An investigation of the potential economic and environmental … · 2017-07-11 · Parts of this...

1

An investigation of the potential economic and environmental

benefits of expanding prawn aquaculture in Queensland and

reassessment of anomalies in the existing regulatory framework

STUDENT: SALIZA MOHD NAZRI (41557815)

COURSE CODE: BIOT 8004 (BIOTECHNOLOGY THESIS)

SUPERVISORS: PROF ROSS BARNARD

DR BRIAN PATERSON

HELEN JENKINS

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Biotechnology at

The University of Queensland in 2017

School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences

2

ABSTRACT

Being one of the seven natural wonders of the world, the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) possesses

outstanding and universal value, so the protection of its biodiversity is imperative. However, the

condition of the GBR has worsened markedly in recent years. One of the major threats to the GBR is

crown-of-thorn-starfish (COTS) outbreaks which are due to an elevated level of dissolved inorganic

nitrogen (DIN). The major source of DIN load originates from the use of fertiliser from sugarcane

farming, particularly from the Wet Tropics region. In order to see the much sought after improvement

in the health of the reef in the GBR, it will be crucial that the Wet Tropics region is effectively

managed, because this relatively small proportion of land contributes to almost half of the total DIN

load in the GBR.

This thesis investigates the potential benefits of converting a certain proportion of sugarcane farms

to prawn aquaculture, by exploring the environmental impact and financial returns of both industries.

The findings show that the conversion of marginal sugarcane land in Ingham, Wet Tropics, into prawn

aquaculture would generate positive net present values (NPVs) even when discount rates of 7%, 10%,

12% and 15% were used. The transition of management practices for sugarcane farming in the Wet

Tropics from class D (dated) to class C (common) and from class C to class B (best) generates positive

NPVs but the transition from class B to class A (aspirational) generates negative NPVs, based on the

7% discount rate. This suggests that sugarcane farmers will most likely adopt the transition to class B

management practice, but not class A due to reduced profitability. Moreover, complete adoption to

best management practice by the sugarcane farmers would still be insufficient to meet the GBR

Water Quality Guidelines, which advocate a 70-80% reduction in DIN in the Wet Tropics region. The

National Environmental Science Program (NESP) is also exploring alternative land uses for marginal

cane lands, that have the capacity to reduce nitrogen loads. These alternatives include aquaculture.

For the analysis of the environmental impact of prawn aquaculture versus sugarcane farming, the

difference in the nature of the pollution must be acknowledged first. This has not been done in

previous analyses. Prawn aquaculture has a point source discharge that allows it to be easily

monitored compared to monitoring the discharge from diffuse source pollution such as sugarcane

farming. In Australia, prawn aquaculture is highly regulated compared to the voluntary best

management practices (BMPs) of sugarcane farming. Therefore, the prawn aquaculture industry has

had to innovate in order to operate sustainably and it has improved its water treatment system

remarkably by the use of settlement ponds, sand filtration and the latest algal bioremediation

system, for example on the prawn farm under development in Guthalungra.

3

The requirement of zero net nutrient discharge imposed on prawn aquaculture farm under

development at Guthalungra has also encouraged its collaboration with other organizations such as

MBD Energy Ltd and James Cook University to innovate and to test the viability of the algal

bioremediation system. The algal bioremediation water treatment system potentially allows ‘cleaner’

water to be discharged than the water input from its surrounding environment. This suggests that

the stringent regulation placed on prawn aquaculture adjacent to the GBR has encouraged

innovation that promotes sustainability.

This thesis also discovered errors in the Jacobs SKM benchmark study and suggests other more

appropriate methods (e.g. bioindicators) for comparing environmental impacts of the industries

which have a different “nature” of pollution (diffuse versus point source). The approach used by

Jacobs SKM benchmark study, using the same parameter ‘nutrient per hectare’ to compare the

sugarcane industry with prawn aquaculture, is not the best way to correctly conclude which industry

poses a higher environmental risk to the GBR.

In summary, the recommendations proposed for protecting the GBR, by strengthening its resilience are:

(i) To convert marginal cane land to a potentially more sustainable and profitable industry, such as prawn aquaculture.

(ii) To retire certain cropping lands for conservation and restoration.

(iii) To impose a more scientifically based regulatory framework for aquaculture and conventional agriculture.

4

DECLARATION BY AUTHOR

This thesis is composed of my original work and contains no material previously published or written

by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the

contribution by others to jointly authored works that are included in this thesis.

I have also clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical

assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial

advice, and any other original research work used or reported in this thesis. Its content results from

work I have undertaken since my research higher degree candidature commenced and does not

include any substantial amount of work submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or

diploma in any other university or tertiary institution. BIOL 8001 was used as the basis for my

literature review. The purpose of this course (BIOL 8001) is for students to prepare literature review

for the thesis.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and,

subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis will be made

available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of

embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that the copyright of all material contained in this thesis resides with the copyright

holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the

copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis.

Saliza MOHD NAZRI

5

PRESENTATION AND PUBLICATION

Presentation

Parts of this thesis have been presented at the Ridley Aqua feed Australian Prawn and Barramundi

Farmers Symposium in 2015. The Ridley Prawn and Barramundi Farmers Symposium Program was

held from 30th-31st July 2015 in Gold Coast.

Publications

No publications.

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

‘Shared joy is double the joy, shared sorrow is half the sorrow’. I am grateful that God has given me

the chance to complete this thesis with the support from the best people that I could have.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof Ross Barnard, Dr Brian Paterson and Helen Jenkins,

who have been there for me throughout this thesis writing journey. I could not have completed this

thesis without their guidance and support. Although we may not see each other as often anymore, I

hope that they know they will always be remembered and appreciated. I will not forget the late nights

you have spent reading and commenting on my thesis in order for me to succeed.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my mom, Asiah, and my dad, Nazri, for their unconditional

love and prayers for me to succeed. They have given me more than I could have ever asked and I

hope that they are blessed with good health and happiness. I apologize to have made you worry a lot

about me especially the past few months. I hope I can make you both happy and relieved with this

thesis completion.

I would also like to thank my ex-husband, Fazren, for his support. It was challenging for both of us to

complete our thesis while taking care of our precious little boy, Mikhael, who loved to receive our

full attention when we were still together. Although we recently ended up going separate ways, I will

treasure the happy moments we had together and I will always pray for your happiness.

To my little boy, Mikhael, mommy wants to thank you too for generously giving me your cheeky

smiles every day that can brighten up my day any time. And thank you for being mommy’s pillar of

strength when I needed it to complete this thesis.

To my former mother-in-law, thank you very much for coming all the way from Malaysia to Australia

to take turns with my mom to take care of our little boy for months when I needed to complete my

thesis. I really appreciate it and am utterly grateful.

To my twin sister, Salina, please do remember that although I was very busy and did not spend much

time with you, I really appreciate your understanding and your unconditional love for me.

I would also like to thank the examiners who have given comments and feedback that allow me to

improve my thesis.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends and others who have contributed to this thesis

completion either directly or indirectly. And thank you God for giving me the strength to finally

complete this thesis.

7

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 13

1.1 The Great Barrier Reef .............................................................................................................. 13

1.2 The Main Threats to the Great Barrier Reef.............................................................................. 14

1.2.1 Crown-of-thorn starfish (COTS) outbreak .......................................................................... 14

1.2.2 Cyclone damage & Climate change .................................................................................... 16

1.2.3 Coral bleaching ................................................................................................................... 16

1.2.4 Coral disease....................................................................................................................... 18

1.3 Addressing these major threats to the Great Barrier Reef ....................................................... 19

1.4 Targeting the region which is highly associated with the highest pollutant load to the GBR .. 20

1.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 23

1.5.1 Research objectives ................................................................................................................ 23

1.5.2 Scope of the research ............................................................................................................. 25

CHAPTER 2 Review on the Regulatory Environment of the Great Barrier Reef and the Primary

Industries Operating Adjacent to the Area ......................................................................................... 26

2.1 Overview of regulatory environment in Great Barrier Reef ..................................................... 26

2.2 Point source pollutant ............................................................................................................... 27

2.2.1 Regulations specifically aimed at aquaculture operation .................................................. 27

2.2.2 Zero net nutrient discharge requirement .......................................................................... 30

2.2.3 Operational Policy for Marine Prawn Aquaculture in Queensland .................................... 30

2.3 Diffuse source pollutants .......................................................................................................... 31

2.3.1 Regulations imposed on cattle grazing and sugarcane farming for reef protection ......... 31

2.3.2 Reef Plan and GBRMPA Water Quality Guidelines............................................................. 31

2.4 Review on the Current Monitoring System and Agricultural Industries in the Great Barrier

Reef ................................................................................................................................................. 33

2.4.1 Reef Plan 2003 .................................................................................................................... 33

2.4.2 First Report Card 2009 Baseline ......................................................................................... 33

2.4.3 Report Card 2013 – Reef Water Quality Protection Plan ................................................... 36

2.5 Effluent loads ............................................................................................................................. 37

2.5.1 Effluent loads from diffuse source pollutants .................................................................... 37

2.5.2 Effluent loads of point source pollutant............................................................................. 41

CHAPTER 3 Investigation on the environmental impacts of the nutrient emission from sugarcane

farming and prawn aquaculture and assessment of the current regulatory system in Queensland . 43

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 43

3.2 Data and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 44

3.3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 45

3.3.1 Industry Status Quo ................................................................................................................ 45

8

3.3.1.1 Advances in sugarcane industry to operate sustainably ................................................. 45

3.3.1.2 Breakthrough in the prawn aquaculture industry in the effort to operate more

sustainably ................................................................................................................................... 51

3.3.2 Critical Analysis of the Jacobs SKM’s benchmark study on effluent emissions from shrimp

aquaculture and sugarcane farms ................................................................................................... 58

3.3.2.1 Prawn farm effluent data from Jacobs SKM benchmark study........................................... 60

3.3.2.2 Sugarcane farm effluent data from Jacobs SKM benchmark study .................................... 65

3.3.2.2.2 Sugarcane farm nitrogen effluent load ........................................................................ 67

3.3.3 Investigation on the main challenge faced in achieving the water quality targets as specified

in the Reef Plan. .............................................................................................................................. 70

3.3.3.1 The voluntary approach imposed on diffuse source polluters appears to be ineffective

in protecting the Great Barrier Reef ........................................................................................... 71

3.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 78

3.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 81

CHAPTER 4 Economic Analyses of the Industries operating adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef ....... 85

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 85

4.2 Data and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 86

..................................................................................................................................................... 86

4.3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 87

4.3.1 Gross Value Production (GVP) per hectare ........................................................................ 87

4.3.2 NPV Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 89

4.4 Discussion and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 102

CHAPTER 5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 104

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 104

5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 105

5.3 Limitations and Future Directions ........................................................................................... 106

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 108

9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

AIMS Australian Institute of Marine Science

BMP Best Management Practice

CCS Commercial content of sugar

COTS Crown-of-thorns starfish

CRC Cooperative Research Centre for Aquaculture

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

DIN Dissolved inorganic nitrogen

ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations

FTE Full-time equivalents

GAV Gill-associated virus

GBR Great Barrier Reef

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

GVP Gross Value Production

INFFER Investment Framework for Environmental Resources

IRR Internal Rate of Return

N Nitrogen

NESP National Environmental Science Program

NPV Net Present Value

NRM Natural Resource Management

PRF Pacific Reef Fisheries

QAO Queensland Audit Office

QCA Queensland Competition Authority

QLUMP Queensland Land Use Mapping Program

10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The causes of coral mortality in the Great Barrier Reef (Osborne et al., 2011). The main threats to

the coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef are crown of thorn starfish outbreak and the damage caused by

cyclone/storm. .................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 2. Crown-of-thorn starfish feeding on reef-building corals (AIMS, 2017). ............................................... 15

Figure 3. An illustration of coral bleaching (GBRMPA, 2016a). ......................................................................... 17

Figure 4. The impact of white syndrome on a coral colony in the Great Barrier Reef. Image from Australian

Institute of Marine Science (Hoff, 2007). ............................................................................................................ 18

Figure 5. Main summary of the findings from Report Card 2013 which illustrates the target set to be achieved

in 2013 and the actual achievements (Reef Plan, 2014b). The highlight is on the minimal nitrogen reduction of

10% in comparison to the aim set at 50%. .......................................................................................................... 36

Figure 6. The catchment regions in Great Barrier Reef (Australian Government, 2009). ................................... 39

Figure 7. The land use proportion in each catchment of Great Barrier Reef (Australian Government, 2009). .. 39

Figure 8. The production of NovacqTM.(Preston and Fitzgerald, 2013). .............................................................. 53

Figure 9. The process of water treatment system for the proposed Guthalungra prawn farm (Pacific Reef

Fisheries, 2014). .................................................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 10. The water quality data from the water treatment system proposed in the Guthalungra prawn farm.

This shows that the water discharged from Guthalungra prawn farm is potentially cleaner than the water

input even with 80.7 kg ha-1 yr-1nitrogen emission (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014). ............................................. 56

Figure 11. Cumulative loss of nitrogen emission (N kg/ha) based on conventional nitrogen application (Nfarm)

and nitrogen replacement strategy (Nrepl) (Webster et al., 2012) . .................................................................. 66

Figure 12. The percentage of the landholders' involvement with the voluntary sustainability and conservation

schemes (Lockie and Rockloff, 2005). ................................................................................................................. 74

Figure 13. Economic analysis of prawn aquaculture and sugarcane farming in QLD. ........................................ 86

11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The contribution of the GBR to the Australian economy (Deloitte Access Economics, 2013). The

tourism industry is the main component in the GBR contribution to the Australian economy. .......................... 13

Table 2. The regions identified for management priorities in GBR due to the high level of pollutant loads

(Queensland Government, 2015b). ..................................................................................................................... 20

Table 3. The total area and the nutrient total loads for the six NRM regions in the Great Barrier Reef (Hateley,

2014). As seen below, DIN load is highest in the Wet Tropics region. ................................................................ 21

Table 4. The total percentage of area and pollutant loads from each NRM region in the Great Barrier Reef

(Hateley, 2014). .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 5. The percentage of land area under sugarcane farms in the intensive agriculture of the GBR regions by

calculation from the data available in the Reef Plan report (First Report Card, 2009). ...................................... 22

Table 6. The development-related approval requirements before starting an aquaculture operation in

Queensland (Queensland Government, 2017). ................................................................................................... 28

Table 7. The non-development approval requirements before starting an aquaculture operation in Queensland

(Queensland Government, 2017). ....................................................................................................................... 29

Table 8.Guideline trigger values for water clarity and chlorophyll a targeted for diffuse pollutants. ................ 32

Table 9.Guideline trigger values for suspended solid (SS), particulate nitrogen (PN) and particulate phosphorus

(PP) targeted at diffuse pollutants. ..................................................................................................................... 32

Table 10. The collated data of pollutant loads onto the GBR regions from the 2009 baseline report (Reef Plan,

2015). Note the large dissolved nitrogen signature arising from the Wet Tropics region. ................................. 34

Table 11. The breakdown of diffuse-pollutant loads from each agricultural user in GBR regions based on the

2009 baseline report (Reef Plan, 2015). .............................................................................................................. 35

Table 12. The priority regions for reducing pollution in the GBR region (Brodie et al., 2013). ........................... 40

Table 13. The effluent discharge data from prawn aquaculture farms (ACIL, 2002) (note: units have been

converted to the same unit used by Jacobs SKM for ease of comparison). ........................................................ 41

Table 14. The various nitrogen management strategies utilized in the sugarcane industry in Australia

(Shroeder et al., 2009). ....................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 15. The guidelines for nitrogen application rates established from the mineralisation index of nitrogen

for the zones with approximated district yield potential of 120 tonne of cane per hectare (Schroeder et al.,

2005). .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Table 16. The productivity and profitability of sugarcane cultivated using different nitrogen treatment in Tully

at three different sites in the Wet Tropics (Skocaj et al., 2012). ......................................................................... 50

Table 17. The technology advances made in the prawn aquaculture water treatment system has the potential

to reduce the nutrient level from the intake water (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014). ............................................. 55

Table 18. Summary of effluent emissions sourced from Table 7 of the Jacobs SKM benchmark study

(Erftemeijer, 2014). ............................................................................................................................................. 59

Table 19. The effluent discharge data from prawn aquaculture farms (ACIL, 2002) (note: units have been

converted to the same unit used by Jacobs SKM for ease of comparison). ........................................................ 59

Table 20. The effluent load data of prawn farms in Queensland extracted from the Jacobs SKM study

(Erftemeijer, 2014) (shown in Table 2 of the Jacobs SKM benchmark study). .................................................... 60

Table 21. The proposed modification to the prawn aquaculture nitrogen emission reported in the Jacobs SKM

study. .................................................................................................................................................................. 63

Table 22. Nutrient emission from sugarcane runoff based on the Jacobs SKM benchmark study (Erftemeijer,

2014). .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

Table 23. The nitrogen surplus based on the Webster et al., 2012 study which used either normal N application

rate or N replacement strategy. ......................................................................................................................... 66

Table 24 The total amount of nitrogen load from sugarcane farms in various GBR regions and drainage basins

based on the ACTFR report in 2007 (Brodie et al., 2007). ................................................................................... 67

12

Table 25. The summary of nitrogen emission. a) The nitrogen emission reported in Jacobs SKM benchmark

study. b) The proposed modified nitrogen emission rates in this thesis. ............................................................ 70

Table 26. The policy structure available to increase the adoption of BMP by the landholders (Harvey et al.,

2014). .................................................................................................................................................................. 71

Table 27. The policy structure to control the water quality entering the GBR for the last 25 years as adapted

from the Technical Report RRD039 (a Reef Rescue R&D project) (Harvey et al., 2014). Yellow box: The

legislation for tighter control over nutrient management. Green box: The voluntary implementation of BMP to

replace regulatory control. ................................................................................................................................. 73

Table 28. The components of Reef Rescue program through the investment by the Australian Government

from 2008 to 2013 (Reef & Rainforest Research Centre, 2015). ......................................................................... 77

Table 29. An extrapolation of the overall contribution of suspended solids and nutrients where prawn farming

expands while the other industries remain static (ACIL, 2002).The ‘present ‘load refers to the size of prawn

farm of 500 ha. ................................................................................................................................................... 80

Table 30. The GVP of sugarcane in Queensland (Queensland Treasury, 2015). ................................................. 87

Table 31. Gross value by aquaculture sector in QLD ($ million) (Heidenreich, 2015). ........................................ 88

Table 32. The classification of 'ABCD' management framework for sugarcane farms (Grieken et al., 2010a). . 89

Table 33. The assumptions for the economic analysis for the transition of sugarcane farms in the ‘ABCD'

framework in the Wet Tropics region (Grieken et al., 2010b). ............................................................................ 89

Table 34. The capital costs to implement changes for the transition of the sugarcane farms management class

(Grieken et al., 2010b). ....................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 35. The regional NPVs calculated for a 120-ha sugarcane farm in the Wet Tropics as analysed by using

7% discount rate in Grieken (2010b). .................................................................................................................. 91

Table 36. The regional NPVs per hectare calculated for the 120-ha sugarcane farm in the Wet Tropics. ......... 91

Table 37. The yields based on different farming class management in the Wet Tropics (Grieken et al., 2010a).

