage of mortality for turtles and dugongs,” he says.

“We’ve got environmental impacts, habitat destruction, global climate change.

“These are all massive contributors to the demise of turtle and dugong populations.”

The Hales are currently caring for three turtles - two green sea turtles and a hawksbill.

“We just do it because it’s what we do,” Ms Hale says. “We look after country and after people so that we do have a sustainable future.”

Injinoo ranger Cristo Lifu says rescuing five olive ridley sea turtles from ghost nets with fellow Cape York rangers recently was a powerful experience.

“They were stranded and stuck in a net,” Mr Lifu says.

“We rescued them but it was lucky we were there. Because if not, they would have been dead in another two or three days.

“It’s just about caring for country. Our elders looked after country before us and it’s our time now to take over.”……

The Australian, 11 November 2016:

…three federal ministers commit to talk to indigenous rangers and the Queensland state government to spearhead moves that could see more “no take’’ zones introduced in a bid to stop the vulnerable ­species being poached and traded, as revealed in The Australian last month…..

The North Australian Indig­en­ous Land and Sea Management Alliance says commerc­ia­l­isation claims have been found to be “unsubstantiated”, while envir­onmental groups point out that dugongs and turtles face far greater threats than hunting, including loss of habitat, marine debris and coastal development.

The Cairns Post, 9 August 2016:

AN indigenous leader claims a moratorium on dug­ong and turtle hunting will not work and will only push poachers further underground.

The Coalition is preparing draft legislation to provide stronger protection for the marine creatures from over-exploitation by traditional owner groups.

Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch has said he is not happy with some elements of the draft legislation and wants a blanket moratorium on the traditional take of the species.

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation chief executive Phil Rist said his group’s TUMRA (Traditional Use of Marine Resource Agreement) had ens­ured populations of turtles and dugongs along the Cassowary Coast remained sustainable for 10 years.

He said imposing a moratorium on hunting of the animals would push illegal hunting and exploitation further underground.

“TUMRAs around turtles and dugongs are the way to go,” he said.

“These are instruments for us – ourselves – to better manage our take of turtle and dug­ong on a sustainable level.

“These agreements are end­orsed by the State and Federal governments, and we have proven that they work and they work really well.”

Cairns Turtle Rehabilitation Centre co-ordinator Jennie Gilbert supported a moratorium on turtle hunting, saying the animals definitely needed more protection in Far Northern waters.

“They have got enough threats in their lives without hunting,” she said. “We know that there’s illegal hunting and poaching going on out there.

“The numbers of green sea turtles in Far North Queensland still haven’t recovered from the mass stranding event of 2012, due to a lack of feeding grounds.”

BACKGROUND

ABC News, 27 September 2014:

The Federal Government is warning anyone involved in the illegal trade of dugong and turtle meat that they will be caught.

The Government has allocated $5 million to a dugong and turtle protection plan that involves the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Customs and Border Protection, and the Australian Crime Commission.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the Crime Commission has been given $2 million to investigate the illegal trade.

Traditional owners have given their backing to the Government's protection plan.

"They know that their good name is being used by poachers," Mr Hunt said.

"We are determined to end the illegal trafficking in dugong and turtle meat and to protect these majestic creatures."

Under the Native Title Act of 1993, Indigenous people with native title rights can hunt marine turtles and dugong for personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs, and "in exercise and enjoyment of their native title rights and interests".

Dugong and turtle poaching has been identified as a problem in the Northern Territory and Queensland, where the animals are hunted and the meat sold illegally.

National Indigenous radio broadcaster Seith Fourmile said non-Indigenous people were also involved in the illegal trade.

"They are involved with the trading, with selling it, passing it down - some of the turtle meat has gone as far south as Sydney and Melbourne," he said. 

