Property Rights and the Great Barrier Reef

An Address to the Mackay Rural Production Society,
3rd July 2003

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening at the Mackay Rural Production Society's Annual General Meeting on the topic of "Property Rights and the Great Barrier Reef".

What do Property Rights and the Great Barrier Reef have in common?

The legitimate property rights of primary producers are currently being eroded on the basis the Great Barrier Reef is under threat from land based agriculture.

If the Great Barrier Reef, this natural wonder and Australian icon, is under threat from farmers, then perhaps farmers should be more heavily regulated.  They should pay more for their water, they should be forced to revegetate riparian areas, and herbicides (in particular diuron) should be banned.

However, I will put it to you tonight that the Great Barrier is not under threat from agriculture.  Rather the restrictions being proposed by government under the Reef Plan are, at least in part, a consequence of a clever environmental campaign that was launched on World Environment Day in June 2001.

This very successful campaign, orchestrated by the WWF, resulted in a Labour party election commitment to save the Great Barrier Reef (GBR).  It is now Queensland government policy that the GBR is in trouble and that we need a Reef Plan to protect it from agriculture.

WHAT ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS?

The study of "property rights" is most usually the concern of economists.  Economist and keynote speaker at the April Property Rights forum in Cairns, Professor Wolfgang Kasper has written that,

Property ownership is not simply the possession of a valuable asset ... Ownership of an asset -- land, machinery, some valuable knowledge, or your body, time and talents -- gives you an undefinable, open-ended bundle of rights, which are respected by others in society, at least most of the time.

... You can draw diverse benefits from it.  Property, for example land, has always given you the right to many uses, and you or others may discover new ones:  to till the land, to mine the minerals, to have the right of way, the rights to hunt, to collect timber, berries, and rain water, to let visitors run around, and so on.  Normally, people make use of these rights under voluntary contracts that put a specific right at the disposal of others for a payment.

... One important benefit of property rights is that they can serve as a surety for a mortgage or loan.  The value of these individual property rights -- whether already discovered or as yet unused -- gives savers with spare capital or the banks the confidence that their loan is secure.

... Secure property title also encourages resourceful property owners to realise new ideas in the hope that others will find the innovations useful enough to make them profitable.

Private property has been protected from opportunistic rulers since the times of the Magna Carta.  It was recognised in 1215 that every individual in the nation is protected in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty, and his property.

... with the growing politicisation of economic life, we now observe a creeping erosion of individual property rights through regulations without compensation.  This spells danger for the time-tested and singularly successful capitalist system.  Freedom, future prosperity, justice and social harmony are at stake.

Indeed it is generally recognised by economists that secure property rights underpin wealth generation.  The principal tenant of a new bestseller by Peruvian Hernando de Soto The Mystery of Capital -- Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else suggests that only the west has managed to give its citizens secure property rights.  As a consequence, today five-sixths of mankind still live in poverty.

In a just society, property rights can be interfered with (including potentially regulated away), if harm to others and the environment is proven beyond reasonable doubt.  However, the burden of proof should always be with the intending regulator and rules of evidence should be applied.

Can harm to the Great Barrier Reef be proven beyond reasonable doubt?  What is the evidence?

EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO THE REEF PROTECTION TASKFORCE

I started this evening with the contention that the restrictions proposed under the new Reef Plan are a consequence of the WWF Reef Campaign launched in June 2001.  What evidence was provided in June 2001 by WWF?

WWF is really just a multinational, public relations firm that specialises in scaring the hell and money out of people -- so it is perhaps not surprising that their report that launched their campaign contained no actual evidence for damage to the reef from agriculture.  I was surprised at the extent that our apparently naïve journalists ran with the report.  The Daily Mercury here in Mackay on 6th June 2001 had the headline, "Cane land pollution hitting reef hard", with text that lamented the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef from sediment and nutrients pouring out of our rivers ... and pesticides from cane lands;  all the time quoting the WWF report.

The introduction to the WWF report had a list of key findings, including that the Fitzroy River, "dumps more sediment into the Reef than any other River".  This key finding omitted to mention that the Fitzroy, by coincidence also drains the largest GBR catchment.

Perhaps it was what can only be described as WWF's "salute to dump trucks" that really captured the media's imagination.  The radio reports at that time, were quoting everything in dump truck equivalent.  Cane growing is a large industry so the amount of fertiliser used by the industry made for a lot of dump trucks equivalent -- the impression was that instead of applying the fertiliser to the cane, growers were dumping it on the GBR.