............................................................................................................................................................................ 91

Table 38. The capital costs based on a prawn farm in Bowen-Burdekin for a 100ha farm. Data adapted from

the report for the prawn farm proposed in Bowen-Burdekin (Queensland Department of Primary Industries

and Fisheries, 2008). ........................................................................................................................................... 95

Table 39. The breakdown of the costs for marketing and processing of Penaeus monodon (Queensland

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008). .................................................................................... 97

Table 40. The summary of the operation costs of 150 ha prawn aquaculture pond (Queensland Department of

Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008). ............................................................................................................. 98

Table 41. NPV analysis for prawn farm using different discount rates under the base case. ............................. 99

Table 42. NPV analysis for prawn farm using different discount rates if costs increase by 20%. .................... 100

Table 43. The comparison of NPV when the cane land is used for transition into better class management or by

converting it to prawn aquaculture. ................................................................................................................. 101

13

CHAPTER 1 Literature Review

1.1 The Great Barrier Reef The outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has been recognized

internationally and it was inscribed as World Heritage Area in 1981 (Piggott-McKellar and

McNamara, 2016, UNESCO, 2012). One of the outstanding features of the GBR is its biodiversity:

it sustains the survival of many species and is the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem

(GBRMPA, 2014). For example, the GBR is the habitat for 411 species of hard corals, 3000 species

of molluscs, 1625 species of fish, 39 mangrove species and dugong (GBRMPA, 2014).

As a consequence of its status as biodiversity reserve, the contribution of the GBR to the

Australian economy was $5.68 billion in 2011 – 2012, providing approximately 69,000 full-time

equivalent jobs (Deloitte Access Economics, 2013). This shows that the GBR returns notably to

the Australian economy and is a significant regional employer. The economic contribution of the

GBR encompasses tourism, commercial fishing, scientific research and recreation (See Table 1).

Table 1. The contribution of the GBR to the Australian economy (Deloitte Access Economics, 2013). The tourism industry is the main component in the GBR contribution to the Australian economy.

Direct expenditure

($m)

Value-added

($m)

Employment

(FTE)

Tourism 6,410.6 5,175.6 64,338

Recreation 332.4 243.9 2,785

Commercial Fishing 192.5 160.3 975

Scientific research &

management 106.1 98.0 881

Total 7,041.5 5,677.8 68,978

Source: Deloitte Access Economics estimates

The continuation of Australia’s huge economic return on ‘investment’ in the GBR assumes that

the vast GBR retains its cachet as a global tourist hub. Unfortunately, over 2000 surveys of 214

reefs in the period of 1985 to 2012, revealed that the coral cover in GBR has declined significantly

from 28% to 13.8% which is a 50.7% of coral loss in the 27-year period (De’ath et al., 2012). While

UNESCO has not yet listed the GBRWHA as ‘in danger’, it is clear from published information that

the GBRWHA faces significant threats (Clark et al., 2016). The main contributors to the

14

degradation of the GBR are crown of thorns starfish (COTS) outbreak (37%) and cyclone/storm

damage (34%) (Osborne et al., 2011). On the face of it there does not seem much that a nation

can do about cyclones or plagues of starfish but closer analysis shows that these supposed

‘natural’ threats are being influenced by human activities, which means that some level of

intervention may be possible.

1.2 The Main Threats to the Great Barrier Reef

Figure 1. The causes of coral mortality in the Great Barrier Reef (Osborne et al., 2011). The main threats to the coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef are crown of thorn starfish outbreak and the damage caused by cyclone/storm.

1.2.1 Crown-of-thorn starfish (COTS) outbreak

COTS are among the largest species of starfish, Asteroidea (Lucas, 2013). Physically, the arms

comprise of ‘thorns’ which are covered with saponin toxin that are harmful to coral reefs (Lucas,

2013, Wooldridge and Brodie, 2015).

Crown of thorns starfish (COTS), 37%

Cyclone/storm damage, 34%

Coral disease, 7%Coral bleaching, 6%

Causes of Coral Mortality in Great Barrier Reef

Crown of thorns starfish (COTS) Cyclone/storm damage Coral disease Coral bleaching

15

Figure 2. Crown-of-thorn starfish feeding on reef-building corals (AIMS, 2017).

The main cause of COTS outbreaks is an elevated level of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) (Furnas

et al., 2005). Specifically, the larvae of coral-eating COTS, scientifically described as Acanthaster

planci prey on nanophytoplankton and microphytoplankton which exist in environments with high

nutrient levels (Okaji et al.). It is noteworthy that around 80% of the total anthropogenic DIN load

originates from the use of fertiliser (Waterhouse et al., 2012). Furthermore, a study published in 2015

concluded that a reduction of at least 20-40% terrestrial runoff would be necessary in order to avoid

potential future COTS outbreaks in GBR (Wooldridge and Brodie, 2015).

The frequency of COTS outbreak increases when there is an elevated level of runoff containing

sediments, fertilizers and pesticides from the industries operating adjacent to the GBR (Brodie et al.,

2005). This is because the increased level of nutrients become the primary driver for the excessive

growth of the Acanthaster planci larvae (Brodie et al., 2005). Moreover, in another study conducted

by Fabricus et al 2010, focussing on the rapid expansion of COTS, it was discovered through three

types of evidence that the outbreak of COTS is primarily dependent on the phytoplankton level

(Fabricius et al., 2010). The results of the experiment revealed that a doubling in chlorophyll

concentrations lead to an approximately 8-fold increase in the number of Acanthaster planci larvae

(Fabricius et al., 2010).

Moreover, one of the latest studies published in 2015 by Woolridge & Brodie indicated that the

environmental triggers for COTS outbreaks are also related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

in which the hydrodynamic conditions lead to further fragmentation of the larvae (Wooldridge and

Brodie, 2015).

16

1.2.2 Cyclone damage & Climate change

• Tropical cyclones

Tropical cyclones can lead to severe damage to the ecosystem such as a major disturbance to the

coral reefs and it may require decades for extensive recovery (Beeden et al., 2015). The Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park has been hit by 44 tropical cyclones since 1985 in which the gale force winds were

equivalent or more than 17 metres per second (Carrigan and Puotinen, 2011). The most significant

tropical cyclone that hit the GBR was tropical cyclone Yasi that caused extensive damage to the coral

reefs in just one day (Beeden et al., 2015).

The loss of corals from 1985 to 2012 were also driven by the wave damage due to the tropical

cyclones (De’ath et al., 2012). The three factors that determine the severity of the damage that the

tropical cyclones can cause are the intensity, the size of circulation and the time-lapse of the extreme

gale winds at the reefs (the ‘persistence’) (Beeden et al., 2015). The increasing ocean temperatures

may also lead to more intense cyclones as it is projected that greenhouse warming may lead to 2-

11% higher intensity of tropical cyclones by 2100 (Knutson et al., 2010).

• Climate change

The issue of climate change has been lingering for years globally and even in Australia as a slight

increase in sea temperature above historical levels would lead to devastating effect to the marine

ecosystem as seen lately (Cressey, 2016). The main cause of increased temperature would primarily

be due to the escalating greenhouse gasses emitted and the demand for energy sourced from fossil

fuel and coals (Cressey, 2016).

1.2.3 Coral bleaching

Coral bleaching takes place when the symbiotic relationship between the coral host and the tiny

marine algae (zooxanthellae) is disrupted through the elevation of sea temperature (Rowan, 2004).

This is because zooxanthellae provide energy for the corals’ growth and reproduction (van Oppen

and Gates, 2006). In the absence of the algae, the coral will turn into bright white skeleton as the

bleaching process leads to the starvation of the coral as illustrated in the following figure (GBRMPA,

2016a).

17

Figure 3. An illustration of coral bleaching (GBRMPA, 2016a).

Coral bleaching has become one of the most pressing threats to the GBR reef health especially in the

current changing climate as coral bleaching events have increased in frequency and severity (Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park, 2013). Moreover, the latest report from GBRMPA dated 15 April 2016

stated that the bleaching event that is currently taking place this year is the worst in relative to the

events that have occurred previously in 2002 and 1998 (GBRMPA, 2016a, Cressey, 2016). This is

primarily due to the rise in ocean temperature driven by the effect of El Nino and global warming

that have caused overheating to the live corals (Woodford, 2016). In the bleaching process that

occurs at elevated temperature, the tiny photosynthetic algae (zooxanthellae), which are vital for

coral health are expelled and die. As algae contributes to the vibrant colour of the corals, the corals

are bleached. They may recover if there is a decrease in the temperature but can otherwise die if the

high temperature is sustained (Woodford, 2016).

In response to the serious coral bleaching event, the GBRMPA has established an initial response plan

for coral bleaching in 2002—which is now called the Risk and Impact Assessment Plan (Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park, 2013). The recent mass coral bleaching in 2016 has triggered the GBRMPA to

execute its highest level of response plan to the coral bleaching event especially in the northern reefs

(Great Barrier Reef Foundation, 2016). Under normal circumstances, the corals would usually

undergo a gradual recovery phase but additional stressors such as nutrient pollution of the seawater

18

from adjacent operating industries and the issue of climate change worsened the condition (Grech

et al., 2015).

1.2.4 Coral disease

According to the researchers of Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), coral diseases

represent 6.5% of coral deaths in the Great Barrier Reef from 1995 to 2009 (GBRMPA, 2016b).

There are seven diseases associated with corals in the GBR but the ones that can spread faster and

cause substantial mortality are the White syndromes, Black band disease and the Brown band disease

(GBRMPA, 2016b).

Lately, the association of the coral diseases such as White syndrome and Black band disease with

climate change is unavoidable as there have been many studies that associate the rise in temperature

with the increasing frequencies of coral diseases (Bruno et al., 2007, Hayes et al., 2001, Harvell et al.,

1999).

A study done in 2007 revealed that warm temperature anomalies are one of the factors linked to the

higher occurrences of coral disease seen in the GBR (Bruno et al., 2007). Through the utilization of

the high-resolution dataset of monitoring the temperature of the ocean and the use of annual

surveys of the 48 reefs, it was concluded that the increase in temperature aggravates the corals

susceptibility to White syndrome particularly at the location with high coral cover (Bruno et al., 2007,

Hoff, 2007).

Figure 4. The impact of white syndrome on a coral colony in the Great Barrier Reef. Image from Australian Institute of Marine Science (Hoff, 2007).

19

1.3 Addressing these major threats to the Great Barrier Reef

As aforementioned, the threats to the coral reefs are interconnected, with each factor increasing the

vulnerability of the GBR to the other factor. For example, the onset of warmer temperatures would

potentially lead to an increased frequency of coral diseases, a rise in the COTS spread, and also

triggers episodes of coral bleaching. However, I assert that the primary difference between all of the

aforementioned threats is the two categories into which they can be classified. The categories are

those caused by human activities or those due to natural calamities.

The threats which are primarily driven by human activities are basically the COTS outbreaks and

climate change—the increase in temperature being due to the elevation of greenhouse gas

emissions. COTS and climate change (elevated temperature) represent the top threats to the GBR

health and they are caused by human activities which can be directly monitored and controlled (albeit

in vastly different time frames) by proper regulations in place.

Unfortunately the research review entitled “Towards protecting the Great Barrier Reef from land-

based pollution” found that the current regulatory implementation for the protection of GBR is

insufficient to reach the goal set for reductions in water pollution by 2020 (Kroon et al., 2016). The

ineffectiveness of the current regulatory framework for the GBR agricultural industries was also

reflected in the findings obtained from the Report Card 2013 of the Reef Plan (Reef Plan, 2014b). For

example, the report results showed that the proportion of sugarcane growers, the major source of

DIN, that adopted best management practices (BMP) from 2009-2013 was approximately 50%, which

differs from the target set at 80% (Reef Plan, 2014b). In addition, even with half of the sugarcane

growers adopting the BMPs, the reduction of nitrogen was reported to be only 10% which was very

low relative to the goal set at 50% nitrogen reduction by 2013 (Reef Plan, 2014b).

The inability to construct a more comprehensive and effective regulatory framework for the main

pollutant contributors in the GBR has led the deterioration go unchecked, both in the percentage of

healthy coral coverage and in reduced resilience (ability to rebound from adverse events).

Furthermore, the cumulative impact of all the stressors to GBR has to be precisely analysed and a

simulation of the effect of all the stressors on the reef health condition should be carried out. It is

vital to ensure the cumulative stress is reduced as to build the resilience of the already ill coral reefs

such as through minimizing the pollutant runoff from agricultural industries (Nyström et al., 2008).

Following the exploration of the major threats to the GBR, it is crucially important from the point of

view of implementation of change, to investigate the source and location of the main ‘controllable’

20

threats to the health of the GBR corals, for example, the region with the most concentrated pollutant

load.

1.4 Targeting the region which is highly associated with the highest pollutant load to

the GBR

Based on the 2014 Reef Plan report card, the management priority remains to control the nitrogen

from sugarcane and the erosion issue from grazing (Reef Plan, 2014a). The highest overall relative

risk region is the Wet Tropics which covers 22,000 km2 and the primary issue for this region is the

nitrogen emission mainly from the sugarcane farming and fertiliser use (Reef Plan, 2014a).

Table 2. The regions identified for management priorities in GBR due to the high level of pollutant loads (Queensland Government, 2015b).

Furthermore, the largest single source of the total DIN loads released to the GBR are mostly sourced

from sugarcane farming which accounts for 42% whereas grazing accounts for 9% of DIN (Hateley,

2014).

To have an overview on the overall loads of DIN and the total area of NRM (Natural Resource

Management) regions, entails consideration of the following data sourced from the Technical Report

21

prepared by the Department of Natural Resource and Mines in 2014 as part of the Reef Water Quality

Protection Plan 2013 (Hateley, 2014).

Table 3. The total area and the nutrient total loads for the six NRM regions in the Great Barrier Reef (Hateley, 2014). As seen below, DIN load is highest in the Wet Tropics region.

Table 4. The total percentage of area and pollutant loads from each NRM region in the Great Barrier Reef (Hateley, 2014).

It is imperative to note that different NRM regions yield different loads of nutrient to the GBR. For

example, Table 3 above illustrates that the Wet Tropics region area is 21,722 km2 and contributes

4,437 tonne of DIN per year. As depicted in Table 4, this is equivalent to the enormous percentage of

42.1% of the total DIN loads to the GBR while only constituting 5.1% of the area in the GBR catchment

(Hateley, 2014).

22

This reveals that in order to see the much sought after improvement in the health of the reef in the

GBR, it will be crucial that the Wet Tropics region is effectively managed, because this relatively small

proportion of land contributes to almost half of the total DIN load in the GBR.

Therefore, it is critical to ensure the focus is directed to the major land use in the Wet Tropics such

as intensive agriculture that contributes to the majority of the DIN load to the GBR.

The data below provides a summary of land use (by area) of the Wet Tropics region in general

(Hateley, 2014).

• Nature conservation (also includes forestry) 51%

• Grazing 33%

• Intensive agriculture 10%

(88.6% of intensive agriculture covered by

sugarcane industry as shown in the following table)

The following table provides a further breakdown of the land use by sugarcane farming in the six

NRM regions adjacent to the GBR based on data collated from the Reef Plan report (First Report Card,

2009). The table below shows that the land area of intensive agriculture covered by sugarcane farms

equates to 88.6% in the Wet Tropics.

Table 5. The percentage of land area under sugarcane farms in the intensive agriculture of the GBR regions by calculation

from the data available in the Reef Plan report (First Report Card, 2009).

Region

Land farmed

(km²)

Land for sugarcane

(km²)

Sugarcane farm

percentage (%)

Cape York 30 0 0

Wet Tropics 2198 1947 88.6

Burdekin 129217 1061 0.82

Mackay Whitsunday 1686 1674 99.29

Fitzroy 123058 0 0

Burnett Mary 1159 968 83.52

Natural Decisions Pty Ltd was engaged by the Terrain NRM to develop a plan to improve the water

quality in the Wet Tropics. The plan development involved the use of the Investment Framework for

Environmental Resources (INFFER), which is one of the means available to assist decision makers on

23

environmental issues which encompasses water quality and land degradation (Park and Roberts,

2014). Significantly, the INFFER reported that sugarcane alone is a major contributor to the nutrient

loads from the agricultural runoff (Park and Roberts, 2014). Furthermore, a study completed in 2014

concluded that the total DIN load originates from sugarcane (41%) followed by grazing (9%) (Hateley,

2014). It was postulated that the river basins in the Wet Tropics region are the major contributors of

DIN load to the GBR (Brodie et al., 2014). Deductively, DIN is largely contributed by sugarcane farming

due to the use of fertiliser (Park and Roberts, 2014). The highlighted nutrient in this part of thesis is

DIN, as this pollutant is widely known for its primary contribution to the COTS outbreaks that cause

the reef degradation in the GBR (Webster et al., 2012, Furnas et al., 2005). This fact is also widely

acknowledged by the Department of the Environment of the Australian Government by linking the

elevated nutrient levels such as nitrogen with the growth of algae and the outbreaks of COTS

(Department of the Environment).

1.5 Conclusions

1.5.1 Research objectives

• To help strengthen the resilience of the GBR

The main aim of this research is to suggest a strategy to help GBR build its resilience to overcome

stressors as discussed previously. Since the Wet Tropics is the main region that contributes to the

massive nutrient loads on the GBR and the pollutant yield per area was the highest for Wet Tropics

and Whitsundays regions (that are farmed mainly for sugarcane and other intensive activities (Joo et

al., 2012, Kroon, 2012)), replacement of certain hectares of sugarcane farms in Wet Tropics with

another industry such as prawn aquaculture, is worthy of consideration.

• To explore the potential benefits of converting a certain proportion of sugarcane farms with

another industry, by investigating the environmental impact and financial returns of both

industries.

An innovative approach such as replacement of some of the sugarcane industry in certain regions

with a cleaner, more sustainable industry, with higher economic returns is worthy of consideration.

This is because it is evident that the transaction and opportunity costs are too expensive for the

adoption of BMP by the sugarcane landholders and the study has also illustrated that this is one of

the major reasons why the voluntary approach has failed so far (Pannell et al., 2006). Further

24

injections of monetary incentives to increase the uptake of BMP adoption is likely to be an inefficient

and relatively unproductive allocation of funds.