Australian Government Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan 2014-2017:

To enhance the protection of our iconic marine turtles and dugong in Far North Queensland and the Torres Strait, the Australian Government has committed $5.3 million over three years for delivery of a Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan under the Reef 2050 Plan and Reef Trust. The plan addresses threatening processes that impact on the long-term recovery and survival of these protected migratory species. Information about the Reef 2050 Plan and Reef Trust is available at www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/reef-trust

The Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan includes the following seven core elements:

       1.    $2 million for a Specialised Indigenous Ranger Programme for strengthened  enforcement and compliance and marine conservation in Queensland and the Torres Strait
The programme is being delivered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. More information is available at www.indigenous.gov.au/news-and-media/announcements/minister-scullion-2-million-strengthen-compliance-powers-indigenous

       2.    $2 million for an Australian Crime Commission investigation into the illegal poaching, transportation and trade of turtle and dugong meat in the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait
A fact sheet about the investigation by the commission’s Wildlife and Environmental Crime Team is available at
https://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/ Wildlife%20%26%20Environmental%20Crime%20Team%20FACTSHEET%20281114.pdf(link is external)

      3.    $700 000 for marine debris clean-up initiatives
Information about the Great Barrier Reef marine debris clean-up initiative is available at www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2014/mr20141113a.html

     4.    $600 000 to support the Cairns and Fitzroy Island Turtle Rehabilitation Centre
The Reef Trust will support the work of the centre to rehabilitate sick and injured turtles and return them to the marine environment.
Information about the Cairns and Fitzroy Turtle Rehabilitation Centre is available at www.saveourseaturtles.com.au/about-ctrc.html(link is external) and www.fitzroyisland.com/newsroom/meet-patients-cairns-turtle-rehabilitation-centre(link is external)

      5.    Working with Indigenous leaders to provide for traditional use and reef protection
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is working with Traditional Owners to develop Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreements to provide for traditional use and deliver reef protection. This may also include voluntary no take agreements.
Information about the agreements is available at www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/traditional-use-of-marine-resources-agreements(link is external)

      6.    Federal legislation tripling the penalties for poaching and illegal transportation of turtle and dugong meat
The Environment Legislation Amendment Act 2015 amends various sections of the EPBC Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Marine Park Act) to provide additional protection for turtles and dugong. The amendments triple the maximum penalties for various criminal offences related to the killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving of turtles and dugong under the EPBC Act and for criminal offences and civil penalty provisions which apply to the taking of, or injury to, turtles and dugong where they are a protected species under the Marine Park Act.
The tripling of maximum penalties does not impact on the rights of Native Title holders under the Native Title Act 1993 to hunt turtle and dugong for personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs.
Information about the legislation is available at www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/ Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5128

      7.    A national approach to dugong and turtle management
Refers to the nationally co-ordinated management of turtle and dugong in Australia. This includes the development of EPBC Act policy documents and guidelines such as updating the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles of Australia 2003, Marine Turtle Referral Guidelines and policy guidelines for dugong and seagrass habitats.

At the Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in Hobart Australia it was unanimously agreed to create Ross Sea marine protected area

Ross Sea as seen from a satellite sensor (the SeaWiFS sensor). Data are used courtesy of NASA, USA

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, media release, 28 October 2016:

CCAMLR to create world's largest Marine Protected Area

The world's experts on Antarctic marine conservation have agreed to establish a marine protected area (MPA) in Antarctica's Ross Sea.

This week at the Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in Hobart, Australia, all Member countries have agreed to a joint USA/New Zealand proposal to establish a 1.55 million km2area of the Ross Sea with special protection from human activities.

This new MPA, to come into force in December 2017, will limit, or entirely prohibit, certain activities in order to meet specific conservation, habitat protection, ecosystem monitoring and fisheries management objectives. Seventy-two percent of the MPA will be a 'no-take' zone, which forbids all fishing, while other sections will permit some harvesting of fish and krill for scientific research.

CCAMLR Executive Secretary, Andrew Wright, is excited by this achievement and acknowledges that the decision has been several years in the making.

"This has been an incredibly complex negotiation which has required a number of Member countries bringing their hopes and concerns to the table at six annual CCAMLR meetings as well as at intersessional workshops.

"A number of details regarding the MPA are yet to be finalised but the establishment of the protected zone is in no doubt and we are incredibly proud to have reached this point," said Mr Wright.

CCAMLR's Scientific Committee first endorsed the scientific basis for proposals for the Ross Sea region put forward by the USA and New Zealand in 2011. It invited the Commission to consider the proposals and provide guidance on how they could be progressed. Each year from 2012 to 2015 the proposal was refined in terms of the scientific data to support the proposal as well as the specific details such as exact location of the boundaries of the MPA. Details of implementation of the MPA will be negotiated through the development of a specific monitoring and assessment plan. The delegations of New Zealand and the USA will facilitate this process.