The report appealed to science for authority.  It continually referred to, "there is a scientific consensus that ..." and the "scientific experts say ... 28 million tonnes of sediment flow into the Reef in an average year -- that's equivalent to 3.5 million dump trucks emptying their load of soil into the Reef."

I have done a quick calculation, and given that there are approximately 37,525,000 hectares in GBR catchments, this is equivalent to 1.3 tonnes of sediment per hectare per year.  This is a very low figure;  by comparison natural loses of 2-3 tonnes per hectare per year occurred in undisturbed North Queensland rainforests.  But doesn't 3.5 million dump trucks sound impressive!

I have already said that WWF is really a PR firm, expert at scaring the hell and money and out of people.  The campaign generated about 7,000 new members for WWF.

The Queensland Government took the allegations very seriously.  They established a Reef Protection Taskforce and it was this Taskforce that was to oversee the writing of the Reef Plan.

I ended up a member of the Taskforce, representing Queensland Canegrowers Organisation.

I consider myself a real environmentalist.  If there is a problem, let us not lament the number of dump trucks equivalent, let us fix it.  Let us define the size and magnitude of the problem, the location, and then let us get on with fixing the problem.

So, I made the mistake as a Taskforce member of insisting that the problems be defined -- I wanted the detail.  Deteriorating water quality was, and continues to be a central issue.  So I suggested that the government put the water quality data on the table for scrutiny.

This suggestion did not please most other members of the Taskforce -- who repeatedly accused me of being in denial.

I am reminded of Norman Davies', who in his book Europe -- A History writes, "To be most effective, propaganda needs the help of censorship.  Within a sealed informational arena, it can mobilise all means of communication and press its claims to maximum advantage.  Propaganda is the antithesis of all honest education and information."

Could this explain why no-one was keen that the data be put on the table?

The CSIRO representative did eventually list the published papers that were purported to support the other central allegation (in addition to declining water quality) -- that there is actual damage to inshore reefs from agricultural runoff.

He listed 6 papers including the Norm Duke study of mangrove dieback in Mackay -- as examples of damage to the GBR.  Mangroves, as an inshore reef?  A rather long bow to draw.

But I am a scientist by training, and inquisitive at heart.  I enjoy ferreting about for information.  So I re-read Dr Norm Duke's report, all the time trying to reconcile it as an example of damage to inshore GBR reefs.  I also read the other five listed papers.

Purported evidence for localised deterioration on individual
nearshore reefs from land-based sources of pollution

Reference	Issue	Comment
Duke et al., 2001	Mangrove dieback in the Mackay region	No evidence provided to support the hypothesis that diuron was the mostly likely cause of the dieback
Haynes et al., 2000	Diuron detected in seagrass tissue at 4 of 16 sites and in intertidal sediment at 3 of 16 sites	Entire live plants were sampled, no evidence provided for an impact on the seagrass from the diuron
Udy et al., 1999	Increase in area of seagrass at Green Island since the 1950s as a result of increased nutrient availability	No evidence provided to support hypothesis that increase in seagrass due to agricultural runoff
van Woesik & Done 1997	Wide reefs can be assumed to have maintained favourable environmental conditions for reef growth through the past 5500 years while narrow or poorly developed reefs have experienced unfavourable conditions	Provides a method for identifying human-induced impacts, but did not identify any such impacts
van Woesik et al., 1999	Reef communities appear to lack an ability to accrete carbonates at 2 of 7 sites in the Whitsundays	Makes assertions about impacts from agriculture but does not provide evidence or scientific argument to substantiate the assertions
Wachenfeld 1995	At 4 of 14 locations markedly less hard coral on the reef flats, at least 1 of these locations has been badly impacted by recent cyclones	Concludes, "photographs ... throw doubt on the proposition that the GBR is subject to broad scale decline."

The "mangrove dieback from diuron" story has received so much publicity in this Mackay region, that I understand it is now an accepted fact that diuron killed the mangroves.

Yet, to me it is unclear why Dr Duke hypothesised that diuron was the cause of the dieback.  Only four of 21 potential sites were tested for diuron.  Traces of diuron were found in the sediment at all four sites.  This included the control site at which there was no mangrove dieback.  In other words, diuron was found at one site where there was no mangrove dieback as well as at three sites where there was mangrove dieback.  No evidence was presented to indicate that the levels of diuron at any of the sites were herbicidal.