One of the factors that encourages the conversion of land use from sugar cane to prawn aquaculture

is that the type of land occupied by these two industries is similar which includes flat and low lying

coastal land (QCA, 2014). Furthermore, this is in accordance with the recommendation made by the

GBR Water Science Taskforce in its report in 2015 which suggests that there is a need for new

technology, innovation and diversification or transformation in land use. This is because it was

concluded that even if all the sugarcane landholders and the graziers adopted the class A of BMP, the

target set to achieve in the Reef Plan is still not achievable (Great Barrier Reef Water Science

Taskforce, 2015). On the other hand, any strategy involving disruptive change will be complicated by

the large number of individual landholders, start-up costs and the steep learning curve involved for

existing farmers which warrants a detailed study on the transaction costs involved.

• To investigate the current legislation passed that is relevant to both industries operating

adjacent to the GBR.

As seen from the Reef Plan report, the target set to be achieved in 2013 was not met, as the results

showed that the BMP adoption rate was not rapid enough. Furthermore, the nitrogen reduction rate

was very low (10%) compared to the target that had been set at 50% reduction by 2013 (Reef Plan,

2014b). A thorough evaluation on why such results were obtained is necessary before a further target

or plan is established in order to ensure there is a progressive improvement. I assert that this issue is

important to be investigated because it is essential to gauge the success, or lack of success, of the

current regulatory framework imposed on the sugarcane farming. Thus, this assists in projecting any

possibilities of failure of the BMP implementation and whether any other actions are necessary to

compensate the insufficient or ineffective regulatory system.

The benefits of this analysis will potentially shed light on whether the main strategy adopted in the

current Reef Plan is worth continuing, and whether other interventions are needed to produce more

desirable results.

• To investigate the obstacles faced by an emerging industry such as prawn aquaculture in

operating adjacent to GBR

One of the issues faced by the Queensland government is to decide on regulatory reform of

aquaculture in Queensland. In view of the absence of new prawn farm development approved in the

25

last decade (ABC, 2014), the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) was instructed by the

government to investigate further on this issue. As GBR is a World’s Heritage Area, the location of

aquaculture adjacent to GBR is covered by Commonwealth legislation which leads to regulatory

complexities (CIE, 2014).

Therefore, this thesis is entitled ‘An investigation of the potential economic and environmental

benefits of expanding prawn aquaculture in Queensland and reassessment of anomalies in the

existing regulatory framework’ in order to contribute to filling in the current knowledge gaps and

proposing possible alternatives as to contribute in the effort of strengthening the resilience of the

GBR.

1.5.2 Scope of the research

The scope of this research encompasses analysis of the data released by government agencies, such as

reports from the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA), peer reviewed scientific journal articles on

various research projects completed involving the GBR and a close assessment of the legislation

currently applicable to aquaculture and other agricultural industries in Queensland. Several direct

inquiries were also made to the author of the Jacobs SKM benchmark study report, Dr Paul Erftemeijer,

in checking the validity of certain data used in this thesis. Another inquiry was also made to an

anonymous economist from Economic Research Service, Department of Agriculture, Government of

the United States, for further clarification on the environmental impact of different types of pollution;

point source and diffuse source pollution.

26

CHAPTER 2 Review on the Regulatory Environment of the Great Barrier

Reef and the Primary Industries Operating Adjacent to the Area

2.1 Overview of regulatory environment in Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is one of the world’s largest marine park heritage areas

and to ensure its effective protection, Australia has enacted strong legislation that render it one of

the most safeguarded marine areas in the world (Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, 2013). Hence,

any agricultural development adjacent to the GBR goes through more stringent regulatory review

and faces more impediments stemming from the laws associated with GBR protection than any other

regions in Australia (CIE, 2013, Queensland Government, 2016b).

One of the main acts concerning the protection of national heritage is the Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Department of Environment, 2015). There was

an amendment made to the principal agreement in relation to the environment between the

Commonwealth and the state of Queensland under section 45 of the EPBC Act 1999. The amendment

was aimed at streamlining and to eliminate duplication of environmental evaluation and approvals.

Through this amendment, the assessment by the State of Queensland is accredited and this enables

the Commonwealth to rely on Queensland law for the environmental evaluation process

(Department of Environment, 2015).

Another piece of legislation specifically tailored to GBRMP protection is the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMPA, n.d.). This is the primary Act that allows the establishment of the

Commonwealth-level management authority, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

(GBRMPA), for the purpose of managing the Marine Park. This act comprises an assessment regime

which includes the appointment of powers for the inspectors selected and in determining the

enforcement mechanisms (GBRMPA, n.d.). However, the implications of this act raised concerns from

several parties given the veto power held by the GBRMPA in determining the approval of a proposed

development such as aquaculture. Quoting Helen Jenkins in Australian Prawn Farmers Association

(APFA)’s additional comments to the Pivot North final paper in November 2014, “The ‘elephant in the

room’ that will inhibit aquaculture development in the North of Queensland will continue to be the

Commonwealth agencies GBRMPA/SEWPAC who can veto any decision granted for development

under state bilateral agreements and have the ability to turn on or off aquaculture regulations as

confirmed relevant State authorities” (Jenkins, 2014).

27

This shows that the GBRMPA is the final decider for any development proposed to be operated

adjacent to the GBR and the establishment of GBRMPA in 1975 was in the effort to safeguard the

GBR from further degradation. GBRMPA’s function and the Reef Plan establishment in managing the

GBR’s condition are undeniable but a question that may be raised is ‘Why has the GBR coral cover

reduced to an appalling 20-30% (Brodie and Waterhouse, 2012), even though the strong science-for-

management ethic by the GBRMPA and the highly-costed Reef Plan have been established to function

as the GBR’s guardians?’. This remains an area that this thesis aims to further analyse which involves

a case study of the management bodies in protecting and guarding the GBR.

2.2 Point source pollutant

2.2.1 Regulations specifically aimed at aquaculture operation

Under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, a legislation explicitly aimed at aquaculture was

prepared, namely the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000 (GBRMPA,

n.d.). This legislation contains the regulations pertaining to the waste discharge from aquaculture

activities that may have an adverse impact towards the flora and fauna in the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park (GBRMPA, n.d.). Under this legislation, Queensland law may be accredited by the

Minister of Queensland only if there is a proposal for the law accreditation with sufficient information

on how the Queensland law is able to demonstrate essential protection towards the Marine Park

(GBRMPA, n.d.). In addition, this legislation requires permit application from the GBRMPA for prawn

farms proposed after 1st October 1999 that are bigger than 5 hectares (Department of Environment

and Heritage Protection, 2013).

According to the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), aquaculture is regulated

at every level of government which includes the local council, state and federal government

(Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2015). Various approval applications are required in which

every approval is evaluated under the Fisheries Act 1994 by Fisheries Queensland (Department of

Agriculture and Fisheries, 2015). A summary of the regulatory framework is as shown in Tables 6 and

7.

28

Table 6. The development-related approval requirements before starting an aquaculture operation in Queensland (Queensland Government, 2017).

Activity Approval type Legislation Assessing agency

Development-related

Self-assessable aquaculture (complies with Code AQUA01)

None if it complies with the code

Sustainable Planning Act 2009

No assessment if complies with the code

Assessable aquaculture development (outside scope of Code AQUA01)

Development approval for material change of use for aquaculture


Fisheries Queensland

• Biosecurity

• Aquatic health

• Fish habitats




Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP)

• General environmental protection

• Effluent discharge




EHP

• Water extraction in freshwater areas

Marine plant removal for farm maintenance (complies with Code MP03)

None if it complies with the code


No assessment if complies with the code

Marine plant removal (outside scope of Code MP03)

Development approval for operational works


Fisheries Queensland

• Fish habitats

Marine plant removal (outside scope of Code MP03)

Development approval for operational works


EHP

• General environmental protection

• Vegetation clearing

29

Table 7. The non-development approval requirements before starting an aquaculture operation in Queensland (Queensland Government, 2017).

Non-development related

Activity Approval type Legislation Assessing agency

Collection of regulated species from the wild

Fishing licence General fisheries permit (GFP)

Fisheries Act 1994 Fisheries Queensland


Permit for take of protected species

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy


Permit for take of protected species

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975

GBRMPA

Purchase of broodstock from licensed commercial fishers

Docket of sale Fisheries Act 1994 Fisheries Queensland

Translocation of aquatic animals into Queensland from other states

Translocation approval


Importation of aquatic animals from outside Australia

Import permit Quarantine Act 1908 Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

Food safety (if product is for human consumption)

Compliance with Food Safety Program

Food Act 2006, Food Production (Safety) Act 2000

Safe Food Queensland Queensland Health

Stocking of public dams and impoundments

General fisheries permit (GFP)


30

2.2.2 Zero net nutrient discharge requirement

The absence of new prawn farms approved in Queensland in the last decade is highly related to the

restrictive regulations associated with aquaculture (CIE, 2013). This is largely due to the ‘zero net

nutrient discharge’ requirement enforced in 2008 by SEWPAC/GBRMPA that indirectly bans any new

development of shrimp farms adjacent to the GBR (CIE, 2013). The net zero nutrient load

requirement by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acts as the primary barrier

for any new prawn aquaculture project (Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2008). Research

conducted by CSIRO illustrated that prawn aquaculture farms in Australia were already highly

regulated and on par with world best practice discharge water quality even prior to the enforcement

of this new requirement (CSIRO, 2002). Consultants have also reported that although this new

requirement can be met with the use of cutting edge technology, it is highly unlikely to be

economically achievable (CIE, 2013).

2.2.3 Operational Policy for Marine Prawn Aquaculture in Queensland

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Queensland Department of Environment and

Heritage Protection is the managing authority and it has established an operational policy for prawn

aquaculture in Queensland (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013). This policy

was first approved in May 2001 and the main objectives of this policy are to standardise the

wastewater discharge for existing prawn farms and to construct programs to monitor and evaluate

the performance of each farm. However, this policy is not applicable to facilities which have used

innovative management techniques or new implementation such as zero nutrient discharge and total

recycling (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013).

This policy is related to several other regulations namely the GBRMP (Aquaculture) Regulation 2000,

Fisheries Act 1994 and EPBC Act 1999. The Fisheries Act 1999 also requires farms to obtain permits

from DAF (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013).

The licensing criteria set in this policy pertaining to wastewater discharge were based on the work

done by Cooperative Research Centre for Aquaculture (CRC) (Department of Environment and

Heritage Protection, 2013). Based on this policy, the maximum net discharged values for total

suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus are 75 mg L-1, 3.0 mg L-1 and 0.40 mg L-1 respectively

(Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013).

31

2.3 Diffuse source pollutants

2.3.1 Regulations imposed on cattle grazing and sugarcane farming for reef protection

The excessive use of fertiliser, pesticides and suspended solids from cattle grazing and sugarcane

farming have been reported to contribute significant amount of diffuse source pollutants into the

GBR lagoon (Queensland Government, 2015a). To safeguard the GBR, several pieces of legislation

including the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and the Chemical Usage Act 1988 were passed

(Queensland Government, 2015a). These regulations require the cane farmers in the Burdekin,

Mackay Whitsunday and Wet Tropics catchments to record their fertilisers use and manage the

nutrients released properly by calculating the required amount of fertiliser (nitrogen and

phosphorus) (Queensland Government, 2015a). Furthermore, specified qualifications are required

for the sugarcane growers and cattle graziers for the handling, preparing, applying, transporting and

storing of chemicals. The use of herbicides also subject to certain requirements for sugarcane

growers in Wet Tropics, Burdekin and Mackay Whitsunday catchments (Queensland Government,

2015a).

Sugarcane farmers and graziers are encouraged to adopt the voluntary Smartcane BMP and Grazing

BMP (Queensland Government, 2015a). Through the BMPs, consistent reporting in regard to the

industry progress towards the water quality targets outlined in the Reef Plan is expected. After the

execution of BMPs, the need for regulation enforcement will be considered by the Queensland

government (Queensland Audit Office, 2015). It is noteworthy that the BMP implementation is only

through voluntary code of practice.

2.3.2 Reef Plan and GBRMPA Water Quality Guidelines

Various studies revealed that cropping activity such as large-scale sugarcane cultivation leads to a

significant amount of nutrient runoff (Bainbridge et al., 2009, Webster et al., 2012). Furthermore, it

has been postulated that the high level of suspended solids are mainly contributed by grazing and

cropping (Packett et al., 2009). Realizing the increasing detrimental effect of poor quality water to

reef health, the Reef Plan was initiated in 2003 through Australian and Queensland collaboration to

help addressing this major concern by monitoring the runoffs from the land use types in reef

catchments. The long term objective of the Reef Plan development is to ensure that the water

entering the GBR to be of safe quality and harmless to reef resilience by 2020 through better

management practice of the land holders in reef catchments (Reef Plan, 2014a).

The Reef Plan is specifically targeted at controlling diffuse source pollution by agriculture activities

(Reef Plan, 2014a). One of the main targets set to be achieved by 2018 is to ensure that 90% of

32

sugarcane, grazing, horticulture and cropping are carried out with best management practices

(BMPs) in the prioritized areas (Reef Plan, 2014a).

Tables 8 and 9 depict the water quality guidelines set by the GBRMPA Water Quality Guidelines 2010

for diffuse pollutants (GBRMPA, 2010). The GBRMPA focuses on determining the allowable diffuse

pollutant loads toward to the GBR lagoon. According to the findings from the Reef Plan, the diffuse

pollutants are the main source of anthropogenic contaminants (GBRMPA, 2010). The allowable

diffuse pollutant loads into the GBR for chlorophyll a, suspended solids, particulate nitrogen and

particulate phosphorus are 0.45 µg L-1, 2.0 mg L-1 , 20 µg L-1 and 2.8 µg L-1 respectively in the open

coastal and midshelf sections of the reef as shown below (GBRMPA, 2010).

Table 8.Guideline trigger values for water clarity and chlorophyll a targeted for diffuse pollutants.

Sourced from GBRMPA Water Quality Guidelines 2010 (GBRMPA, 2010).

Table 9.Guideline trigger values for suspended solid (SS), particulate nitrogen (PN) and particulate phosphorus (PP) targeted at diffuse pollutants.

Sourced from GBRMPA Water Quality Guidelines 2010 (GBRMPA, 2010).

33

2.4 Review on the Current Monitoring System and Agricultural Industries in the Great

Barrier Reef

Progressive monitoring of the GBR condition

2.4.1 Reef Plan 2003

Although the GBRMPA was established in 1975, a more proactive initiative to start a plan for

protecting the GBR started in 2003 with the initial establishment of the Reef Water Quality Protection

Plan or also known as the Reef Plan. The objective of this plan was to address pollutants from diffuse

sources of broad scale land use (Queensland Government, 2003). Diffuse sources of pollution

generally enter the waterways from various sources which are not attributed to one point of dispersal

(e.g pipe). The Reef Plan was then updated in 2009 in order to produce a baseline record of the

pollutant loads (Reef Plan, 2015). The Reef Plan was again updated in 2013 to report on the findings

on the conditions of the GBR by making a comparison with the initial readings recorded in 2009

baseline report (Reef Plan, 2014b).

2.4.2 First Report Card 2009 Baseline

In order to monitor the water quality progress in the GBR waters, the First Report Card of baseline in

2009 was created to serve as the starting position of all the effluent targets to be achieved in the

Reef Plan (Reef Plan, 2015).

Overall, there were some improvements of GBR water quality in comparison to its condition in 2003.

However, some of the discoveries revealed that there were still some areas of concern and were

highlighted in the main findings. One of the main findings reported was that the amount of dissolved

nitrogen was found to be 31,000 tonnes which suggests excessive use of fertiliser (as shown in Table

10). Moreover, around 28 tonnes of pesticides was reported to enter the reef per year (Reef Plan,

2015).

34

Table 10. The collated data of pollutant loads onto the GBR regions from the 2009 baseline report (Reef Plan,

2015). Note the large dissolved nitrogen signature arising from the Wet Tropics region.

The detailed diffuse-pollutant loads from each agricultural user in GBR regions based on the 2009

baseline report are shown in Table 11 and the main agricultural user in the Wet Tropics region is the

sugarcane farming.

To achieve the targets set in the Reef Plan, a comparison of current reef condition with pre-European

conditions would be necessary to gauge the natural optimal level of the pollutants in order to proetct

the water quality. The estimation of pre-European conditions was done mainly through SedNet

modelling in a study by Brodie et al (2010) to approximate the mean annual contaminant loads.

Region

Catchment/

km² Landholders

Land farmed /

km²

Suspended solids

per

annum/tonnes

Total

Nitrogen/

tonnes

Dissolved

Nitrogen/

tonnes

Total

Phosphorus/

tonnes

Dissovled

Phosphorus

load/ tonnes

Photosystem

inhibiting (PSII)

pesticides kg's

Cape York 43,000 30 30 2,000,000 14,000 5,500 1,500

Wet Tropics 22,000 1857 2198 1,400,000 16,000 11,000 2,000 530 10,000

Burdekin 140,000 1676 129217 4,700,000 14,000 5,700 2,600 430 4,900

Mackay Whitsunday 9,000 1352 1686 1,500,000 8,100 3,300 2,200 370 10,000

Fitzroy 156,000 3697 123058 4,100,000 15,000 2,700 4,100 245 2,300

Burnett Mary 53,000 1027 1159 3,100,000 13,000 2,800 3,100 350 990

TOTALS 423,000 9639 257348 16,800,000 80,100 31,000 15,500 1,925 28,190(Data collected from GBR baseline

report 2009)

35

Table 11. The breakdown of diffuse-pollutant loads from each agricultural user in GBR regions based on the 2009 baseline report (Reef Plan, 2015).