This year's decision to establish a Ross Sea MPA follows CCAMLR's establishment, in 2009, of the world’s first high-seas MPA, the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA, a region covering 94 000 km2 in the south Atlantic.

"This decision represents an almost unprecedented level of international cooperation regarding a large marine ecosystem comprising important benthic and pelagic habitats," said Mr Wright.

"It has been well worth the wait because there is now agreement among all Members that this is the right thing to do and they will all work towards the MPA's successful implementation," he said.

MPAs aim to provide protection to marine species, biodiversity, habitat, foraging and nursery areas, as well as to preserve historical and cultural sites. MPAs can assist in rebuilding fish stocks, supporting ecosystem processes, monitoring ecosystem change and sustaining biological diversity.

Areas closed to fishing, or in which fishing activities are restricted, can be used by scientists to compare with areas that are open to fishing. This enables scientists to research the relative impacts of fishing and other changes, such as those arising from climate change. This can help our understanding of the range of variables affecting the overall status and health of marine ecosystems.

ABC News, 28 October 2016:

A hard-won agreement to establish the first large-scale marine park in international waters south of Australia has been described as a "turning point" for conservation, however an expiry date of 35 years concerns the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Today, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) meeting in Hobart announced agreement had been reached between the member nations over the establishment of the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area, which will cover more than one and a half million square kilometres in Antarctica.

The agreement follows years of wrangling and failure to reach consensus, with Russia proving to be a stumbling block.

The area, which has been described as "the size of France, Germany and Spain combined", is revered for its biodiversity.

"Today's agreement is a turning point for the protection of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean," Chris Johnson, WWF Australia Ocean Science Manager, said.

"It is home to one third of the world's Adélie penguins, one quarter of all emperor penguins, one third of all Antarctic petrels, and over half of all South Pacific Weddell seals."

Mr Johnson said while the announcement was "good news", the expiration of the zone after 35 years was a cause for concern…..

Australian Federal Election 2016: which major political party is likely to put brakes on the petroluem industry's risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

For the second time in less than a year multinational gas and petroleum giant BP plc (British Petroleum) has not met all environmental assessment criteria according to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA):

BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (BP), in its capacity as operator of the proposed Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Drilling Program proposes to drill four exploration wells in Commonwealth marine waters in the GAB. Exact well locations are yet to be determined for all wells; however they will be drilled within a defined ‘drilling area’. The drilling area is the previously acquired Ceduna 3D seismic survey area, which covers 12,100 km2 across Exploration Permit for Petroleum (EPP) 37, EPP 38, EPP 39 and EPP 40. BP and Statoil are the registered titleholders of EPPs 37, 38, 39 and 40, with BP being the Operator. The drilling area has water depths ranging between 1,000 and 2,500 m Lowest Astronomical Tide. At the closest point, the drilling area is located approximately 395 km west of Port Lincoln and 340 km southwest of Ceduna in South Australia (SA). The project is scheduled to commence in the summer of 2016-2017, with each well taking between 45 and 170 days to drill. The wells will be drilled using a dynamically positioned semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU). The purpose of the drilling program is to determine whether the target formations have commercially recoverable volumes of hydrocarbons. Additional project details are available on BP’s project website www.bpgabproject.com.au.

National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, 17 May 2016:

On 16 May 2016, NOPSEMA provided BP an opportunity to modify and resubmit their environment plan for exploration drilling in the Great Australian Bight. If BP accepts this opportunity, the modified plan is expected to be resubmitted by 15 July, at which time NOPSEMA will recommence the assessment.

An opportunity to modify and resubmit is a normal part of NOPSEMA’s environment plan assessment process. In fact, NOPSEMA is required by law to provide a titleholder (the company proposing the activity) a reasonable opportunity to modify and resubmit their plan if it doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance. NOPSEMA will typically provide two opportunities to modify and resubmit, but is not restricted to providing only two opportunities.

If a titleholder has been given a reasonable opportunity to modify their plan and NOPSEMA determines that it still doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance then NOPSEMA will refuse to accept the plan. Since NOPSEMA was established on 1 January 2012, 4% of all environment plans submitted for assessment have been refused.

NOPSEMA has updated the status of the assessment on the Great Australian Bight Exploration Drilling Program submission page. Stakeholders are encouraged to subscribe to the page to receive email alerts of any changes.