Interestingly, a year earlier, in a recreational fishing magazine, Sunfish Newsletter, Dr Duke was quoted as having prepared an initial report with the following observations as to possible causes for the dieback:

• Encroachment on tidal lands and associated freshwater wetlands by reclamation works associated with urban and industrial expansion and construction of access corridors for road and rail traffic using levee embankments with apparently limited drainage,
• A nearby relatively large sewerage treatment facility, and
• A large rubbish disposal facility nearby.

Interestingly, the second Duke report that hypothesis diuron as a cause was released just a few weeks after the WWF report.  And interestingly, the WWF report refers to new colonies of mangroves in the Hinchinbrook and Johnstone regions as indicators of declining water quality.  There is no consistency in the arguments.

Perhaps the most outrageous claim is that of the CSIRO representative on the Reef Taskforce, claiming the Wachenfeld 1995 study as proving an impact from agriculture on the reef, when the paper actually concludes the exact opposite.  Had the CSIRO representative actually read the papers that he said provided the best evidence?

PESTICIDE IN DUGONGS

In part due to my recalcitrance on the taskforce, it was eventually shut down.  The Beattie government subsequently formed a science panel.  The science panel was to be chaired by none other than the QDPI chief scientist, Dr Joe Baker.

You might remember there was a huge amount of publicity in late January this year associated with the release of the Baker report titled, "Report on the study of land-sourced pollutants and their impacts on water quality in and adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef" and associated draft reef protection plan.

In the media release associated with release of the report and draft plan, the Premier said,

"Now the report is in, work on the Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Protection Plan will continue without arguments about whether land activities harm the Reef.  The report is the adjudicator's decision, and is based on the best available science.'

Obviously the Premier has a lot of confidence in the report compiled by his Chief Scientist, Dr Joe Baker.  The report actually provided no new information, but there was an additional allegation -- that elevated concentrations of fat-soluble pesticide residue had been found in dugongs.

Since publication of the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962, there has been concern that pesticides can bio-accumulate in the fat tissue of animals.  Prior to 1987, organochlorine pesticides (for example, Dieldrin, BHC, DDT) were used in Great Barrier Reef catchments, including for sugar cane production.  These chemicals have since been banned due to global concerns about their persistence in the environment and capacity to bio-accumulate.

The specific allegation of pesticide in dugongs was first made in August 1998 in a media release by Senate Green's candidate Drew Hutton.  About one week before his media release a senior officer with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) phoned me with the news that a soon-to-be-published research study had found that elevated levels of pesticide residue, most likely from cane farming, were accumulating in the fat tissue of dugongs.  Media headlines followed, including Pesticide in reef creatures and Cane burning link with dioxin in dugong.

I obtained a copy of the study and found it was primarily an analysis of the type and quantity of dioxins found in the fat tissue of dugong carcasses that had been killed in fishing nets.  Dioxins are a group of organochlorine compounds commonly associated with industrial waste incineration.  The research paper made reference to a different study that had analysed the dioxins found in soils under sugarcane cultivation and commented that the cane-land soils and dugong fat samples both had elevated levels of the same type of dioxins.

Concerned by this news, I contacted a dioxin expert at the University of Queensland.  Dr Brian Stanmore informed me that the type of dioxin considered by the GBRMPA to be elevated in the dugongs was common and the least toxic of all dioxins.  Furthermore Dr Stanmore indicated that the level of dioxins found in the dugongs was less than the national average in people in the United States.  Comment was made that, "it looks like the dugong is better off than we are".  At this time I actually asked to be sampled for dioxin myself -- but they said I was too skinny to enable a good sample.

The GBRMPA study clearly stated, "All (dugong) carcasses were in good condition at the time of sampling.  All animal deaths were confirmed or suspected (fishing) net drowning."  However, instead of focusing on net fishing practices, the GBRMPA subsequently provided funding for a full investigation by the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology (NRCET) into the likely origin of the dioxin considered to be at elevated levels in the dugong carcasses including possible links with sugarcane production.

Two years latter, the NRCET investigation concluded that the dioxin of concern to the GBRMPA was common in soils along the entire Queensland coastline, including in regions beyond sugarcane cultivation.  Analyses of dated marine sediment cores indicated that the chemical has been present prior to European settlement in Queensland.  In other words, the dioxin is a naturally occurring organochlorine and not a pesticide residue.  There are, apparently, many naturally occurring non-toxic dioxins.