Cape York Landholders

Land farmed

(km²)

Suspended solids per

annum Total nitrogen Dissolved Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Dissolved phosphorus load

Photosystem

inhibiting (PSII)

pesticide Pesticides include

Catchment covers:

43k km²

2.4 million tonnes (1.9

million tonnes are from

human activity)

14,000 tonnes (11,000

tonnes are from human

activity)

5,500 tonnes of which

2,700 tonnes is from

human activity


1,100 tonnes are from

human activity

No info due to lack

of monitoring

Horticulture 30 30

Wet Tropics Landholders

Land farmed

(km²)



Photosystem

inhibiting (PSII)


Catchment covers:

22k km²



human activity)

16,000 tonnes (11,000


activity)


6,300 tonnes is from

human activity

2,000 tonnes per year

of which 1,500 tonees

is from human activity

530 tonnes of which 230

tonnes is from human

activity 10,000 kg per year

duiron, atrazine,

hexazinone,

simazine,

tebuthiuron

Sugarcane 1527 1947

Horticulture 330 251

Burdekin Landholders

Land farmed

(km²)



Photosystem

inhibiting (PSII)


Catchment covers:

141k km²



human activity)

14,000 tonnes (11,000


activity)



human activity



human activity




duiron, atrazine,

hexazinone,

ametryn

Sugarcane 657 1061

Grazing 827 128,000


Mackay W. Landholders

Land farmed

(km²)



Photosystem

inhibiting (PSII)


Catchment covers:

9k km²



human activity)

8,100 tonnes (7,200


activity)



human activity



human activity




duiron, atrazine,

hexazinone,

ametryn

Sugarcane 1320 1674

Horticulture 32 12

Fitzroy Landholders

Land farmed

(km²)



Photosystem

inhibiting (PSII)


Catchment covers:

156k km²



human activity)

15,000 tonnes (13,000


activity) (particulate

nitrogen 12,000 tonnes)



human activity



human activity




Sugarcane

Grazing 3591 123,000

Horticulture 106 58

Burnett Mary Landholders

Land farmed

(km²) Suspended solids per annumTotal nitrogen Dissolved Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Dissolved phosphorus load

Photosystem

inhibiting (PSII)


Catchment covers:

53k km²

3.1 millin tonnes (2.8


human activities)

13,000 tonnes (12,000


activity)



human activity



human activity



activity 990 kg per year

Sugarcane 747 968


36

2.4.3 Report Card 2013 – Reef Water Quality Protection Plan

To further evaluate the progress towards the targets set in the baseline Report Card in 2009, the

Report Card 2013 was published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat (Queensland

Department of Heritage and Protection) to document changes in water quality. The main highlights

obtained from the Report Card 2013 were, firstly, that there was a reduction in the pollutant loads

flowing into the reef, and, secondly that high percentage of landholders were adopting improved

management practices, however, there were still some areas of concern regarding the level of

pollutant loads (Reef Plan, 2014b). The aim to reach a 50% reduction in nitrogen waste by the year

2013 was not met as there was only a 10% reduction reported, even though almost half of the total

sugarcane farmers in the GBR catchment had adopted the improved management practices shown in

Figure 4 below (Reef Plan, 2014b). It is important to note that a study done between 2006-2009 by

the then Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland, revealed that the

pollutant yield per area was the highest for Wet Tropics and Whitsundays region that were mainly

farmed for sugarcane and other intensive activities (Joo et al., 2012, Kroon, 2012).

Drawing from the aforementioned data, it remains an area of concern as a continuous adoption of

improved management practice by the sugarcane farmers may not reduce the level of nitrogen waste

as expected after a certain threshold point. This may present uncertainties in achieving the goals set

for the Reef Plan 2020 and in expecting significant reduction in nitrogen waste entering the reef as

the adoption of improved management practice by a large number of sugarcane farmers did not bring

about proportionate improvements in the pollutant release.

Figure 5. Main summary of the findings from Report Card 2013 which illustrates the target set to be achieved in 2013 and the actual achievements (Reef Plan, 2014b). The highlight is on the minimal nitrogen reduction of 10% in comparison to the aim set at 50%.

Furthermore, according to the Scientific Consensus Statement made by the key scientists

commissioned in 2013, although there is a reduction in the pollutant loads to GBR since the last

Consensus Statement in 2008, there is still poor quality of water discharged from the catchment areas

37

in multiple regions (Reef Plan, 2014b). Therefore, it is crucial to have an in-depth understanding of the

main land-based runoffs that contribute to the ill effect on the reef which will be discussed in the next

section of this review.

2.5 Effluent loads

2.5.1 Effluent loads from diffuse source pollutants

Diffuse sources of pollutants, such as from sugarcane farming, grazing and forestry are harder to

measure and evaluate in comparison to point sources of pollutants such as from shrimp aquaculture,

as pointed out by the benchmark study done by Jacobs SKM (Erftemeijer, 2014). This benchmark study

was completed as contracted by QCA in the effort of Queensland Government to decide on regulatory

reform for aquaculture in Queensland (Erftemeijer, 2014). Further analysis on this benchmark study

is discussed in next chapter of this thesis. Table 11 comprises the main agricultural users in GBR region

which produce diffuse source of pollutants based on GBR 2009 baseline report. However, the

contribution of each agricultural activity with the specific amount of each pollutant type is not

documented in the report as diffuse pollutants are harder to measure precisely. For example, in the

region of Wet Tropics of GBR, the main agricultural activities listed are sugarcane and horticulture.

However, the pollutant loads measured are recorded in a broad form, for instance, the amount of

total nitrogen from human activity are stated as 11,000 tonnes (from 1947 km² of sugarcane farms

and 251 km² of horticulture) from the contribution of both sugarcane and horticulture.

It was also noted that there is limited information on the specific nitrogen loss in runoff water from

sugarcane farms (Thorburn et al., 2011b, Bartley and Speirs, 2010). Although there are some values

reported by Bengtson et al (1998) and Kwong et al (2002) that range from a few kg ha-1 yr-1 to 20 kg

ha-1 yr-1 of nitrogen loss from sugarcane production, these studies focused on findings from other

locations; Louisiana and Mauritius respectively. Furthermore, the amount of nitrogen from land-based

runoff in these two studies was from different types of soil. Therefore, the data of these studies are

not highly comparable to GBR studies. This view is also supported by Bartley and Speirs (2010) who

emphasized that water quality data may be significantly different and variable depending on the type

of soil under study, the condition of the land and the pattern of rainfall in the region. Nevertheless, in

some of the studies done in Australia, the nitrogen loss has been measured to be less than 5 kg ha-1

yr-1 according to Prove et al (1997) and Thorburn et al (2011b). In addition, based on the report from

the Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research (ACTFR) entitled, ‘Sources of Sediment and

Nutrient Exports to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area’, the nitrogen emission rate from

sugarcane farming in Wet Tropics (Johnston basin) marks the highest nitrogen emission of 32.1 kg ha-

1 yr-1 (Brodie et al., 2007).

38

One of the primary threats to the GBR is the COTS outbreak that is associated with the high level of

DIN (Furnas et al., 2005). DIN mainly originates from the rivers located in the Wet Tropics and Burdekin

regions as reported by Brodie and Mitchell (2005) and Fabricius et al (2010). DIN is highly associated

with the degradation of coral cover in GBR in which the COTS outbreak equates to approximately 37%

of GBR coral mortality (Osborne et al., 2011). Hence it is not surprising that the year 1985 to 2012

witnessed the loss of more than half of the GBR coral cover (mean coral cover for surveyed reefs falling

from 28% to 13.8%) and COTS outbreak is one of the top two causes (De’ath et al., 2012).

I assert that this may also be aggravated by the rather lenient management strategy targeted to the

sugarcane farmers as the use of the voluntary BMPs as one of the parameters used in the Reef Plan.

As stated in Queensland Audit Office (QAO), only after the extension of BMPs, will the need for

regulation enforcement be considered by the Queensland government (Queensland Audit Office,

2015).

Based on the main findings summarised by the Scientific Consensus Statement 2013, the highest water

quality risk of all the regions in the GBR area is Wet Tropics, followed by Fitzroy, Mackay, Burdekin,

Cape York and Burnett Mary (Brodie et al., 2013). Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the catchment region is in

the GBR and the proportion of land use in each region. It is noteworthy that the Wet Tropics region

indicates the highest annual average rainfall with >2500mm in most parts of the region (Figure 6).

Moreover, the Wet Tropics and Mackay regions are also marked with higher proportion of sugarcane

farming in comparison with other regions (Figure 7).

39

Figure 6. The catchment regions in Great Barrier Reef (Australian Government, 2009).

Figure 7. The land use proportion in each catchment of Great Barrier Reef (Australian Government, 2009).

40

The experts in the Scientific Consensus Statement in 2013 (Brodie et al., 2013) also concluded that

the degraded water quality in Wet Tropics calls for priority management in terms of nitrogen control,

whereas Fitzroy and Burdekin are prioritised for the control of suspended sediment. In addition,

Mackay Whitsunday and lower Burdekin require stringent herbicide management (Brodie et al., 2013).

Furthermore, the findings from Source Catchments modelling illustrate that more than 90% of

photosystem II inhibiting herbicide load is due to sugarcane cultivation (Brodie et al., 2013). The main

crop in the GBR region is sugarcane and it has been reported that 43% of anthropogenic DIN comes

from the Wet Tropics (Brodie et al., 2013).

Table 12 summarises the main management priorities in order to improve the deteriorated water

quality of GBR. The first in rank for priortised management is the Wet Topics followed by Burdekin

and Mackay (Brodie et al., 2013).

Table 12. The priority regions for reducing pollution in the GBR region (Brodie et al., 2013).

In conclusion, it can be seen that the diffuse source of pollutants in GBR are mainly dominated by the

significant impact of the high DIN due to the intensive sugarcane cultivation in the Wet Tropics. This

41

calls for drastic management intervention to halt the escalating level of DIN and, thereby, further COTS

outbreak that would degrade the coral reef.

2.5.2 Effluent loads of point source pollutant

Point sources of pollution can be attributed to a point of dispersal (e.g pipe or waste outlet) which

include sewage and aqauculture (Queensland Government, 2003). Prawn aquaculture releases waste

water through end-of-pipe and is considered as point source pollution. A set of studies conducted

from 1995 to 2002 assessed the biggest prawn farms in Queensland and New South Wales by the

experts and scientists from distinguished institutions such as CSIRO, University of Queensland, AIMS,

University of Sydney, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage and New South Wales

Environment Protection Authority (CSIRO, 2002). The studies took into account the different discharge

environment conditions and water management systems that comprised of both recirculating and

flow through (Jackson et al., 2004). The major findings are that Australian prawn farms operate with

world best practice in discharged water quality, as the cutting edge technology in treatment systems

allows some farms to increase prawn farm productivity with no nett increase in the effluent loads to

the receiving environment if best practice methods are applied (CSIRO, 2002).

An illustration from the research summary also revealed that the expansion of prawn farms from 717

hectares to 5000 hectares would contribute to GVP increase from $40 million to $400 million. 5000

ha is equivalent to less than 1.4% of the current sugarcane farm area (CSIRO, 2002).

The following table records the effluent emission from prawn aquaculture extracted from ACIL report

(ACIL, 2002).

Table 13. The effluent discharge data from prawn aquaculture farms (ACIL, 2002) (note: units have been converted to the same unit used by Jacobs SKM for ease of comparison).

Prawn Farms

Landholders

Land

farmed (ha)

Total

Nitrogen

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

Total

Phosphorus

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

Suspended

solids (kg

ha-1 yr-1)

23 500 106 13.2 2,628

Based on ACIL Consulting report to APFA in 2002 (ACIL, 2002)

Trott and Alongi (2000) found no major differences in sediment and dissolved nutrients concentrations

in estuaries that were exposed to prawn farm effluent in comparison to the control estuary. It was

concluded that the intermittent nutrient discharge from prawn farms were dissipated and assimilated

by the mangrove tides of the estuaries (Trott and Alongi, 2000). To further understand the main source

42

of nitrogen in the effluent from prawn farms, it is important that formulated feed given to farmed

shrimps contributes to major nitrogen input to the ponds (Jackson et al., 2003). The high effluent level

of sediment and nutrients are likely to give rise to algal blooms and create oxygen-deficient or anoxic

conditions (Naylor et al., 1998, Smith et al., 1999). Robertson and Phillips (1995) found that effluent

assimilation is possible and that for one hectare of shrimp pond to undergo effluent assimilation, at

least 2 to 22 hectares of mangrove area is required.

Many countries including Australia place discharge limit on agricultural and aquacultural operations

regulating the effluent levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended solids (Burford et al., 2003b).

However, Wolanski (2000) showed that there is a fluctuation in this parameter in short periods of time

and therefore it remains an ineffective measure to evaluate water quality temporally and spatially. As

concluded by Burford (2003), an alternative method to effectively evaluate water quality associated

with anthropogenic activity is through the evaluation of the main ecological processes and the

associated parameters although this approach requires more effort (Burford et al., 2003b) . The

recommendations for effective water quality measurements is the assessment of the nutrients’

impact to phytoplanktons, primary production rates, fish grazing patterns and the increased level of

δ15 nitrogen (δ15N ) ratios in marine plants (Burford et al., 2003b).

In view of these findings from the literature, a further critical analysis on the water quality evaluation

of agricultural activities and aquaculture is included in the next chapter of this thesis.

43

CHAPTER 3 Investigation on the environmental impacts of the nutrient

emission from sugarcane farming and prawn aquaculture and

assessment of the current regulatory system in Queensland

3.1 Introduction The literature review presented in the previous chapters discussed the eroding health of the GBR and

the importance of examining the industries operating adjacent to the GBR. This chapter investigates

the industries’ status quo to determine the environmental impact of the industries based on the

current development and the attempts made to reduce the emissions of nutrient.

The investigation of the industries’ environmental impacts in this chapter also analyses the Jacobs

SKM benchmark study. Jacobs SKM was contracted by QCA to produce a benchmarking study

encompassing aquaculture and other agricultural industries to assist the Queensland Government in

determining the need for regulatory reform of aquaculture in Queensland (Erftemeijer, 2014). The

study compared the environmental and economic aspects of the industries, but an emphasis was given

to the nutrient discharges to adjacent coastal waters (Erftemeijer, 2014). Although the study

completed was a good effort in collating all the input from the available literature, the section on the

environmental aspect, particularly the effluent emissions, has some shortcomings, as elaborated in

this chapter.

This chapter also investigates the likely inertia effect observed from the current industries in

Queensland concerning the sugarcane and prawn aquaculture industries. The work of Brennan more

than a decade ago concluded that, “The economic cost associated with targeting new, point source

polluting industries, at the expense of incumbent diffuse source industries, should be considered

carefully. While it may be easier to target point source pollution, and while it may be politically difficult

to impose strict control over long-established industries, the efficiency costs of such biased policies

could be high” (Brennan, 1999). The aforementioned conclusion made by Brennan emphasized on the

‘waste disposal’ issue that remains a big concern for an emerging industry like prawn aquaculture in

Queensland to compete with the incumbent diffuse source industry such as sugarcane.

44

3.2 Data and Methods

Investigate the environmental impacts of both prawn aquaculture

and sugarcane farming to the health of the Great Barrier Reef.

Analyse the environmental impacts of sugarcane farming and

prawn aquaculture industry based on the recommended parameter

besides the ‘nutrient per hectare’ approach used in the Jacobs SKM

benchmark study. Use examples from other countries on evaluating

the environmental impacts of point source and diffuse source

pollution.

Explore the most recent industrial technology breakthroughs to

reveal the sustainability level of each industry.

Recommend strategies for reducing the nutrients released to the

GBR based on the analyses done.

Investigation of the main challenge faced in achieving the water

quality targets as specified in the Reef Plan.

45

3.3 Results

3.3.1 Industry Status Quo

3.3.1.1 Advances in sugarcane industry to operate sustainably

Smartcane BMP

As nitrogen contained in the fertiliser used by the sugarcane farmers pose significant environmental

risk especially to the GBR (Webster et al., 2012, Skocaj et al., 2013), a program called Smartcane BMP

was developed in 2013 by the CANEGROWERS through the funding supplied by the Queensland

government (Department of Agriculture, 2014). This program aimed at assisting sugarcane growers in

understanding and learning how to better handle and use fertiliser with training and certification

provided (Department of Agriculture, 2014).

Examples of further innovations and breakthroughs done by the cane industry are as follows.

Project Catalyst

One of the efforts made by the sugarcane industry in collaboration with several bodies including

Terrain NRM, Coca Cola Foundation and World Wildlife Fund is the Project Catalyst (Department of

the Environment, 2016). This program generally comprises of 70 sugarcane growers from the three

NRM regions namely Terrain Wet Tropics, Mackay Whitsunday and the NQ Dry Tropics (Jaime, 2014,

Mauloni, 2016). These 70 sugarcane growers are participating in a trial to develop and to validate new

farm practices that could improve the water quality into the GBR (Mauloni, 2016). The aim of Project

Catalyst is to establish ways to develop farming practices that are environmentally sustainable for

sugarcane growers (Diana, 2016).

This program obtained its funding through the Australian Government’s Reef Program and operates

through active learning and demonstration trials for three years (Department of the Environment,

2016). The interested sugarcane farmers can apply for funding and support to take part in this program

(Jaime, 2014).

In February 2016, Terrain NRM held the Project Catalyst Forum, which gathered more than 70 cane

growers from North Queensland and other partners including the WWF, Coca Cola Foundation, Reef

Catchments and Australian Government (Terrain NRM, 2016). This forum involved presentations

made on the advances in robotics use and other innovation such as Bayer’s bio-pesticide (Terrain

NRM, 2016). Furthermore, another innovation discussed that could reduce runoff and save water was

46

the use of radio transmitters and moisture probes which could turn the irrigation off at the right time

(Mauloni, 2016).

Improvements in the nitrogen fertiliser application rates

Table 14 below illustrates various alternatives for management of nitrogen fertilizer by sugarcane

growers. The work done by Schroeder et al (2009) showed that the only approach that allows for yield

productivity, cost effective inputs with improved environmental impact is the “Six Easy Steps”.

Furthermore, it has been postulated that the least used nitrogen alternative called the N-replacement

strategy is not favourable due to the lower yield in both cane and sugar, and hence reduces the

growers’ profitability (Shroeder et al., 2009). Although the N-replacement strategy may be the most

preferred option in the aspect of being least detrimental to the environment, the economic analysis

showed it is not economically viable for the growers. The Grower-developed method is associated

with higher nitrogen inputs but with similar yield and therefore is not desirable (Shroeder et al., 2009).

Table 14. The various nitrogen management strategies utilized in the sugarcane industry in Australia (Shroeder et al., 2009).

The trend observed in the Australian sugarcane industry is that it initially focusses on production

maximisation, followed by profit optimization and the latest strategy is on minimizing environmental

impact to the GBR (Wood et al., 2000, Thorburn et al., 2010). The following flow chart illustrates the

evolution of nitrogen management of the sugarcane industry in Australia.

47

Evolution of nitrogen management strategy in Australian sugarcane industry

Conventional grower approach

• The nutrient application rate is fixed.

• Crops are usually over-fertilized and less profitable due to the fertiliser wastage.

• Detrimental to the environment with the significant excess of nitrogen in runoff.

Utilizing target yield approach by supplying the nutrient in correspondence to the crop demand

namely the target yield

• Con: Not always possible to reach target yield. Hence, nutrient released in runoff is in

excess and potentially degrading the environment.

Strategies formed on the basis of highlighting the importance of safeguarding the environment:

Six Easy Steps

• Based on soil type and district yield potential (Cal-Gran, 2016).

• Current BMP in Australia

• Takes into account that N supply used up by crops not necessarily sourced from fertiliser

only.

• District Yield Potential determined for all soil types (Schroeder et al., 2010). The baseline

nitrogen application rates for each region are determined by taking into consideration the

soil type.

N-Replacement strategy

• Determine the N amount removed in the harvested crop using N concentration of the

cane harvested and the actual harvested cane yield (Thorburn et al., 2010).

• The fertiliser nitrogen required in this strategy takes into account the loss of nitrogen

through the harvested cane, to the environment and the factor of the burning system.