For more information about the environment plan assessment process see NOPSEMA’s Assessment process and FAQ pages at nopsema.gov.au.

The Wilderness Society re-released this animated graphic on 17 May 2016:

The oil and gas independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has handed down its decision. It has once again knocked back BP’s environment plan. BP has shown it has learnt nothing from its Gulf of Mexico disaster.

BP now has the opportunity to resubmit its application to drill in the Great Australian Bight as early as July. However, BP still hasn’t released its oil spill modelling, so we released independent modelling which shows some the far-reaching impacts of a potential spill.

https://youtu.be/B5OnMGtx1cQ

An explanation of NOPSEMA’s environmental approval process can be found here.

BP currently owes the United States of America an est. US$7.1 billion in fines and compensation for the environmental damage caused by it Deepwater rig oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

This multinational is not the only oil and gas corporation with exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight - Santos, Chevron and Murphy Australia Oil received exploration permits in 2013-2015 which are current until 2020-2021. Joining Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd in the race to drill and be damned.

Petroluem exploration leases current in 2016

In November 2013 the Abbott Government ordered a review of certain national marine reserves. In effect by establishing this review it sought to block any increase in level of environmental protection afforded the Great Australian Bight when the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve was extended to cover 45,926 km2 with a depth range of 15 to 6,000 metres as part of a wider extension of national marine reserves by the former Labor federal government.

At the time of writing unpublished review recommendations have been in the hands of the Turnbull Government since December 2015 and to date mining exploration is still allowed within the waters of these south-west marine reserves at the discretion of the government of the day.

Although the current petroleum leases appear to be adjacent to but outside the boundaries of the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve it is clear from the aforementioned major spill modelling that oil/chemical contamination would reach both this reserve and major commercial fishing grounds within the Bight and Bass Strait.

Before casting your vote on 2 July 2016  you might consider this question: Which major political party is likely to put the brakes on these risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

BP plc BACKGROUND AS A SERIAL OFFENDER

Corporate Research Project, accessed 18 May 2016:

Starting about 2000, BP attempted the difficult feat of depicting itself as an environmentally friendly oil company. Some of its initiatives were merely symbolic—adopting a sunburst logo and claiming that its initials now stood for “Beyond Petroleum”—while others were concrete steps, such as (modest) investments in solar power. BP’s campaign was all the more difficult because of its involvement in controversial Alaskan oil and gas production, and because its environmental compliance record was far from unblemished.

For example, in 1990 BP agreed to pay a $2.3 million fine as part of a settlement of an $11 million suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought against the company in connection with illegal discharges from BP's Marcus Hook refinery into the Delaware River. Several months later the state of California sued the company over a 400,000-gallon spill of crude oil that occurred in February 1990 near Huntington Beach.

In July 1991 BP was one of ten major oil companies the EPA cited for discharging contaminated fluids from service stations into or directly above underground sources of drinking water. BP agreed to pay a fine of $74,000, and to clean up the contaminated water sources by the end of 1993.

In 1992 the EPA charged BP Chemicals with violating hazardous waste laws at its plant in Lima, Ohio, and sought almost $600,000 in penalties.

In 2000 a federal judge imposed a $500,000 criminal fine on BP for failing to report the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope. The company was also ordered to establish a national environmental management system to prevent future violations. The total cost to the company from this and a related civil matter was said to be more than $20 million.

In 2002 BP was fined £1 million by UK authorities for violating safety regulations in connection with several accidents at a refinery in Grangemouth, Scotland (later sold by BP).

In 2003 California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District filed an omnibus complaint against BP, seeking $319 million in penalties for thousands of air pollution violations over an 8-year period at the company’s refinery in Carson. BP acquired that facility through its purchase of Atlantic Richfield in 2000. The agency later filed another suit against BP for $183 million. In 2005 the parties reached a settlement under which BP agreed to pay $25 million in cash penalties and $6 million in past emissions fees while spending $20 million on environmental improvements at the refinery and $30 million on community programs focused on asthma diagnosis and treatment.

In 2005 BP was accused of trying to cover up deficiencies in the anti-corrosion coating on the 1,000-mile-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries oil from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean. BP is the lead participant in the joint venture that operates the pipeline, the largest shareholder in the consortium that owns it, and the operator of the oil fields that supply it.