In late November 2002, I received a copy of the draft summary of the Baker report -- the report subsequently described by the Premier as the best available science.  I noticed the allegation of elevated concentrations of fat-soluble pesticide in dugongs.  I emailed Dr Baker querying this and other allegations in the draft summary.  Dr Baker replied that he would consult with the Science Panel and get back to me.  Dr Baker did not get back to me.  The report was published two months latter without any changes to the summary.

The reef pesticide research is well documented and should be understood by members of the Science Panel.  In fact, a member of the Science Panel communicated the findings from the NRCET investigation to me in September 2001.  Why, then, was the allegation of pesticide in dugongs included in the original summary report?  Why was the allegation not corrected after I brought the error to Dr Baker's attention in December 2002?

DETERIORATING WATER QUALITY

So much for this evidence of an impact on the reef or reef creatures;  but then the real threat to the GBR is deteriorating water quality?  We need a reef plan because we have deteriorating water quality?  Remember the WWF Report launched in June 2001, sediment and nutrients pouring out of our rivers.

Key water quality indicators include turbidity (a measure of sediment load), total nitrogen (nutrient level) and electrical conductivity (saltiness).  Australian State governments have measured and recorded these indicators for our major river systems for many decades with the information held in large databases.  These values should be regularly compared against national guidelines that have been developed for drinking water, aquatic ecology and irrigation.  According to the Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000 we spend $142-$168 million each year on water quality monitoring.

Trends with respect to water quality could be easily established by plotting the values for the indicators (e.g. turbidity) for particular sites (e.g. Pioneer River) over time (e.g. 1988-1998).  If water quality is deteriorating then the graph will generally resemble an improving sugar price graph.  That is, the plot will show an increase over time.

It was in 1999 that I first requested information on water quality for rivers in Great Barrier Reef (GBR) catchments.  The information was not easy to access but I persisted and eventually succeeded in getting some of this information published as a limited edition government water quality report for 8 key indicators at 18 sites in 12 catchments for two five year periods.  This report (Water quality report for catchments containing sugar cane in Queensland, 1st May 1995 -- 30th April 2000) presents the best available data on water quality in GBR catchments for recent years.  The graphs show there are seasonal trends for some indicators for some catchments but no long-term trend of improvement or deterioration.

The Queensland Government should have made this information generally available on a Website.

Instead Premier Beattie in both January and May 2003 declared that water quality was deteriorating to the extent that there has been "a fourfold increase in sediments and nutrients discharge (from agriculture) into the reef waters over the past 15 years".

This is consistent with the WWF assertion that sediment and nutrient loads are "pouring out of our rivers".  However, I have been unable to establish the basis for the Premier's assertion and this information is difficult to reconcile given the significant improvements in on-farm environmental management including the adoption of precision farming and minimum tillage techniques over the last 15 years in GBR catchments.

The message from government and WWF with respect to deteriorating water quality in GBR catchments appears to be pure propaganda.  Interestingly, my inquiries to government regarding the assertion that there has been a 4-fold increase in 15 years have been met with the allegation that I am "in denial".

Even the recent 415 page Productivity Commission Research Report, Industries, Land Use and Water Quality in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment contains much rhetoric about deteriorating water quality but incredibly, absolutely no water quality trend data.  When the first draft of the report was released for public comment I asked one of the Melbourne based Productivity Commission research officers why the Queensland Government's water quality trend data was not included in the report.  He replied that "the data is not useful".  Information that contradicts the position of the propaganda is certainly not useful information.

Are our corals just not growing so well?  Is something indeed wrong?  On the evidence, the answer must be no.  The published work from the Australian Institute of Marine Science indicates that there was a statistically significant 4% increase in coral growth during the 20th Century.  And not just on the outer reef.  The inner, middle and outer reef system all did well last century.

How is it that we are being so badly duped?  Well the propaganda, the repetition of the simple messages that water quality is deteriorating, is happening around the world.  Let us consider the River Murray, another of Australia's great icons.

I recently searched for water quality data for the Murray River, in particular graphs with trend lines that showed the deterioration in water quality as repeatedly reported in the media over the last year.

The Murray Darling Basin Commission Website is huge, but after several hours of searching I could find no graphs showing trends for turbidity (sediment loads) or total nitrogen (nutrient levels) for any localities.

I did download a report on the Salinity and Drainage Strategy -- Ten Years On, 1999.  The report that was published in 1999 shows recorded salinity levels at Morgan in South Australia from 1920 to 1999.  Morgan is a key locality just upstream of the pipeline off takes for Adelaide's water supply and its use as an indicator site emphasises the relative importance of river salinity impacts on all water users in the system.