• The most environmental-friendly of all the nitrogen management methods.

48

The Australian sugar industry has developed two nitrogen calculation systems to better manage the

nitrogen runoff such as the Six Easy Steps and N Replacement strategy (Skocaj et al., 2013)

Six Easy Steps

The Six Easy Steps are the updated guidelines that take into account the soil and site characteristics

to have minimized nitrogen application rate (Wood et al., 2003, Schroeder et al., 2010, Schroeder et

al., 2007). The objective of the Six Easy Steps is to encourage sustainable sugarcane growing practice

with minimal nitrogen input regardless of the price of sugar (Skocaj et al., 2013). This program is also

part of the Australian sugarcane industry’s BMP selections as to move towards more sustainable

practice as the sugarcane farms in Queensland are adjacent to the highly significant and protected

World Heritage Great Barrier Reef (Skocaj et al., 2012).

In Six Easy Steps, the calculation for the nitrogen application rate includes determining the nitrogen

baseline required for the District Yield Potential (DYP). DYP is defined as the approximated average of

the highest annual district yield with multiplication by the factor 1.2 (Schroeder et al., 2010). Besides

the soil tests which are considered vital in the Six Easy Steps success, the leaf tests are also essential

in determining the sufficiency of the fertilizer inputs (Schroeder et al., 2006). Furthermore, the method

of dertermining N baseline application rates is viable through the N mineralisation index based on the

the soil organic carbon as demonstrated by the work of Walkley and Black (1934). An example of the

nitrogen application guidelines is as shown below which incorporates the N mineralisation index with

the DYP. Through this way, the nitrogen leached in the runoff is highly likely minimized and has been

the basis of the present BMP in Australia.

Table 15. The guidelines for nitrogen application rates established from the mineralisation index of nitrogen for the zones with approximated district yield potential of 120 tonne of cane per hectare (Schroeder et al., 2005).

In addition to the Six Easy Steps, another N management strategy developed is the N-replacement

system. In comparison to all of the strategies, the N Replacement stratgey has shown to be the most

49

environmental friendly but the main issue revolving this strategy is it may not be economically

effective for the landholders.

N- Replacement system

The genesis of N-replacement strategy stemmed from the aims set to achieve environmental and

economic balance in the use of nitrogen in Australian sugarcane industry. In this strategy, it is

recognised that only a portion of N is directly obtained from fertilizer in which sugarcane gets 30-40%

of its total requirement of N from fertiliser (Chapman, 1994, Vallis et al., 1996). The remaining N

requirement is obtained from the soil and from the mineralised organic matter.

One of the primary factors in N-Replacement strategy is the need to determine the total of nitrogen

detached in the crop harvested (Thorburn et al., 2011a). This is feasible through the approximation

made of the N concentration in the cane harvested (approximation: 0.6 kg N/tonne cane) with the

amount of actual cane yield collected in a block (Thorburn et al., 2011a).

It has been reported that the N lost through burning could be up to 0.3 N/tonne cane and another

way of nitrogen is removed is through the immobilisation that takes place in the soil organic matter.

Furthermore, an inevitable loss to the environment accounts for another 0.4 kg N/tonne cane

(Thorburn et al., 2011a).

Therefore, to replace or compensate for the loss of nitrogen, the sum of fertiliser nitrogen needed in

the N-Replacment srategy is 1 kg N/tonne cane for the green cane trash retention or 1.3 kg N/tonne

cane in the burning system.

According to the Sugar Research Australia (SRA) report, although this srategy is the best for the

environment currently, the application of N-Replacement strategy is not widely adopted yet due to

the insufficient tests carried out in determining the profitability and productivity of this strategy.

As shown in the following table, the N-Replacement strategy (NRep) shows the least productivity and

economic return in comparison to the traditional grower’s approach and the Six Easy Steps (6ES) in

the two sites T-ST2 and T-ST4 (Skocaj et al., 2012).

Hence, due to the matter of the uncertainty of the productivity outcomes, this method is not yet

recommended to be widely adopted in the current BMP for sugarcane cultivation despite the

significant benefits of this approach to the environment (Skocaj et al., 2012).

50

Table 16. The productivity and profitability of sugarcane cultivated using different nitrogen treatment in Tully at three different sites in the Wet Tropics (Skocaj et al., 2012).

As shown, there have been substantial efforts made by the sugarcane industry in reducing its

environmental impact especially to the coral reef health. However, I assert that besides all the efforts

and breakthroughs shown, the question remains, “Could all of these efforts made be adequate in

reducing the environmental impact in order to achieve the water quality target set in the Reef Plan

and to have a sustainable sugarcane industry operating in the GBR? Or a drastic intervention such as

land use change needs to be implemented?”.

The next part of this chapter illustrates the breakthroughs in prawn aquaculture industry in

Queensland in order to operate more sustainably and to ensure the rigid regulations imposed on this

industry are met.

51

3.3.1.2 Breakthrough in the prawn aquaculture industry in the effort to operate more

sustainably

In contrast to the relaxed approach in managing the diffuse source polluters in the GBR, the new

practice of prawn farming was immediately singled out as an ‘Environmentally Relevant Activity’ (ERA)

and was expected to conform to sustainability regulations imposed under Queensland’s new

Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Queensland Government, 2016a, Caxton Legal Centre, 2016). ERA

is defined as any industrial activity that releases wastes or contaminants into the environment (DEHP,

2016). Even in the beginning of the industry’s operation, the prawn farmers conformed to the

discharge limits and built settlement ponds (Donovan, 2001).

The effort made by the prawn aquaculture industry could be seen since in their early operation

decades ago in making sure their practice is environmentally sustainable. For example, the

Environmental Code of Practice for Australian Prawn Farmers was released by APFA in 2001 which

emphasized on waste minimisation and the need to protect the receiving environment (Donovan,

2001). This Code of Practice was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and was contributed

by various research institutes and government agencies (Donovan, 2001). Ultimately the objective of

the Code of Practice was to ensure no tangible impact to water quality in accordance with ANZECC

(1992) guidelines (Robertson, 2000).

Adoption of sedimentation ponds (1995-2002)

The promising development of prawn aquaculture in coastal Queensland since three decades ago

fuelled vast industry-driven research studies related to prawn pond ecosystems, environmental

impacts of this industry and nutrient treatment systems. The early research studies were the seven

year study from 1995-2002 in which 30 scientists from established research centres were involved

namely institutions like CSIRO, AIMS, DEHP, Griffith University, University of Sydney and many more

(CSIRO, 2002). This seven-year multidisciplinary study conducted was comprehensive in which a fine

integrated method of analysis lead to the significant discovery such as the major ecological processes

involved in the operation of intensive shrimp ponds and the downstream impacts onto the coastal

environments (Burford et al., 2003a). Besides the quantitative analysis done, the research team also

managed to invent economical nutrient treatment system including sedimentation processes and

settlement ponds. The results of this seven-year multidisciplinary study were showcased in 42

refereed scientific publications (Burford et al., 2003a). The various research programs were

coordinated nationally and funded by the CRC, FRDC and Australian shrimp farmers paid the

environmental research levy (Preston et al., 2000).

52

The aquaculture industry has always tried to work towards operating environmentally sustainable and

an example is its contribution in the wastewater discharge limits. The licensing criteria set in the policy

pertaining to aquaculture wastewater discharge were based on the work done by Cooperative

Research Centre for Aquaculture (CRC) (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013).

Based on this policy, the maximum net discharged values for total suspended solids, nitrogen and

phosphorus are 75 mg/L, 3.0 mg/L and 0.40 mg/L respectively (Department of Environment and

Heritage Protection, 2013).

Just as some N fertiliser application strategies (eg: N-replacement system) would likely put cane

farmers out of business, there were disincentives (opportunity costs) to wasting productive farmland

constructing settlement ponds (Brennan, 1999). Once settlement ponds became standard, prawn

farmers and aquaculture researchers sought improvements in efficiency that might also see

remediation pay for itself. One hope was that waste nitrogen could be intercepted in an unfed

secondary crop grown in the settlement pond. Fish, oysters and even extensively-reared prawns were

trialled at various times but no breakthroughs occurred (O'Sullivan, 2010). But arguments of

complicated attempts to impose ‘polyculture’ paradigms about upon the new prawn farms were

suddenly upended from an unexpected quarter. Reducing seawater discharge from intensive prawn

ponds awoke a natural and yet hitherto explored microbial path for sequestration of nutrients from

feed waste -within the production pond. Some prawn species overseas flourished upon this microbial

biomass grown from uneaten feed, alas not Penaeus monodon. Nevertheless, trials in Queensland

showed that even a partial awakening of these microbial-floc pathway in ponds had environmental

benefits and saved farmers money (O'Sullivan, 2011). But while black tiger prawn farmers could not

make full use of in-pond microbial-floc remediation as feed, it turned out there is another way that

their prawns could feed upon pond-grown microbial biomass; NovacqTM.

NOVACQTM- Australian made prawn feed

The invention of NovacqTM, a marine microbe-based pellet with added proteins and minerals (Neales,

2013), is a game changer to the prawn aquaculture industry not only in Australia but worldwide. The

CSIRO’s scientist team including Dr Nigel Preston have successfully developed the prawn feed which

reduces reliance on wild fisheries which promotes sustainability (Org, 2013). Furthermore, prawns fed

with NovacqTM have shown to be more resilient towards prawn diseases such as Gill-associated Virus

(GAV) and accelerates growth by 30% (Sellars et al., 2015, Glencross et al., 2013). This will definitely

boost the productivity of the prawn aquaculture industry with the significant features such as

accelerated growth and higher resilience. It is not uncommon that the prawn aquaculture industry

53

worldwide has experienced significant downfall due to the prawn disease outbreaks such as Early

Mortality Syndrome (EMS) that have hit major countries like China, Vietnam and Malaysia a few years

ago (Zorriehzahra and Banaederakhshan, 2015). The production of NovacqTM is now licensed in

Australia, China and Vietnam (CSIRO, 2017). In the beginning of 2017 this year, the license

arrangements of this technology with Ridley Aquafeeds has been extended to other countries (CSIRO,

2017).

It is of great potential to investigate the possibility of NovacqTM to decrease the likelihood of the prawn

disease outbreak from taking place again like EMS. It may be a huge gold mine for the Australian

economy if the full potential of NovacqTM is further explored and investigated in addition to the

established name of Australia as having the world’s best practice of prawn aquaculture (Neales, 2013).

Figure 8. The production of NovacqTM.(Preston and Fitzgerald, 2013).

One of the latest advancements in the prawn aquaculture industry is the three-phase treatment

approach adopted in the prawn farm development located in Guthalungra as described in the next

section (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014).

Before the prawn farm development in Guthalungra was proposed, the two steps already existed in

which settlement ponds were standard and followed by the sand filters adoption.

For post-settlement remediation, Pacific Reef Fisheries first tested a substantial constructed

mangrove wetland at their 100ha farm at Ayr in North Queensland (O'Sullivan, 2002), but later a large

sand filter was substituted, entirely removing organic particulates from the returned seawater

(O'Sullivan, 2010).

54

Therefore, the latest three treatment systems which includes MBD’s new algae production in

Guthalungra was an enhancement of the advanced technology that they already had to harvest

inorganic nutrients from the flow.

The three treatment systems proposed in Guthalungra prawn farm: Primary sedimentation, sand

filtration and algal bioremediation.

The strategy to be adopted by the prawn farm in Guthalungra is the three-phase system in which the

waste water will initially pass through settlement ponds before going through sand filtration and

eventually the algal beds to eliminate nutrients and suspended solids as illustrated in the following

Figure 8 (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014). The settlement ponds are to be used in the initial stage as to

expel the large particles from the waste water. In addition, the sand filtration process is where the

finer particles are removed and the conversion of dissolved organic nutrient into dissolved inorganic

nutrient takes place. The final major phase is the process which involves live algae to remove the

excess nutrients and the waste water which has completed these three stages of purification is now

appropriate to be recycled or discharged into the waterways of the Marine Park subjected to the

approval conditions (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014).

Algal bioremediation has become an economic and efficient way of treating waste water by reducing

the surplus dissolved nutrients from the aquaculture effluents by utilizing live algae (Chopin et al.,

2012, Lawton et al., 2013) . Furthermore, this method is considered important especially for land-

based aquaculture which often faces red tape issues and stringent regulatory imposed on the point-

source nutrient release (West, 2015).

55

Figure 9. The process of water treatment system for the proposed Guthalungra prawn farm (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014).

Table 17. The technology advances made in the prawn aquaculture water treatment system has the potential to reduce the nutrient level from the intake water (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014).

As shown above, the latest quantum leap in the advancement of prawn aquaculture research in

sustainability has scored them the incredible algal bioremediation method which allows for ‘cleaner’

water to be discharged into the environment in comparison to the intake water that it initially

receives. Specifically, the ocean intake water is initially recorded with nitrogen concentration of 0.35

– 0.5 mg/l and after the three-phase water treatment system, the nitrogen level recorded in the water

released is from 0.15 – 0.2 mg/l (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014).

56

Guthalungra prawn farm nitrogen emission rate

20,900 kg nitrogen/year = 80.7 kg nitrogen ha-1 yr-1

259 ha*

*The full production of prawn farm is 259 ha whereas the inclusion of water treatment and storage

ponds lead up to 315 ha. In this analysis, the prawn farm production area of 259 ha is used.

As depicted above, the latest innovation and technology advances made in the water treatment

system recently allows prawn aquaculture to operate with minimal environmental impact with the

nitrogen emission rate of 80.7 kg ha-1 yr-1. This rate is lower than the nitrogen emission rates from

prawn aquaculture reported in the Jacobs SKM Benchmark Study which is discussed later in this

chapter.

Guthalungra

prawn farm

Nitrogen

emission rate Nitrogen

concentration

Ocean intake

water

0.35 – 0.5 mg/l

Treated water

output

0.15 – 0.2 mg/l

80.7 kg ha-1 yr-1

Figure 10. The water quality data from the water treatment system proposed in the Guthalungra prawn farm. This shows that the water discharged from Guthalungra prawn farm is potentially cleaner than the water input even with 80.7 kg ha-1 yr-1nitrogen emission (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014).

57

This remarkable discovery in producing ‘cleaner’ water should be highly applauded and commended

for the efforts that have been put in by the industry stakeholders in ensuring the sustainability of this

industry. However, the prawn aquaculture industry in Australia has experienced difficulties in

obtaining approvals to operate in Queensland (Courtney, 2015). One of the most likely reasons that a

point source polluter such as aquaculture has been subjected to a maze of regulatory complexities is

due to its easily measured end-of-pipe nutrient loads in comparison to its counterparts which are the

diffuse polluters, much more difficult to measure, localise the source, and regulate (Courtney, 2015).

It is a widely known fact that the biggest nutrient contributor to the GBR has always been the

agricultural industry namely the sugarcane industry in Queensland which mainly operates adjacent to

the GBR (Webster et al., 2009). The progress of Guthalungra prawn farm is hampered due to the slow

progress in obtaining the approval and the difficulty faced due to the red tape as it took more than a

decade. The MBD Limited put a pilot bioremediation unit in place at the existing Pacific Reef site and

currently daily water quality monitoring is ongoing to fulfil the requirement of emitting zero net

nutrient discharge as set by the GBRMPA (MBD Limited, 2016).

Previously, the discharge target set by EPA in 2000 was 0.48 kg N/ha/day (Treadwell et al., 1999).

Specifically, the EPA target was 130 kg N ha-1 yr-1through the calculation of (0.48*30*9= 130 kg N ha-1

yr-1) by taking 9 months as the growing period. In comparison, the Guthalungra prawn farm nitrogen

emission rate is only 80.7 kg N ha-1 yr-1which is significantly lower than the target set by EPA. This

further shows the constant effort made by the prawn aquaculture industry to operate sustainably

adjacent to the GBR. On the other hand, the diffuse polluters are still not able to demonstrate its

sustainability by not achieving the 50% nitrogen reduction target as up until 2013, only 10% of the

nitrogen has been reduced which is far off than the target set (Reef Plan, 2014b).

Conclusion

Based on the aforementioned breakthroughs made by both sugarcane and prawn aquaculture

industries, it is unequivocal that there have been great progress and immense efforts have been made

by both industries to achieve greater sustainability. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the sugarcane

industry in Australia is generally based on family-owned businesses which has been passed down from

one generation to the next generation (Moore, 2014). In addition, Canegrowers Chairman, Paul

Schembri was also quoted saying that the sugarcane industry now involves the third generation in the

cane industry (McCarthy, 2014). Therefore, since the sugarcane industry has existed many decades

before the prawn aquaculture policy, it is important to acknowledge the “grandfathering” policy that

might have been applied in constructing the regulations.

58

On the other hand, prawn aquaculture is relatively new and only started to experience growth

especially in the 1990s (Zhu and Chu, 2013). Therefore, this could contribute to the issue of the

potentially biased regulations set for these two industries in which the sugarcane industry is mostly

regulated on voluntary basis whereas the prawn aquaculture is subjected to net zero nutrient emission

with lengthy Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

However, the GBR condition has worsened especially in 2016 to the extent that has resulted in it being

reconsidered in the UNESCO’s red list of being ‘in danger’ (Clark et al., 2016). Only after considering

the immense efforts and plans that have been strategized by the Australian government to protect

the GBR, UNESCO eventually decided to remove GBR from the ‘in danger’ list. Nevertheless, the lawyer

at the Environmental Justice Australia, Ariane Wilkinson, stated that the recent mass coral bleaching

in the GBR will most likely trigger UNESCO to put GBR in the ‘in danger’ category (Slezak, 2016a) and

this will potentially affect the tourism industry in Australia significantly (AAP, 2015). This suggests that

a drastic action needs to be taken to save the reefs and this would mean taking control of whatever is

left that can be controlled such as reducing nutrients runoff from major nutrient contributor (Graham

et al., 2014, Burke et al., 2011).

To further evaluate the environmental impacts of both industries, it is also important to investigate

the nutrients loads released through the industries operation as shown in the following analysis of

Jacobs SKM’s benchmark study.

3.3.2 Critical Analysis of the Jacobs SKM’s benchmark study on effluent emissions from

shrimp aquaculture and sugarcane farms

Jacobs SKM (consultancy division) was contracted by Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) to

produce a benchmarking study encompassing aquaculture and other agricultural industries to assist

the Queensland Government in determining the need for regulatory reform of aquaculture in

Queensland (Erftemeijer, 2014). The study compared the environmental and economic aspects of the

industries, but an emphasis was given to the nutrient discharges to adjacent coastal waters

(Erftemeijer, 2014). However, the section on the environmental aspect, particularly the effluent

emissions, has some shortcomings, as elaborated below.