In March 2006 more than 250,000 gallons of crude oil spilled at BP’s Prudhoe Bay operations in the Alaskan tundra. Several month later, the company shut down the huge Prudhoe Bay oil field because of additional leakage caused by corrosion in the transit line that carried crude oil to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. There were press reports that BP had been warned of the problem more than two years earlier. In May 2007 the House Energy Committee released documents suggesting that cost-cutting pressures weakened preventive maintenance and other safety practices in the period leading up to the leaks.

In October 2007 BP agreed to pay a total of $60 million in fines to the EPA. The amount included $50 million for violations of the Clean Air Act in connection with the 2005 explosion at the Texas City, Texas refinery in which 15 workers were killed. The company also pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the act and was to serve three years of probation. Apart from the fine, BP agreed to spend $265 million for a facility-wide study of its safety valves and a renovation of its flare system to prevent excess emissions.

At the same time, BP agreed to pay the EPA a $12 million fine in connection with the March 2006 oil spill in Alaska, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, and was ordered to serve three years probation on this offense as well. The company was also required to replace 16 miles of pipeline at a cost of $1.56 billion.

Later, in October 2010, BP agreed to pay $15 million in Clean Air Act penalties in connection with violations at the Texas City refinery.

In 2008 BP and several other oil majors agreed to pay $422 million to settle suits that had been brought by public water systems in 20 states and consolidated in federal court relating to the contamination of groundwater supplies by the carcinogenic gasoline additive MTBE.

At its annual meeting in mid-April 2010, BP faced a barrage of criticism over its involvement in controversial tar sands oil production in Canada.

Only days after that meeting, BP had to contend with a much bigger problem: an explosion at its Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 workers and opened a massive underwater oil leak. While the disaster continued, government investigators were looking into indications that BP pushed for work on the well to move ahead despite evidence of unsafe conditions……

Read the full post here.

The Great Barrier Reef: black letter days

It’s time to ask incumbent federal MPs and senators what they intend to do to when faced with legislative bills or ministerial decisions which have the potential to negatively impact on The Great Barrier Reef and to make it very clear that their answers will decide votes in July 2016.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 April 2016:

Scientists surveying the mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef say only 7 per cent of Australia's environmental icon has been left untouched by the event.

The final results of plane and helicopter surveys by scientists involved in the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce has found that of the 911 reefs they observed, just 68 had escaped any sign of bleaching.

The severity of the bleaching is mixed across the barrier reef, with the northern stretches hit the hardest.

Overall, severe bleaching of between 60 and 100 per cent of coral was recorded on 316 reefs, almost all of them in the northern half of the barrier reef. Reefs in central and southern regions of the 2300 kilometre Great Barrier Reef have experienced more moderate to mild affects.

The mass bleaching event has been driven by significantly higher than average sea temperatures as a result of the current El Nino event, coupled with a long-term warming of the oceans due to climate change.

While the barrier reef has experienced mass coral bleaching events in the past – notably in 1998 and 2002 – Professor Terry Hughes, convenor of the bleaching taskforce, said the current event was by far the biggest.

Sky News, 24 March 2016:

*It could be too late to reverse the effects of coral bleaching in large swathes of the Great Barrier Reef caused by man-made climate change, a leading academic fears.

Professor Justin Marshall, from The University of Queensland's CoralWatch team, has just spent 10 days at the Lizard Island Research Station, north of Cairns, gathering data and images of coral bleaching in the northern part of the reef.

Prof Marshall said almost all of the coral in a 500km stretch of the reef was bleached and about half of that coral was dead because of the bleaching.

He said sometimes coral could recover from bleaching, where it becomes white after losing the symbiotic algae that brings it nutrients, but when there was large-scale coral death like in this situation, it was far less likely.

'The absolute figures are unknown and our research is ongoing to determine that,' Prof Marshall said.

'Over the next few months we'll be able to give you an answer, but to be honest I'm a bit pessimistic.'

Prof Marshall said the coral bleaching in the area was the worst he'd ever seen it.

'I have kids, I love to take them up to the reef, but to be honest, I would have been ashamed to take my children up there this time,' he said.

He said global warming was causing coral bleaching, which wasn't helped by El Nino conditions this year.

'There is an additional natural fluctuation, but that must not deflect our realisation that this is definitely a man-made, carbon-emission event, which is killing the Australian reef,' Prof Marshall said.....