The trend line for recorded levels (presumably seasonal or yearly averages) shows that an increase in salinity levels in the late 1970s was followed by a drop in salinity levels from the late 1980s through to publication of the report in 1999.  The improvement is attributed to salt interception schemes developed as part of the 10-year drainage strategy.  The preamble to the report clearly states, "The (Salinity and Drainage) Strategy has achieved a net reduction in River Murray salinity without jeopardising the undertakings of land protection works, new irrigation and water resource developments in three States".

Interestingly, the same graph then shows the trend line sharply increasing post-1999, i.e., the prediction is that salinity levels will increase post the Drainage Strategy.  The report does not explain which model was used to generate this prediction of deteriorating water quality.  It simply comments, "in future the increase in river salinity is expected to be mainly due to increased salt contribution from dryland areas and pre-strategy irrigation development".  Why would salinity levels increase given that the interception schemes will stay in place and additional programs to further improve water quality will be brought on line?

It is now nearly 5 years since the Drainage Strategy was published.  The prediction of deteriorating water quality has not been realised.  Following an email request to the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC), I recently received average yearly values for salinity at Morgan.  I plotted these values for the last 20 years.  From this graph it is clear that the trend of reducing salinity levels has continued.  Water quality is improving at Morgan.  It is not what I read in the Weekend Australian!

The trend of improving water quality at Morgan is even more remarkable when you consider that the Basin is still in drought -- during low flow events salt concentrations normally increase.

The extent of the improvement, and extent to which the MDBC model's prediction are plain wrong, is evident when the daily average for the last six months (389 EC Units) is plotted with the prediction.  Why isn't this good news story being reported?

At which sites has there been deterioration in water quality along the Murray River?  Ticky Fullerton's acclaimed book Watershed laments deteriorating water quality in the Murray, but provides no water quality data to support the rhetoric.  Early in May 2003 I received the new CSIRO Land and Water Corporate Profile with a letter from John Williams (a member of the Wentworth group).  On the Website mentioned in the letter it states, "Salt levels are rising in almost all of the (Murray Darling) Basin's rivers".  But again there is no accompanying data to support this simple message.

Again, I am reminded of Norman Davies and how to be most effective, "propaganda needs the help of censorship".  Could this explain why the above mentioned texts, reports and Websites that are purported to concern themselves with water quality, fail to present basic up-to-date information on water quality;  is it that the real science, the real data, does not support the key message -- the propaganda?

ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDAMENTALISM

Madelaine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State, said in about 1998 that the environment will be the religion of the 21st Century -- and her prediction is proving correct.

Environmental fundamentalism is not about science.  However, environmental fundamentalists appeal to science for authority to give the ideology some standing.

Environmental Fundamentalism is really a social movement.

It seems not yet to have been written about in any detail, but in my assessment it assumes that the natural environment is in some sort of natural equilibrium.  This is really quite an absurd view of the world and a view that is intolerant of natural change.  For example, the ideology can't cope when a flood event destroys mangroves at the mouth of the Mackay River -- it has to blame farmers.  In the same way it blames farmers when the mouth of the River Murray runs dry during a one in a hundred year drought.

The ideology subscribes to the notions that human disturbance of the environment is always harmful;  that development should only be allowed if it has a neutral or positive impact on environmental values;  and that the "rights" of the community to preserve elements of the environment subsume other rights that individuals may hold.

Environmental fundamentalism is driving policies that are eroding your property rights through variously increasingly the regulatory burden (Fisheries Act, Reef Plan), increasing the cost of production (water charges and COAG), restricting access to resource use (Vegetation Management Act) and generally increasing uncertainly.  Uncertainty is not good for investment or business.

I have recently pondered the extent to which Australians -- farmers, journalists, businessmen -- seem to expect facts and figures in the commodity report, from super fund managers, from economists, but not, it seems from leading environmentalists.  Most people seem to completely believe what environmental scientists say -- believe their testimonial without asking for basic supporting information -- become entranced by the repetition of the simple message.

The now defunct US Institute for Propaganda Analysis (1937-1945) suggested that when we are presented with testimonials we can ask ourselves the following question:  what does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the testimonial?

And I would add, what does the idea amount to when it is checked against the facts and figures?  For example, just perhaps, at this point in our history, both high performing super funds and sites with deteriorating water quality are the exception rather than the rule.  And just perhaps, the Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine.

Thank you.