The levels of the nitrogen emission from prawn aquaculture that were listed in the Jacobs SKM’s

benchmark study (shown in Table 18) appeared to be higher than the ones reported by the ACIL

consulting report (in Table 19 of this chapter). Hence, the source of the nitrogen emissions listed in

the Jacobs SKM’s study were investigated.

59

Table 18. Summary of effluent emissions sourced from Table 7 of the Jacobs SKM benchmark study (Erftemeijer, 2014).

Type of land use Nitrogen emission reported in

Jacobs SKM study (kg ha-1 yr-1)

Prawn aquaculture (Queensland) 175.2 - 657

Sugarcane farming <1 - 138

The following Table 19 provides the effluent emission from prawn aquaculture extracted from ACIL

report (2002). However, a comparison between Table 18 and Table 19 reveals significant differences

in the prawn aquaculture effluent emission especially nitrogen.

Table 19. The effluent discharge data from prawn aquaculture farms (ACIL, 2002) (note: units have been converted to the same unit used by Jacobs SKM for ease of comparison).

Prawn Farms

Landholders

Land

farmed (ha)

Total

Nitrogen

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

Total

Phosphorus

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

Suspended

solids

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

23 500 106 13.2 2,628

Based on CRC 2002 study used in ACIL Consulting report to APFA in 2002 (ACIL, 2002)

Table 19 depicts the effluent discharge data extracted from the ACIL report (ACIL, 2002). Specifically,

the 106 kg N ha-1 yr-1 is derived from the calculation of (53,000 kg/500 ha=106 kg N ha-1 yr-1). A high

variance in the measured effluent discharge from prawn aquaculture farms is observed, when a

comparison is made between the data in Table 18 and Table 19. This triggered further analysis and

the need to dissect the emission values reported in the Jacobs SKM benchmark study.

As reported in the Jacobs SKM bechmark study, the summarised results included in Table 18 were

based on the data obtained from the following tables (Table 20 for prawn aquaculture & Table 22 for

sugarcane farm). To obtain a more comprehensive data on the nutrient emissions from sugarcane

farms and prawn aquaculture, further investigation on the sources of the emission data is necessary.

This is because each set of effluent data from each different study is unique in terms of the conditions

of the experiments carried out, and this is important to consider in the analysis.

Firstly, the nitrogen load released through prawn aquaculture reported in the Jacobs SKM benchmark

study is investigated as follows:

60

3.3.2.1 Prawn farm effluent data from Jacobs SKM benchmark study

Table 20. The effluent load data of prawn farms in Queensland extracted from the Jacobs SKM study

(Erftemeijer, 2014) (shown in Table 2 of the Jacobs SKM benchmark study).

Table 20 above comprises the data for prawn farm effluent loads from Queensland. However,

although the results from Thomas et al (2010) are placed under the Queensland prawn aquaculture

category, a further check into this publication reveals that it is actually a study done in New Caledonia

(Thomas et al., 2010). This is one of the several errors detected in the Jacobs SKM benchmark study.

Furthermore, the data above would have been more informative if there were another column

included which states whether water treatment system, such as settlement ponds, was used. This is

because it would give a better indication of the impact of the innovative water treatment system on

the amount of nitrogen released. In relation to that, the latest technology in the water treatment

system proposed for the forthcoming Guthalungra prawn farm allows for cleaner water to be

produced and the reported amount of nitrogen released is 80.7 kg N ha-1 yr-1which is lower than the

ones reported in Jacobs SKM’s study shown in Table 20 above (Jacobs SKM, 2014).

3.3.2.1.2 Investigation of the value stated in the benchmark study

(first row of prawn farm discharges)

Behind the numbers stated in the table of effluent loads, there is a scientific explanation that warrants

serious consideration before drawing any conclusion based on the benchmark study by Jacobs SKM.

For example, in the first line of Table 20 shown in this thesis chapter (prawn farm effluent) that states

430.7 N kg-1 ha-1 released from a prawn farm in Queensland region, the original study was conducted

by Trott and Alongi (2001) but was cited in Burford’s review (Burford et al., 2003a). In the original

study by Trott and Alongi (2001), it was explained that the prawn farm pollutant loads did not lead to

61

eutrophication due to associated physical and biological processes. Examples of the associated

processes were firstly, the fast settlements of the nutrients within the creeks and forests, secondly

the efficient flushing and removal process of sediments during high currents and fluxes, thirdly the

primary production underwent grazing by the zooplankton, the consumption of zooplankton by

juvenile fish and the effluent discharges were in an intermittent pattern that permitted the

“fallowing” to take place at the estuary (Trott and Alongi, 2001). Furthermore, it was reported that

there was no apparent and direct damage observed to the surrounding mangrove and benthic

ecosystems as most nutrients were taken up and used by the naturally occuring food chain mechanism

(Trott and Alongi, 2001).

Drawing on these findings, Burford (2003a) in her review suggested that due to the apparent

difference in the characteristics and in the nature of the point source effluent loads of aquaculture, a

different measurement of water quality should have been used as the bioindicators such as the rate

of primary production, the response of phytoplankton to nutrients and the ratio of isotopic nitrogen

in the marine plants (Burford et al., 2003a). Furthermore, a study done by Wolanski et al 2000 revealed

that the water quality parameters (nutrient concentration such as nitrogen and phosphorus)

commonly used in many countries such as Australia have the tendency to show significant fluctuation

in short periods of time and hence it is difficult to accurately measure the water quality (Wolanski et

al., 2000). Therefore, as aforementioned above in Burford’s review, bioindicators are recommended

(Burford et al., 2003a).

In comparison to the nitrogen effluent from sugarcane farming, the nitrogen effluent from prawn

aquaculture as based on Jacobs SKM’s benchmark study is significantly higher. Hence, the Jacobs SKM

benchmark study could be improved by describing further the meaning of the findings in a local

context (nitrogen effluent data) such as the one done by Trott and Alongi (2001) and the review

completed by Burford (2003a) as this info would have given a different picture on the overall situation.

Furthermore, this matter cannot be handled in the form of ‘one-size-fits-all’ through the ‘nutrient per

hectare’ analysis as adopted by Jacobs SKM in the benchmark study as the difference in the nature of

prawn aquaculture, a point source pollutant, which is easily measured in comparison to diffuse source

pollutant. This view is also in accordance with Burford’s review stating that due to the unique

discharge from prawn aquaculture, a different parameter is needed to assess the impact of this

industry relative to other industries such as agriculture (Burford et al., 2003a).

62

Moreover, a closer look at the research study reveals that the nitrogen emission reported was 1.18 kg

ha-1 day-1 (Trott and Alongi, 2001). Therefore, since the prawn growing period season is around nine

months (McPhee, 2001), the nitrogen emission reported by Jacobs SKM benchmark study should be

318.6 kg ha-1 yr-1 (1.18 kg ha-1 day-1 *270 = 318.6 kg ha-1 yr-1) and not 430.7 kg ha-1 yr-1. It appears that

the Jacobs SKM benchmark study used the whole year as the growing period for prawns instead of

nine months. The next section of this thesis investigates the highest nitrogen value listed in the Jacobs

SKM benchmark study of the prawn aquaculture nutrient discharge.

3.3.2.1.3 Investigation of the highest nitrogen emission value stated in the benchmark study

(prawn farm discharges)

In the fifth row of Table 20 in this thesis (or Table 2 of the benchmark study by Jacobs SKM), the

nitrogen discharged from prawn aquaculture is stated as 657 kg ha-1 yr-1 which is the highest and

significantly higher than the rest of the N effluent listed. I assert that the benchmark study failed to

analyse the scientific reasons for the anomaly present in the data. This nitrogen load was derived from

a study done by Jackson et al (2004) which investigated the effluent loads from three intensive shrimp

farms in Australia. In the study, it was reported that due to the unusual condition of Farm A, only the

discharge values obtained from Farm B and Farm C should be used as indicator of the pollutant loads

released from intensive shrimp farms (Jackson et al., 2004). This is because Farm A used double the

usual amount of water (1.36 X 106 L ha-1 day-1) because the management changed its main shrimp

production species from P.monodon to M.japonicus in the early of the study and faced difficulties from

the switch. Hence, it was concluded that due to this reason, it was not unexpected that farm A

recorded the highest value in effluent loads. Therefore, as Jackson at al (2004) proposed in the

conclusion of his research, intensive shrimp farms would typically produce 1 kg ha-1 day-1 of net loads

of total nitrogen and 0.12 kg-1 day-1 for total phosphorus. In conclusion, if a correction was to be made

in the benchmark study, the 657 kg ha-1 yr-1 value of nitrogen effluent stated would be replaced with

(1 kg ha-1 day-1 *270 = 270 kg ha-1 yr-1) based on the very study that Jacobs SKM itself used (note: the

values were converted to the unit used by the benchmark study of kg ha-1 yr-1). The prawn growing

season is usually around 9 months therefore 270 days are used in the calculation and as prawn

aquaculture is a point source pollution (McPhee, 2001). Table 21 depicts the modification made to the

nitrogen emission values reported based on the analysis done by the author of this thesis.

63

Table 21. The proposed modification to the prawn aquaculture nitrogen emission reported in the Jacobs SKM study.

Nitrogen

emission

rate as

reported in

Jacobs SKM

study

(kg N ha-1 yr-1

Reference Reason to change The proposed

nitrogen emission

in this thesis

(kg N ha-1 yr-1)

430.7 (Trott and

Alongi, 2001),

cited in

Burford’s

review

(Burford et al.,

2003a)

The prawn growing season is 9 months

(McPhee, 2001), thus the yearly nitrogen

emission rate that could be used is 270 days

instead of 365 days as used by Jacobs SKM*.

318.6

(1.18 kg ha-1 day-1

x 270 days = 318.6)

361.4 (Burford et al.,

2003a)

The prawn growing season is 9 months

(McPhee, 2001), thus the yearly nitrogen

emission rate that could be used is 270 days

instead of 365 days as used by Jacobs SKM*.

267.3

(0.99 kg ha-1 day-1

x 270 days = 267.3)

365 (Jackson et al.,

2004)

The consultant could have used 9 months (270

days) as the growing season for prawn

aquaculture instead of 365 days*.

270

(1 kg ha-1 day-1 x

270 days =270)

657 (Jackson et al.,

2004)

The result from Farm A study should be

excluded due to the management issues such

as changing the prawn species grown as

indicated.

270

(1 kg ha-1 day-1 x

270 days =270)

178.9 (Thomas et al.,

2010)

This study is not based in Queensland but in

New Caledonia

N/A

64

*In cases where the prawn farms manage to produce more than one crop per year such as in the north

Queensland (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006), the farm will operate for the full

12 months each year. Hence in such cases, the prawn harvesting period of 365-day should be used

due to the differences in location, hatchery supply and marketing strategy. However, most of the

farms in north Queensland would usually stock one crop per year as to make the most profit of the

higher fresh prawn prices in the Christmas period (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries,

2006).

175.2 (McPhee,

2001)

A further investigation into the report

prepared by Dr Daryl McPhee fro APFA

revealed that the nitrogen emission from

prawn aquaculture is 131.5 kg ha-1 yr-1.

131.5

(52600 kg /400 ha

=131.5)

65

3.3.2.2 Sugarcane farm effluent data from Jacobs SKM benchmark study

Table 22. Nutrient emission from sugarcane runoff based on the Jacobs SKM benchmark study (Erftemeijer, 2014).

3.3.2.2.1 Error detected in the Jacobs SKM benchmark study

As shown in Table 22 above, the nitrogen loads from sugarcane farming in Queensland apparently

range from around 1 to 138 kg ha-1 yr-1 based on the recent studies. However, as displayed in the table

above, the anomalies detected are the ones referenced from Webster et al 2012 which range from

40-138 kg ha-1 yr-1 (circled in yellow). These emission rates are flawed as the values are actually the

nitrogen surplus and not the water-borne emission of nitrogen. A backtrack to the original source,

Webster et al (2012), revealed that these values are nitrogen surplus which is defined as the balance

of nitrogen available after deducting the nitrogen amount in the harvested crop with the nitrogen

amount applied to the crop. This means the N surplus includes the nitrogen in runoff water, nitrogen

66

lost through denitrification and the nitrogen in the soil organic matter. The following depicts the (A)

nitrogen surplus and the (B) nitrogen emission rate reported in the Webster et al 2012.

Based on this study which investigated the nitrogen runoff emission rate from two experimental types

(Webster et al., 2012);

(i) Nfarm

Normal nitrogen (N) application rate: nitrogen applied conventionally ,

(ii) Nrepl

N replacement strategy: nitrogen applied lower through less fertiliser used as to replace the

nitrogen exported in previous crop.

(A) Nitrogen surplus

The nitrogen surplus reported from the work of Webster et al 2012 is as follows:

Table 23. The nitrogen surplus based on the Webster et al., 2012 study which used either normal N application rate or N replacement strategy.

Year N surplus based on Nfarm

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

N surplus based on Nrepl

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

2004 136 57

2005 136 40

2006 138 61

On the other hand, the nitrogen emission rate was reported to be:

(B) Nitrogen effluent load (cumulative loss of total nitrogen)

Figure 11. Cumulative loss of nitrogen emission (N kg/ha) based on conventional nitrogen application (Nfarm) and nitrogen replacement strategy (Nrepl) (Webster et al., 2012) .

67

As shown in Figure 11, the cumulative total loss of nitrogen in runoff water from Nov 2003 to May

2004 was reported to be around 9 kg N/ha for Nrepl and 15 kg N/ha for Nfarm. Therefore, the six

months period would accumulate 9 or 15 kg N/ha depending on the application rate of nitrogen

through the fertilizer. For ease of comparison with the rest of the nitrogen emission rate reported in

the Jacobs SKM benchmark study, the Nfarm would lead to 30 kg ha-1 yr-1 whereas the Nrepl would

lead to 18 kg ha-1 yr-1. Therefore, it is clear that these nitrogen emission rates are more comparable

with the rest of nitrogen emission rates reported in the Jacobs SKM study. The proposed amendment

to be made in the Jacobs SKM benchmark study is as shown in Table 25.

3.3.2.2.2 Sugarcane farm nitrogen effluent load

Based on the report from Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research (ACTFR) entitled ‘Sources

of Sediment and Nutrient Exports to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area’, the nitrogen

emission rate (in kg ha-1 yr-1) from sugarcane farming is calculated (Brodie et al., 2007). This is based

on the reported amount of total nitrogen from the monitored farm area (kg yr-1) and the total

monitored sugarcane farm area (ha) as shown in the table below.

Table 24 The total amount of nitrogen load from sugarcane farms in various GBR regions and drainage basins based on the ACTFR report in 2007 (Brodie et al., 2007).

Region Sugarcane farm

drainage basin

Sugarcane Farm

Total

Monitored Area

(ha)

Total nitrogen

from monitored

farm area

(kg year-1)

Nitrogen emission

rate

(kg ha-1yr-1)

Wet Tropics Far North QLD

region

(Daintree River

Basin)

1,580 25,000 15.8

Wet Tropics Far North

(Mossman River

Basin)

3,420 68,000 19.9

Wet Tropics Far North (Barron

River Basin)

570

2,000

3.5


(Russell-

Mulgrave river

basin)

33,570 861,000 25.6

68


(Johnstone River

basin)

44,980 1,445,000

32.1

Wet Tropics Far North (Tully

river basin)

21,920 576,000

26.3


(Murray river

basin)

7,890 125,000 15.8


(Herbert river

basin)

71,410 564,000 7.9

Wet Tropics Northern (Black

river basin)

810 4,000 4.9

Burdekin Northern

(Haughton river

basin)

67,840 398,000 5.9

Burdekin Northern

(Burdekin river)

12,810 71,000 5.5

Fitzroy Northern (Don

River basin)

1,680 5,000 3.0

Mackay Mackay

(Proserpine river)

24,480 206,000 8.4

Mackay Mackay

(O’Connell River)

34,340 417,000 12.1

Mackay Mackay (Pioneer

River)

45,540 550,000 12.1

Mackay Mackay (Plane

River)

54,950 617,000 11.2

Fitzroy Fitzroy

(Shoalwater

River)

230 1,000 4.3

Burnett

Mary

Wide Bay –

Burnett (Baffle

Creek)

1,450 3,000 2.1

Burnett

Mary

Wide Bay-

Burnett (Kolan

River)

14,420 43,000 3.0

Burnett

Mary

Wide Bay-

Burnett (Bumett

River)

23,990 77,000 3.2

69

Burnett

Mary

Wide Bay –

Burnett (Burrum

River)

30,620 88,000 2.9

Burnett

Mary

Brisbane and

Moreton (Mary

River)

120,8610 27,000 2.2

Based on Brodie et al (2007) total sugar cane area is 498,500 ha or 4,985 km2

The highest nitrogen loads are observed from sugarcane farms located in the Wet Tropics as illustrated

in Table 24. This is parallel with the findings from the Reef Plan which shows that Wet Tropics is the

main priority for pollution control due to the significant environmental impact it has on the overall

GBR coral health (Reef Plan, 2014b). Intensive sugarcane farming in Wet Tropics makes excessive use

of fertilisers, thus contributing to the degradation of the coral health through the high nitrogen

emissions (Queensland Government, 2015b). However, as reported in the Reef Plan 2014, the

percentage of sugarcane farming area that is currently compliant with BMP for nutrients is only

around 13% as at June 2014 (Queensland Government, 2015b).

70

Recommended modification to the summary of Jacobs SKM’s benchmark study

Based on the analysis done in section 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2, the summary of the corrected nitrogen

emission rates for prawn aquaculture and sugarcane farming are as tabulated below.

Table 25. The summary of nitrogen emission. a) The nitrogen emission reported in Jacobs SKM benchmark study. b) The proposed modified nitrogen emission rates in this thesis.

Type of land use a) Nitrogen emission reported

in Jacobs SKM study

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

b) Proposed modified

nitrogen emission

(kg ha-1 yr-1)

Prawn aquaculture (Queensland) 175.2 - 657 131.5 – 318.6

Sugarcane farming <1 - 138 <1 - 30

As shown above, the nitrogen emission of both prawn aquaculture and sugarcane farming are less

than the rates originally reported in the Jacobs SKM benchmark study.

3.3.3 Investigation on the main challenge faced in achieving the water quality targets as

specified in the Reef Plan.

As seen from the Reef Plan report, the target set to be achieved by 2013 was not met as the results

showed that the BMP adoption rate was not rapid enough. Furthermore, the nitrogen reduction rate

was very low (10%) in comparison to the target that had been set at 50% reduction by 2013 (Reef Plan,

2014b). A thorough evaluation of why such results were obtained is necessary before a further target

or plan is established, in order to ensure there is a progressive improvement. I assert that this issue is

important to be investigated because it is essential to gauge the success of the current regulatory

regime imposed on sugarcane farming because the previously set target for 2013 was not successful.

Thus, this assists in projecting possibilities of failure of the BMP implementation and whether any

other actions are necessary to compensate an insufficient or ineffective regulatory system.