ABC News, 28 March 2016:

An aerial survey of the northern Great Barrier Reef has shown that 95 per cent of the reefs are now severely bleached — far worse than previously thought.

Professor Terry Hughes, a coral reef expert based at James Cook University in Townsville who led the survey team, said the situation is now critical.

"This will change the Great Barrier Reef forever," Professor Hughes told 7.30.

"We're seeing huge levels of bleaching in the northern thousand-kilometre stretch of the Great Barrier Reef."

Of the 520 reefs he surveyed, only four showed no evidence of bleaching.

From Cairns to the Torres Strait, the once colourful ribbons of reef are a ghostly white.

"It's too early to tell precisely how many of the bleached coral will die, but judging from the extreme level even the most robust corals are snow white, I'd expect to see about half of those corals die in the coming month or so," Professor Hughes said.....

Professor Hughes said he is frustrated about the whole climate change debate.

"The government has not been listening to us for the past 20 years," he said.

"It has been inevitable that this bleaching event would happen, and now it has.

"We need to join the global community in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"For me, personally, it was devastating to look out of the chopper window and see reef after reef destroyed by bleaching.

"But really the emotion is not so much sadness as anger.

"I'm really angry that the government isn't listening to us, to the evidence we've been providing to them since 1998.".....

How the Federal and Queensland Governments are betraying The Great Barrier Reef and the people of Australia

This billionare Gautam Adani and his family, through majority ownership of the Adani Group, are apparently considered favoured foreign investors by both the Abbott-Turnbull Federal Government and successive Queensland Governments.

He and his family are responsible for this…..

https://youtu.be/_wfjwlWlGTk

The bribery…..

ABC 7.30, 17 October 2012:

 Investigators have raised concerns about some of Adani enterprise's dealings with politicians and officials. In August the Auditor-General named Adani Power as one of the companies that received coal deposits from the Government at well below market rates. Gautam Adani declined our request for an interview, but the companies Australian CEO says Adani enterprises has always acted in accordance with the law…..

The Central Bureau of Investigation is now probing allegations of corruption and has opened files on at least seven unnamed companies. The Auditor-General says the lack of a transparent bidding process cost the Government $33 billion in lost revenue…..

Former Chief Justice Santosh Hegde is a well-known anti-corruption campaigner. Last year in his final act as Karnataka State Ombudsman, he released a detail report into the theft of iron ore by numerous companies which cost the state $3 billion in royalties. Justice Hegde's report found Adani Enterprises acted corruptly in the illicit transportation of iron ore in excess of the permitted quantity…..

Justice Hegde's report says the officials of ports department, custom, police, mines, local politicians and others received bribe money from Adani Enterprises.

The pollution…..

Business Standard, 24 December 2015:

Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) has issued notices to Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) and two major companies handling coal at its terminal under pollution control norms for allegedly causing environmental hazard.

GSPCB has issued show cause notice to MPT, M/s Adani Murmugao Port Terminal Private Ltd and JSW's South West Port Ltd after it was noticed that the dust pollution emanating from the coal handling has increased in the port town of Vasco, 40 kms from here.

Board Chairman Jose Manuel Noronha said the companies and the port administration have been asked why their consent under Water and Air Pollution Prevention Act should not be withdrawn.

"The show cause notices were issued when it was noticed that the coal handling terminals did not take mandatory measures to control the pollution emanating from the coal dust," Noronha said.

The deaths…..

The New York Times, 22 March 2013:

This month, the first comprehensive assessment of the health impact of pollution from India’s coal-fired power plants was published.

The findings are grim. Scientists estimate that exposure to coal-related pollution caused between 80,000 and 115,000 premature deaths and more than 20 million asthma attacks in 2011-12.

The conclusion is particularly worrying, given that the World Resources Institute estimates that 455 new coal power plants are planned in India, more than four times the number that exist now.

UbAlert, 10 April 2015:

Madhya Pradesh: Five people, three laborers and two security guards, died mysteriously in a Neemuch-based private factory on Thursday when they stepped down to clean a 25-feet deep tank filled with impurities generated by oil milling. The incident occurred at Adani Wilmar Oil Limited located four kilometers away from Neemuch district headquarter. Investigation is going on as to what caused the deaths of the factory workers whether it was acid in tank or they died due to suffocation.

The exploitation….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 September 2014:

But a Fairfax Media investigation into the treatment of 6000 construction labourers at a luxury housing project in Gujarat owned by the Adani family has uncovered lax safety standards, underage workers and regular cholera outbreaks from contaminated drinking water.

It comes after Mr Adani's company was found in February to have failed to gain proper environmental approval for construction around India's largest private port, also in Gujarat - destroying mangroves and displacing local villagers.

The poor choice of senior management…..

ABC News, 12 November 2015:

Adani Australia's chief executive officer was in charge of an African copper mine which allowed a flood of dangerous pollutants to pour into a Zambian river, the ABC can reveal.

Jeyakumar Janakaraj has been chief executive of Adani's Australian operations since leaving Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) in Zambia in 2013.

Now KCM and its parent company Vedanta Resources are being taken to the High Court in London by locals who say pollution from the company's huge Chingola open-pit copper mine made them ill and devastated nearby farmland over a 10-year period from 2004.

Mr Janakaraj was director of operations of KMC when the company was charged in 2010 with causing a serious pollution spill, which saw a toxic brew of highly acidic, metal-laden discharge released into the Kafue River.

The river is one of Zambia's largest waterways and a source of water and food for about 40 per cent of the country's people.

The 31-square-kilometre KCM open pit mine in Zambia's Chingola region is described as the biggest copper mine in Africa, producing about 2 million tonnes of ore a year.

The 2009 annual report of KCM's parent company, London-listed mining conglomerate Vedanta Resources, said Mr Janakaraj was "responsible for overall operations of KCM".

"On [Mr Janakaraj's] watch, significant pollution events happened," lawyer Ariane Wilkinson of Environmental Justice Australia said.

"The court documents show that they discharged what's called a pregnant liquor solution into the Kafue River. That's a highly acidic, metal-laden pollutant, and that it changed the colour of the river."

KCM was prosecuted by the Zambian Government, and the company pleaded guilty to charges of polluting the environment, discharging toxic matter into the aquatic environment, wilfully failing to report an incident of pollution, and the failure to comply with the requirements for discharge of effluent.

The court was told the source of the contamination was the mine's tailings leach plant, with the pollution changing the colour of the Kafue River to "deep blue". The company was fined 21,970,000 Zambian kwacha (about $4,030).

A few months later, in 2011, a Zambian newspaper reported the company's copper mine had again polluted the river, and that environmental authorities were investigating.

The lies told….

The Age, 16 December 2015:

A Queensland court has found Indian mining company Adani exaggerated the economic benefits of its proposed Carmichael coal mine, including the amount of jobs and royalties the $16.5 billion project would generate…..

he court agreed the company had overstated the economic benefits that would flow from its project both in its environmental impact statement and in statements to the court.

Adani has promoted the project as a jobs bonanza for Queensland and its environmental impact statement forecast 10,000 jobs annually from 2024 and $22 billion in royalties.

But Adani's own witness Jerome Fahrer told the court this year the coal mine and connecting rail project would create an average of just 1464 jobs annually, an assessment Queensland Land Court president Carmel MacDonald agreed with.

"Dr Fahrer's evidence, which I have accepted, was that the Carmichael Coal and Rail Project will increase average annual employment by 1206 fte [full time equivalent] jobs in Queensland and 1,464 fte jobs in Australia," her judgment states.

President MacDonald also found Adani's modelling had "probably overstated the selling price of the coal and therefore the royalties generated by the project and the corporate tax payable".

The environmental danger....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 2016:

But conservationists say the mine is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, citing particular risks to the Great Barrier Reef.

"It's an extraordinary decision, especially coming at a time when the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing its worst ever coral bleaching event," Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy said. "We know the bleaching is because of global warming, and Carmichael will only make that worse."

By Adani's own figures, the mine and its coal will emit more than 4.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. "The pollution from this mine is so big that it cancels the pollution cuts the Turnbull government committed to at the Paris Climate Summit," Ms O'Shanassy said.

The impact of such emissions could be terminal to the reef, according to Dr Veron. "The reef is obviously in dire straights, irrespective of what anyone says, and that's blindly obvious.

"There is extraordinary disconnect between science and the political action. Politicians think the mine is good because it's good for economy, but we are selling out the next generation of Australians as fast as we can go."