The benefits of this analysis will potentially shed some light on whether the main strategy adopted in

the Reef Plan is worth continuing or another intervention is needed to produce more desirable results.

71

Through my investigation, the main challenge faced in achieving the targets outlined in the Reef Plan

is discussed below.

3.3.3.1 The voluntary approach imposed on diffuse source polluters appears to be ineffective

in protecting the Great Barrier Reef

The nature of the regulations imposed on the agricultural farmers is such that they are generally

voluntary, incentive-based and, as such there is no proper execution in place if they do not adopt the

BMPs (Harvey et al., 2014). Most of the following inputs (in the following paragraphs) used in the

analysis to determine whether voluntary or mandatory regulatory mechanism would be better for

protecting the GBR are taken from the Technical Report of Reef Rescue Research and Development

(Harvey et al., 2014), unless specified otherwise. The technical report is entitled, “Regulations versus

voluntary mechanisms to improve adoption of best management practices in GBR catchments”. This

report was completed in 2014 in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current voluntary BMP

implementation. In this report, there are several conclusions made in terms of the proposed guide for

decision making of policies but there is no concrete conclusion made as future research is needed to

obtain complete evaluation.

In the last quarter-decade, there have been several policy mechanisms in place aimed at increasing

the adoption rate of improved agricultural practices to protect the GBR. The policy mechanism

involved can generally be divided into two categories which are either voluntary or non-voluntary as

shown in the following table.

Table 26. The policy structure available to increase the adoption of BMP by the landholders (Harvey et al., 2014).

Voluntary

Non-voluntary

Cooperation & Encouragement based

• Information and extension services

Regulatory mechanisms

• Regulations

• Permits

• Any other type of controls

Economic Instruments

• Grants

• Subsidies

• Tradeable emission permits

Economic Instruments

• Taxes

• Charges

72

Each policy instrument caters for different situation and type of problems. Hence, each policy

mechanism has its own benefits and weaknesses as summarised in the report. Basically, an analysis of

both public and private costs and gains are the elements of the trade-off matrix used in the decision

of policy making.

Since the late 1980s, most of the policies constructed were voluntary-based with emphasis on

encouraging the landholders to adopt better practices. Nevertheless, the regulatory approach in

increasing the adoption of improved practices only commenced in 2009 when the Great Barrier Reef

Protection Amendment Act 2009 was institutionalized (as shown in Table 27, circled in yellow box).

However, this particular regulation is now no longer in effect as it was put on hold by the government.

The inactivation of the regulatory approach took place in 2012 when the Queensland government

signed an agreement to replace the regulatory approach with voluntary BMP system (as shown in

Table 27, circled in green box).

The technical report of the Reef Research and Development summarised that (Harvey et al., 2014):

1) Management intervention is not necessary for every pollutant contributor activity but is only

required when the gains for public benefits are higher in relative to the private costs.

2) The utilization of voluntary mechanism such as information and extension services is

recommended in the case which leads to the benefits of private sector through the change of

management practice. Nevertheless, if it leads to private net costs in the change of process,

economic instruments would be more effective.

3) The use of economic instruments is the recommended regulatory approach for landholders

and projects which need lower costs for the adoption of improved practices.

The initial effort of improving water quality started off with Landcare movement in the 1990s in which

the major approach was encouragement, communication and also provision of funding by the

Commonwealth Government. However, gradually, the form of voluntary approach was more of a

direct financial assistance. During the process, it has been reported that there was ineffective use of

funds due to the inability of setting both proper targets and assessing outcomes of the grants granted

(Rolfe and Windle, 2011a).

This ineffective voluntary approach led to further legislation: the Great Barrier Reef Protection

Amendment Act 2009 (Lockie and Rockloff, 2005). This legislation proposed tighter control over

nitrogen management of cane farms in Wet Tropics and Mackay-Whitsunday regions and the grazing

industry in Burdekin basin. However, as mentioned above, implementation of this was halted in 2012.

73

Table 27. The policy structure to control the water quality entering the GBR for the last 25 years as adapted from the Technical Report RRD039 (a Reef Rescue R&D project) (Harvey et al., 2014). Yellow box: The legislation for tighter control over nutrient management. Green box: The voluntary implementation of BMP to replace regulatory control.

74

3.3.1.1 A more effective and reliable intervention such as the use of regulatory mechanism may be

needed to protect the GBR

I assert that the move to inactivate the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Act 2009 was

relatively ineffective in protecting and improving the health of the GBR. Evidently, the GBR is now in

danger as the recent rise in ocean temperature has led to the worst coral bleaching experienced, and

the cumulative impacts from all the stressors to the GBR have made the condition worse (Slezak,

2016b). Although climate change or the rise in temperature of the ocean is difficult to control directly

(Rolfe and Windle, 2011b), other measures which are relatively easier to control are in the

government’s hands to decide through the policymaking decisions made. An example of taking direct

control of the major threat to the GBR has ensuring the water quality entering the GBR has minimal

content of nutrients and other pollutants.

Figure 12. The percentage of the landholders' involvement with the voluntary sustainability and conservation schemes (Lockie and Rockloff, 2005).

My assertion that the voluntary approach used to increase the adoption of BMP is ineffective is also

based on the observations from earlier studies, showing that with voluntary mechanisms, such as the

conservation schemes implemented from around 1989 to early 2000s, the extent of participation by

the landholders was negligible, as illustrated in the Figure 12 above (Lockie and Rockloff, 2005). The

figure above depicts the level of participation of the landholders who were aware of the conservation

programs in their region. However, the percentage of landholders who had used the program was

insignificant, which ranging between 8 – 27%. With such results, evident in the Figure 12 above, I

assert that it would be unwise to expect high adoption of BMP through the industry led voluntary BMP

system which was initiated in 2012. The Reef Plan 2013 report revealed that the target set for nutrient

75

reduction, such as nitrogen, was far from reach. This was disappointing as the impact is highly

significant for the condition of the Great Barrier Reef, which has already suffered from other stressors

such as climate change, rise in ocean temperature, coral bleaching and the associated coral diseases.

Furthermore, as described by the Queensland Audit Office (QAO) in its report released in 2015 entitled

‘Managing water quality in Great Barrier Reef catchments’, the programs initiated under the Reef Plan

lacks proper coordination and are deemed inefficient to tackle the growing water quality degradation

in GBR catchments (Queensland Audit Office, 2015). The conclusion made by QAO in its report is

quoted as below,

“The design, implementation and governance of the collection of programs attributed to the

achievement of Reef Plan goals over more than 12 years indicates an overall lack of urgency,

priority and purpose” (Queensland Audit Office, 2015).

This statement suggests that the current Reef Plan that has been in operation for 12 years has not

successfully addressed the primary issue concerning the GBR. Furthermore, in my opinion, as seen in

the diffuse source pollutant industries such as grazing and sugarcane farming, the current treatment

towards these industries appears to be fairly lenient in comparison to new point source farming

industries such as aquaculture. A specific example is the voluntary approach of BMPs recommended

for the diffuse polluter industries in the effort of reducing environmental impact on the GBR by

educating producers to change their current practices (Queensland Audit Office, 2015, Webster et al.,

2009). This method may not lead to sufficient water quality improvements as it only relies on voluntary

participation and not proper regulatory enforcement. Although the Reef Plan committee concluded

that there is a positive improvement in the overall Reef Plan implementation (Smith, 2015), the audit

done by QAO found otherwise (Queensland Audit Office, 2015). Therefore, it would not be surprising

if the results reported in the Reef Plan showed very limited improvements in the overall condition of

the GBR.

Furthermore, one of the statements made in GBRMPA - Water Quality Issues of September 2001 on

page 68, “If fundamental changes in Queensland do not occur (including immediate minimisation of

vegetation clearance, erosion and responsible use of pesticides and fertilisers), the health of the

inshore ecosystems of the GBRWHA is likely to decline”. This statement reveals that the awareness of

the danger from land-based runoffs had been recognized much earlier on but the core issue is still

unresolved after more a decade which is in line with the findings from the QAO audit mentioned

previously.

76

As noted in the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013 (Reef Plan, 2014b), the next step for the Reef

Plan is focusing more on the extension of BMP programs and also incentive provision to speed up the

BMP uptake by the industry, especially in the Wet Tropics and Burdekin region. This strategy does not

fit well with the statement made by GBRMPA which calls for drastic actions to save the reef as quoted

below,

“It is clear that a business-as-usual approach to managing these impacts will not be enough. Additional

management intervention is required to protect these matters of national environmental significance”

(Elliot, 2014).

From the statement above found in the GBRMPA’s comment on QCA’s Issue Paper of Aquaculture

Regulation in Queensland February 2014 (Elliot, 2014), it is evident that the continuation of the same

approach in the effort to save the reef is insufficient.

Rather, a stronger regulatory framework is needed to constrain the diffuse source polluters in order

to see a change in the near future. A comparison with the regulatory treatment given to other

industries such as aquaculture, indicates a large discrepancy. An example of this is the approach of

environmental offsets that are championed by the regulatory authority such as GBRMPA that requires

any new aquaculture proposal to be able to absorb pollution caused by other agricultural industries

such as in the case of the Guthalungra prawn farm development (Jacobs SKM, 2014).

The continuation of BMPs may also lead to further inefficient funds allocation that could potentially

be used for other purposes such as in the conversion of land use. The components of the Reef Rescue

Program are shown below.

77

Continuous adoption of voluntary BMPs may lead to inefficient allocation of funds

The costs to increase the uptake of BMP among the landholders have been substantial. For example,

as announced by the Australian Government, the cost for the 5-year Reef Rescue package from 2008

to 2013 was reported to be $200 million in total (Reef & Rainforest Research Centre, 2015).

Specifically, the Reef Rescue program consists of five components intended to ensure that the water

quality entering the GBR is improved through the widespread uptake of BMP among the landholders.

The five components of the Reef Rescue are as shown in the table below:

Table 28. The components of Reef Rescue program through the investment by the Australian Government from 2008 to 2013 (Reef & Rainforest Research Centre, 2015).

Component of Reef Rescue

Cost

(AUD$)

Water Quality Grants

• Funds provided to landholders to assist the implementation of the

BMPs.

146

million

Reef Partnerships

• For the extension of information to landholders and for relevant skill

enhancements.

12

million

Land and Sea Country Indigenous Partnerships

• To strengthen the communication between the reef stakeholders and

to construct enhanced understanding in regards to the Traditional

Owner Issues.

10

million

Reef Water Quality Research and Development

• To generate scientific proof for better understanding of the relation

between the agricultural industry practices with the effects on

environment.

10

million

Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting

• To evaluate and measure the progress in achieving the objective of

Reef Rescue and also for data collation of the water quality at paddock

and catchments of GBR.

22

million

78

Furthermore, an additional $45 million has recently been invested in a new project associated with

Reef Alliance through the Turnbull Government (Queensland Farmers' Federation, 2016). One of the

main aims of the funding is to encourage the adoption of BMP by the farmers to ensure improved

water quality entering the GBR (Queensland Farmers' Federation, 2016). This shows that the costs

accumulated to save the reef are enormous, but the GBR condition is not improving as expected as

outlined in the Reef Plan (Reef Plan, 2014b). The Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce, consists

of well-known experts from various fields, in its Interim Report December 2015 stated that, “Full

adoption of current best management practices for the sugarcane and cattle grazing industries will

not be enough to meet our water quality targets. We will need new technologies, innovative practices

and land use change” (Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce, 2015). This statement made by the

taskforce may be indirectly interpreted as a sign of failure of the previous Reef Plan, and implies that

significant change and overhaul is needed for the current land practice such as land use

transformation.

3.4 Discussion

I argue that the approach used by Jacobs SKM to use a ‘nutrient per hectare’ benchmark to assess the

environmental impact is a big area of concern because the industries are fundamentally different in

nature. Specifically, prawn aquaculture is a point source polluter, which is easier to be measured,

whereas sugarcane farming is classified as diffuse source polluter, which is harder to measure.

Although this major difference and the difficulty in comparing different types of pollution have been

acknowledged in the benchmark study, the Jacobs SKM benchmark study could have been more useful

and meaningful if two sets of parameters had been used in comparing the environmental impact of

the industries. For example:

(i) for point source pollution, as mentioned previously, Burford in her review (Burford et al., 2003a)

suggested that due to the apparent difference in the characteristics and in the nature of the point

source effluent loads of aquaculture, a different measurement of water quality should have been used

as the bioindicators such as the rate of primary production, the response of phytoplankton to nutrients

and the ratio of isotopic nitrogen in the marine plants (Burford et al., 2003a). Furthermore, another

study revealed that the water quality parameters (nutrient concentration such as nitrogen and

phosphorus) commonly used in many countries, including Australia, have the tendency to show

significant fluctuation in short periods of time and hence it is difficult to accurately measure the water

79

quality (Wolanski et al., 2000). Therefore, based on the prior studies, I recommend that bioindicators

are the parameters that should be used for point source pollution such as prawn aquaculture.

(ii) for diffuse source pollution, I assert that the parameter of ‘nutrient per hectare’ appears to be

suitable as one of the proxies in assessing the environmental impacts of the industries of the same

nature, with diffuse pollution over a wide area. However, it is only scientifically valid for the same

parameter to be used for examining industries that are similar in nature of pollution and are amenable

to a similar and comparable measurement method.

Furthermore, the difficulty in measuring diffuse (nonpoint) source pollutants is recognized not only in

Australia but also in other countries such as the United States (US). In the US, the Clean Water Act was

passed in 1972 to control point source pollution (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). The

significance of non-point source pollution was hardly understood at that time, and all the efforts were

put into controlling the point source pollution. However, in the early 21st century, the major cause of

water quality degradation in the US was acknowledged and reported to be non-point source pollution

which caused 40% of the inspected marine environment to be unsuitable for fishing or swimming,

based on the data published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (2000). Therefore, this

suggests that it has been an international challenge to control or measure diffuse source pollution due

to its nature. This lead to point source pollution to be the easier target to monitor and control.

The author of this thesis also made a direct online inquiry to an anonymus from the Economic Research

Service, Department of Agriculture, Government of the United States, for further clarification on

appropriate measurement methods for understanding the environmental impact of different types of

pollution. The anonymus was involved in the publication entitled, ‘Least-cost management of

nonpoint source pollution: source reduction VS interception strategies for controlling nitrogen loss in

the Mississippi Basin’ (Ribaudo et al., 2001), and he stated that using the parameter, ‘nutrient per

hectare’, may not be accurate in comparing the relative contributions of sugarcane industry with

prawn aquaculture in its nutrient loads to the GBR. This information further supports the lack of

comparability of point source with diffuse source pollution.

Although the nitrogen emission from sugarcane farming is reported to be relatively lower (1 - 30 kg

ha-1 yr-1 as shown in this chapter) compared to prawn aquaculture (e.g. 80.7 kg ha-1 yr-1 in Guthalungra

prawn farm), the nutrient discharged in the sugarcane run-off increases the nitrogen load in the

waterways and does not ‘clean’ it through a returned sea-water treatment system through algal

bioremediation like the one proposed for the Guthalungra prawn farm. This situation again

demonstrates the incomparability of diffuse agricultural and point-source aquaculture pollution

80

through the ‘nutrient discharged per hectare’ parameter. The research studies on the use of algal

bioremediation to remove excess nutrients from effluent were part of the MBD Energy Research and

Development program and were funded through the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research

Centre Scheme (Lawton et al., 2013, Carl et al., 2014).

As shown in the following table (Table 29), the ACIL report produced in 2002 reveals that the top two

contributors of nitrogen are grazing and sugarcane farming. By comparison, the projected expansion

of prawn farms from 500ha to 10,000ha will only result in 3.2% total nitrogen load to the GBR unlike

other industries such as grazing (65.9%) and sugarcane farming (26.4%) which have a larger impact to

the total nutrient load. Moreover, this data was reported in 2002, at which time the effluent treatment

system for prawn farms was still new and not as advanced. Therefore, the total nitrogen load is likely

to be less if the latest water treatment system is used.

Table 29. An extrapolation of the overall contribution of suspended solids and nutrients where prawn farming expands while the other industries remain static (ACIL, 2002).The ‘present ‘load refers to the size of prawn farm of 500 ha.

3Projected load refers to expansion of prawn farm to 10,000 ha with minimal waste water treatment.

81

3.5 Conclusions

Based on critical analyses of data sources and the evidence from all of the research cited above, there

are several recommendations, which if adopted may improve the condition of the GBR:

1) Where unregulated sugarcane farms lag in voluntary adoption of Reef Plan targets, enable

a change of land-use toward regulated activities such as prawn aquaculture which have

demonstrated greater capacity to control discharge.

I assert that the industry which has the lowest net nutrient emission and is therefore the least

detrimental to the environment should be given an advantage to operate. Furthermore, the industry

which has developed the most efficient technological innovation to be sustainable should be given the

priority for expansion. An example of an industry which has made tremendous breakthrough in

achieving sustainability is the prawn aquaculture industry, especially the farm proposed in

Guthalungra. As proposed the water treatment system could potentially reduce the nutrient level of

the intake water; it acts a net nutrient sink and not a source (Pacific Reef Fisheries, 2014). Therefore,

it would seem imperative for the government to construct an efficient policy framework which

encourages the development and further expansion of this industry, as it brings potentially huge

environmental benefits, specifically in achieving better water quality in the GBR. Although the

proposed Guthalungra prawn farm has not fully operated yet, the industry has been developing the

water treatment system which includes the use of settlement ponds and sand filtration system since

the beginning as the industry is highly regulated. The use of algal bioremediation system further

proves the continuous efforts of the prawn aquaculture industry to achieve the zero-net nutrient

emission requirement (The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016). This requirement is

not imposed on the diffuse source pollution such as from sugarcane farming as the BMPs are

voluntary.

The current regulatory framework imposed on prawn aquaculture hinders the industry development

by the “red tape” issues that have been pointed out by many parties, especially by the APFA president,

Matt West, “Aquaculture is the fastest growing primary industry in the world, except in Queensland,

whose farmers already employ world-best practice. What’s stopping us? What does the industry need

to do to unblock this impasse?” (West, 2015).

Based on the evidence of the latest innovative breakthroughs such as the algal bioremediation water

treatment system and the NovacqTM prawn feed through the efforts that have been put in by this

industry (Sellars et al., 2015), their existence and expansion in Queensland should be welcomed.

82

However, as seen in the current situation, the prawn aquaculture industry needs to abide by the zero-

net nutrient emission policy. Through the nutrient offset strategy, a prawn aquaculture developer has

to assist in the funding of diffuse polluters such as sugarcane farmers to adopt the inefficient BMP.