Dr Veron has devoted his life to studying coral reefs: he discovered more than 20 per cent of the world's coral species, and has been likened by Sir David Attenborough to a modern day Charles Darwin.

"Roughly a third of marine species have parts of their life cycle in coral reefs," Dr Veron said. "So if you take out coral reefs you have an ecological collapse of the oceans. It's happened before, mass extinctions through ocean acidification, and the main driver of that is CO₂."

Dr Veron recently travelled to Canberra to talk to government about the decline in the reef. "The politicians do listen to scientists, but that is the worst part of it," he said. 

"If this was all done out of sheer ignorance, that is sort of understandable. It's like child porn – you might say you don't know it exists, but if you know it exists and you do everything to promote it, then that's evil."

The granting of the Carmichael leases coincides with increased concerns over threats to Great Barrier Reef from land-based pollution, including sediments, nutrients and pesticides.

Australian Institute of Marine Science principal research scientist Dr Frederieke Kroon has told the ABC that government policies designed to keep the reef on UNESCO's World Heritage list are insufficient.

"Our review finds that current efforts are not sufficient to achieve the water quality targets set in the Reef 2050 Plan," she said.

The other danger….

The Age, 10 December 2015:

Last week billionaire businessman Gautam Adani paid a visit to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull asking him to enact a special law to stop anyone challenging big coal and gas projects once they have been approved by government. This meeting raises questions about the relationship between government and big polluting companies.

The Prime Minister is entitled to meet with anyone he likes, you may very well say, but there are two issues here – one is the fossil fuel industry's direct access to power and the other is the implications of that on Australia's democracy.

Turnbull's back room meeting with international billionaire businessman Adani is an example of the warm reception the fossil fuel industry enjoys in Australia. This direct access to the highest office in our country is an unfortunate feature of our democracy, and speaks of the pernicious dynamic where money enables access to power. Just by the way, according to data released by the AEC, Adani donated $49,500 to the Liberal Party of Australia in the 2013-2014 financial year.

The state government manoeuvres....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 2016:

Two groups fighting the mine in separate court battles have accused Dr Lynham of abandoning previous assurances that leases would not be granted until two existing cases were resolved.

Just eight weeks ago, Dr Lynham said he wanted to give certainty to Adani and "granting a mining lease in the presence of two JRs (judicial reviews) does not provide the certainty".

Separate Federal Court challenges brought by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) traditional owners are yet to be concluded.

The Environmental Defenders Office - which is representing ACF in its challenge to the project's federal approvals - has already said it's considering challenging Dr Lynham's decision to grant Adani mining leases.

AAP has asked Dr Lynham to explain why he issued the leases despite the two outstanding challenges.

On ABC radio on Monday, he agreed there was a prospect of further court appeals.

The solemn vow and plea for assistance....

Excerpt from a 4 April 2016 email from Adrian Burragubba on behalf of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners:

The Queensland Government just betrayed us.

Queensland Mines Minister Anthony Lynham wrote a letter to us in October, promising he would await the outcome of our Federal Court action against the Carmichael mine before considering issuing Adani with the mining leases. But today the Premier and the Minister double-crossed us.

Adani doesn't have our free, prior and informed consent to build their Carmichael coal mine on our land, and they never will.

The Queensland Government just rode roughshod over our rights and granted the mining leases anyway. They have given Adani the green light to ignore our opposition and to tear the heart out of our country. To destroy our rivers and drain billions of litres of groundwater. To leave a black hole of monumental proportions in our homelands.

The Minister has trashed our rights and pushed the leases out the door in one of the worst acts of bad faith towards Queensland's Indigenous people in living memory.

This fight will define our people and be a landmark moment for Indigenous rights in Australia. Can you help us fight for our rights and our country in court?

Adani and the Queensland Government think they can walk all over us but they've never seen anything like this. Our lands and our way of life, and the legacy of our ancestors, mean too much to our people for us to roll over.

Our resolve is doubled. Minister Lynham can issue all the bits of paper he likes, hide behind false claims of jobs and benefits, and pander to big coal for an unviable project.

But our people's rights are not expendable. This act of infamy will be challenged all the way to the High Court if necessary, and we will continue to pursue our rights under international law. 

Adrian Burragubba leads a protest against the proposed mine outside Queensland Parliament in March.ABC News: Patrick Williams