Below are the summary of the options in the Nutrient Offset Policy for Guthalungra prawn farm

developer, the PRF (Jacobs SKM, 2014):

a) PRF to assist in the funding of converting 1500 ha pasture to grassland.

b) PRF to assist in the funding of converting 1330 ha sugarcane farm to grassland.

c) PRF to assist in the funding of transforming 1680 ha sugarcane farm from class C to class B.

d) PRF to assist in the funding of transforming 1440 ha sugarcane farm of class C to grassland.

e) PRF to assist in the funding of transforming sugarcane farms from class C to class B and from

class B to class A (total area of 18380 ha consisting of both conversions).

f) PRF to assist in the funding of transforming 1390 ha of grazing land from class C to class B.

The anomaly observed from the current regulatory framework, especially the one that encompasses

nutrient offset policy as the approach used, may act as disincentive to the prawn aquaculture industry

which has proven to generate more social benefits in terms of higher financial returns and to be less

detrimental to the environment. Therefore, to avoid a large disincentive to the prawn aquaculture

industry, the approach needs to be modified and transformed into a more conducive regulatory

environment.

I assert that one of the ways to realign and re-strategize the regulatory framework is to change the

land use in certain regions. This is in accordance with the recommendation made by the GBR Water

Science Taskforce in its report in 2015 which concluded that even if all the sugarcane landholders and

the graziers adopt the class A of BMP, the target set to achieve in the Reef Plan will still not be

achievable. Therefore, there is a clear need for new technology, innovation and diversification or

transformation in land use (Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce, 2015).

Firstly, it is vital to identify which region contributes to the highest level of nutrient pollution to the

GBR waterways (Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce, 2015). The identified region will then

undergo at least some change of land use into a more sustainable industry which reduces the nutrient

pollution in the GBR catchments.

Based on the 2014 Reef Plan report card, the management priorities remain the nitrogen from

sugarcane and the erosion issue from grazing (Reef Plan, 2014a). The highest overall relative risk

83

region is Wet Tropics which covers 22,000 km2 and the primary issue of this region is the nitrogen

emission mainly from sugarcane and its pesticide use (Reef Plan, 2014a).

Since the Wet Tropics is the main region that contributes to the nutrient loads to GBR and the pollutant

yield per area was the highest for Wet Tropics and Whitsundays regions that are mainly farmed for

sugarcane and other intensive activities (Joo et al., 2012, Kroon, 2012), it would be wise and advisable

to consider replacing certain hectares of sugarcane farms in Wet Tropics with prawn aquaculture. This

is also supported by the plans made in Reef 2050 Plan in which the two main regions, Wet Tropics and

Burdekin, are the main contributors of nutrient run-off for the COTS outbreak in GBR (2016).

2) Retire certain cropping lands for conservation and restoration

In order to be able to maximize profitability and to minimize detrimental impact to the GBR, efficient

land use planning is crucial. As postulated by Kroon et al 2016, certain cropping land should be retired

as one of the means to significantly reduce pollutant runoff to the GBR (Kroon et al., 2016).

Although prawn aquaculture is relatively new in comparison to other agricultural industries such as

the sugarcane industry, it should be given a priority for development due to the associated

environmental benefits. Furthermore, the need to shut down some conventional farms and save them

for conservation is arguably more pressing in view of the Reef Report Card 2014 revelation that there

is a decrease in the wetlands and riparian areas (Queensland Government, 2015b).

3) Better regulatory framework

As investigated earlier in this chapter, the voluntary setting of the current policy framework is unlikely

to be effective in solving the deterioration of the coral reef in GBR. Therefore, learning from past

mistakes and acquiring knowledge from the experience of other countries that have successfully

resolved similar issues are essential. The principal research scientist at AIMS, Dr Frederieke Kroon,

recommends three key steps for protecting the reef, one of which is a modification in the current

environmental legislation (Dorsett, 2016, Kroon et al., 2016). This is because several studies have

shown that the voluntary approach alone is inadequate for addressing a big challenge such as

protecting the GBR which requires a wide scale of change (van Grieken et al., 2013, Great Barrier Reef

Water Science Taskforce, 2015, Roberts and Craig, 2014). The coral reef in the GBR is already facing

high mortality rates and immediate intervention is needed.

Therefore, a mix of policy instruments would most likely produce the desired results faster and the

aim to reach the long term Reef Plan 2050 goal may then be achievable. One of the issues that may

84

need further justification is, “Why are only the point source polluters supposed to follow and abide by

the zero net nutrient emission policy whereas the diffuse source polluters are receiving grants to

adopt BMP uptake through the government funds or through Nutrient Offset Policy by the point

source polluters?”.

Furthermore, the latest innovation in prawn aquaculture water treatment systems (in Guthalungra

prawn farm) allows clean water to be produced (see Figure 8). This shows that the prawn aquaculture

industry has the potential to improve the water quality which is a valuable feature for an industry.

Moreover, prawn farmers have always adopted the best available treatment systems and they have

spent so much of their efforts and funds for the industry-led researches and investigations in

developing the best technology to operate environmentally sustainable – from the invention of

settlement and bioremediation ponds (O'Sullivan, 2010), the use of biofloc to reduce pond nutrient

(O'Sullivan, 2011), and in assisting the policy makers in setting the maximum nutrient discharge by the

industry-led body CRC. For example, the operational policy for prawn aquaculture pertaining to

wastewater discharge which was approved in 2001 was based on the work done CRC (Department of

Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013).

Even though the prawn farmers were subjected to numerous regulations specifically for operating

adjacent to the GBR and also due to its nature of being a point source polluter, they always conformed

to the discharge limits and built the settlement ponds (O'Sullivan, 2010). It is understandable that the

‘grandfathering’ policy is applicable and that other agricultural diffuse polluters are not subjected to

the strict regulations as faced by the prawn farmers. Nevertheless, it is evident that the reef can take

no more additional stressors such as elevated nutrient from the agricultural industries. Therefore, all

industries need to work hand-in-hand to ensure that the status of the GBR as ‘a natural wonder of the

world’ is retained.

85

CHAPTER 4 Economic Analyses of the Industries operating adjacent to

the Great Barrier Reef

4.1 Introduction

The growth of the prawn aquaculture industry has escalated enormously worldwide and many

countries have embraced the potentially high economic returns associated with this industry.

Although the aquaculture industry is booming globally, in places such as in China, Thailand, India and

other countries, Australia has been importing shrimps with a value of around $135 million to $150

million annually from the year 2007 to 2010 (ABARES, 2010). 66% of Australia’s seafood consumption

appears to be from imported produce in 2012 to 2013 (ABARES, 2014). Due to the premium quality of

Australian seafood products, a proportion of the local seafood products are exported overseas

(Deparment of Agriculture, 2015, APH, 2016). Australian products are also favoured by local

consumers and they are willing to pay a little more. The legislation which requires labelling of country

of origin for all seafood sold in Australian retail outlets also assists consumers in making informed

purchases (Deparment of Agriculture, 2015). Undeniably, competition with cheaper imported seafood

products exists but the APFA has been carrying out strong marketing to promote Australian seafood

products with emphasis on the benefits such as Australia’s “clean and green reputation” and the

avoidance of potential biosecurity risks (APH, 2016). Furthermore, the latest outbreak of white spot

disease detected on prawn farms located in Queensland has led to the Federal government’s

suspension of raw green prawn imports from countries such as China, Thailand and Vietnam (Bettles,

2017). Therefore, the current incident further reinforces the need to protect the local prawn industry

and to support its “clean and green reputation”. Due to the ban on imported raw green prawns, it may

be likely that a higher demand for local prawns will follow.

In this chapter, the net present value (NPV) approach is used as the method for economic assessment.

It is imperative to investigate if the transition of sugarcane farms to adopt BMP is economically

effective or the conversion to prawn aquaculture is more favourable. Neoclassical economists use the

concept of ‘utilitarianism’ in making social, economic or political decisions for the society

(Investopedia, 2016), that is, the industry that gives greatest benefits should be given priority for

development or expansion. Thus, the ultimate goal is to determine and develop the industry which

can offer optimal economic returns while preserving or improving the environment. This chapter

focuses mainly on the analysis of economic benefits of the prawn aquaculture and sugarcane industry.

86

4.2 Data and Methods

Due to the need to identify new potential land use for the management priority region such as the

Wet Tropics to achieve the target set in the Reef Plan (NESP, 2016), the feasibility of converting certain

size of sugarcane land in this region is investigated in this chapter. The new potential land use should

have the potential to bring economic and environmental benefits compared to the current practice of

BMP, in which the sugarcane holders implement the transition according to the ‘ABCD’ framework.

Reliable reports from the national science agency, CSIRO, have been used for the economic analysis

of the transition of the sugarcane farms in the Wet Tropics to better management practices entitled,

‘Implementation costs of Agricultural Management Practices for water Quality Improvement in the

Great Barrier Reef Catchments’ (Grieken et al., 2010a) and ‘Economic Analysis of Sugarcane Farming

Systems for Water Quality Improvement in the Great Barrier Reef Catchments’ (Grieken et al., 2010b).

For the purpose of this study, the economic analysis of prawn aquaculture is based on the data from

the report, ‘Economic Assessment of Aquaculture in the Bowen-Burdekin Aquaculture Precinct’

(Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008).

Determine the GVP of prawn aquaculture and sugarcane

farming in QLD.

NPV Analysis

• Determine the NPV for the transition of sugarcane

farms in the Wet Tropics for the adoption of BMPs

through the ‘ABCD’ framework.

• Compare the NPV per hectare for both prawn

aquaculture and sugarcane farming.

• Determine the NPV of converting marginal cane

land to prawn aquaculture in the Wet Tropics.

Figure 13. Economic analysis of prawn aquaculture and sugarcane farming in QLD.

87

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Gross Value Production (GVP) per hectare

4.3.1.1 Sugarcane farming in QLD

The GVP per hectare for sugarcane farming in QLD is based on the data obtained from the Queensland

Treasury Statistician’s Office for the year 2014-15. Please refer to Table 30 for the GVP by commodity.

Sugarcane GVP in Queensland = ($ 1,239 millions) (Queensland Treasury, 2015) Total sugarcane farm area in Queensland (561,706 ha) (Shephard, 2016)

= $ 2206/ha/yr.

Table 30. The GVP of sugarcane in Queensland (Queensland Treasury, 2015).

88

4.3.1.2 Prawn aquaculture in QLD

The GVP per hectare for prawn aquaculture in QLD is based on the data obtained from the Ross

Lobegeiger Report to Farmers for the year 2014-15. Table 31 below depicts the gross value by sector

in QLD.

GVP prawn aquaculture in QLD Prawn farm pond area in QLD = $82.6 million = $145,000/ha/yr. 569 ha Source : Ross Lobegeiger Report to Farmers 2014-15 (Heidenreich, 2015).

Table 31. Gross value by aquaculture sector in QLD ($ million) (Heidenreich, 2015).

89

4.3.2 NPV Analysis

4.3.2.1 CASE 1: To continue sugarcane farming in the Wet Tropics by changing sugarcane

management from class C to class B and class A.

The Scientific Consensus Statement (Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, 2013) revealed that the most

serious threat to the GBR is from nitrogen discharge that leads to the COTS outbreak. As fertiliser is

the main source of DIN in the GBR water pollution (Armour et al., 2009, Hammill et al., 2015), this

study focuses on DIN reduction in the GBR waterways.

The analysis on financial-economic benefits of sugarcane growers’ transition to improved cane

management is based on the report entitled, ‘Economic Analysis of Sugarcane Farming Systems for

Water Quality Improvement in the GBR Catchments’ (Grieken et al., 2010b). In the report, the Farm

Economic Analysis Tool (FEAT) for sugarcane farms was used as the tool to calculate the regional gross

margins and financial indicators for farms operating in a specific system (Grieken et al., 2010b).

Farming systems are classified in the ‘ABCD’ framework as shown in the following table.

Table 32. The classification of 'ABCD' management framework for sugarcane farms (Grieken et al., 2010a).

Assumptions

The results of the financial economic analysis shown in the ‘Economic Analysis of Sugarcane Farming

Systems for Water Quality Improvement in the GBR Catchments’ are based on the following

assumptions (Grieken et al., 2010b). The analysis illustrates the economic impact when sugarcane

farms adopt different management practice class.

Table 33. The assumptions for the economic analysis for the transition of sugarcane farms in the ‘ABCD' framework in the Wet Tropics region (Grieken et al., 2010b).

Factor The asssumptions for the economic analysis of sugarcane farm in Wet Tropics

Soil type Coom (clay)

Sugar price $349.30 per tonne (based on the average from the year 2005 to 2009)

Farm size 120 ha

CCS 12.86

90

Contract harvesting • $7.50/tonne without GPS guidance for class B, C and D

• $7.80/tonne with GPS guidance for class A

Contract planting • $360/ha without GPS guidance for class C and D

• $370/ha with GPS guidance for class B

• $400/ha with GPS guidance for class A

Contract spraying $30/ha

Fuel price $0.85/L

Labour cost $30/hour

Soil test $130/test

Leaf test $50/test

Transaction cost Not captured in the report (e.g. time taken to learn about the transition or to purchase new equipment)

Implementation (capital) costs in the Wet Tropics region for sugarcane farms

Table 34. The capital costs to implement changes for the transition of the sugarcane farms management class (Grieken et al., 2010b).

Capital Items Cost ($)

‘D’ to ‘C’ class

• No capital investment TOTAL

0 0

‘C’ to ‘B’ class

• Stool splitter fertiliser box

• Sprayer modifications

• Harvester modifications

• Farm tractor modifications TOTAL

40,000

5,000 12,500

1,500 59,000

‘B’ to ‘A’ class

• GPS on farm tractor

• Shielded sprayer

• Ripper/Rotary Hoe modifications TOTAL

40,000 28,000 20,000 88,000

NPV Analysis of the sugarcane farms in Wet Tropics

In converting the future cash flows of a 120-ha sugarcane farm’s operations into present values, a

discount rate of 7% has been used for the 5-year and 10-year analysis. The tables below show the

NPVs when the sugarcane farm changes from one management class to another (Grieken et al.,

2010b). The longer period of the investment time period, the higher the NPVs are as the cumulative

cash flows are able to offset the initial capital outlay.

91

Table 35. The regional NPVs calculated for a 120-ha sugarcane farm in the Wet Tropics as analysed by using 7% discount rate in Grieken (2010b).

Table 36. The regional NPVs per hectare calculated for the 120-ha sugarcane farm in the Wet Tropics.

Transition in management class

Net Capital Investment

NPV per Ha (10-year analysis)

NPV per Ha (5-year analysis)

D class to C class $0 $608.50 $355.23

C class to B class $59,000 $587.82 $138.51

B class to A class $88,000 -$539.57 -$620.22

Nevertheless, the economic analysis above illustrates that the NPVs are only positive when the

transition of ‘D’ to ‘C’ class or ‘C’ to ‘B’ class take place. The transition to class ‘A’ leads to negative

NPVs. Sugarcane holders will only consider the transition that lead to positive NPVs.

Based on the report, the estimated of total cane harvested in the Wet Tropics based on four different

soil types are shown below using APSIM simulations. Transition to class A is not attractive for the

landholders although it is the most environmental-friendly.

Table 37. The yields based on different farming class management in the Wet Tropics (Grieken et al., 2010a).

S1: well-drained sandy loam soil of granitic origin; S2: loam soil, poorly drained formed on alluvium; S3: red clay loam soil, slowly drained formed on basaltic rock origin; S4: to a medium to heavy clay soil (well drained formed on alluvium).

92

4.3.2.2 CASE 2: To convert marginal sugarcane farms in Wet Tropics to prawn

aquaculture.

One of the numerous efforts taken by the Australian government to save the GBR is through funding

research which aims to reduce the main threats to the GBR, especially in the management priority

catchment, the Wet Tropics region (NESP, 2016). The Australian Government’s National

Environmental Science Programme (NESP) supports and funds the project, ‘Scoping options for low

lying, marginal cane land to reduce DIN in priority wet tropics catchments’. The objective of this project

is to facilitate in finding alternative land use for marginal cane land in the Wet Tropics catchments to

reduce nitrogen loads and to generate income (NESP, 2016).

The Wet Tropics Water Quality Improvement Plan (WTWQIP) also acknowledged that complete

adoption to best management practice by the sugarcane holders would still be insufficient to meet

the GBR Water Quality Guidelines of reducing 70-80% DIN in Wet Tropics region (NESP, 2016). Even

complete adoption of Class A sugarcane management practice will only lead to 30% DIN reduction in

the Wet Tropics (NESP, 2016). Hence, this project (NESP) focuses on identifying alternative land use

for marginal, low-lying cane lands that have the capacity to reduce nitrogen loads. One of the

alternative industries considered includes aquaculture (NESP, 2016).

The conversion of sugarcane farm into prawn aquaculture is not new and is possible as already shown

with Tru Blu Farms in New South Wales (OzAquaculture, 2015). Furthermore, as stated in the

Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) report, the type of land suitable for aquaculture and

sugarcane farming is similar; flat, low-lying coastal land (QCA, 2014). Tru Blu Farms, was initially a 40-

hectare sugarcane farm but was then converted to a prawn farm (OzAquaculture, 2015).

QCA (2014) in its final report also stated that the land productivity of aquaculture is around 20 times

higher than the existing crop such as sugar cane.

In the NESP project mentioned above, the framework outlined for finding alternative land use options

for cane land is as follows (NESP, 2016):

1) Geographic information system (GIS) mapping

To use GIS mapping to identify low-lying and marginal cane land in the Wet Tropics

catchments such as Herbert, Russell-Mulgrave, Johnstone or Tully/Murray catchments.

2) Evaluate site options

Determine alternative land use options based on site typologies such as info on the current

geology, flooding, elevation, current agricultural production and saline intrusion.

93

3) Economic analysis

Determine the costs (e.g. conversion cost, maintenance), the foregone gross margin from the

existing cane farm and the revenues estimated from the alternative land use.

4) The feasibility of implementing change in land use

To qualitatively assess the social, economic and environmental implications through

consultation with the stakeholders such as the community, government and industry for the

change implementation. The mechanism to facilitate change such as the land (e.g. buy-back,

lease land) is explored.

This focus of this thesis chapter is to prepare an economic analysis on the conversion of certain

hectares of sugarcane farm in Wet Tropics to an alternative land use, specifically prawn aquaculture.

Wet Tropics land conversion pathway options

Cane land conversion pathway

options

• Convert the existing

sugarcane farm to prawn

aquaculture by purchasing

the land from sugarcane

farmer (e.g. buy-back, lease

land).

• Convert existing sugarcane

farm to prawn aquaculture

with the agreement with the

sugarcane farmers as a new

business option for them.

Implication:

1) Less capital cost as the land cost

is excluded (Opportunity costs

needs to acknowledged).

2) A need to educate the sugarcane

holders on aquaculture practice for

the land transformation.

Implication:

1) Higher capital cost for the purchase

of land.

*For the purpose of this thesis, this

scenario is used in calculating the

NPV.

94

The assumptions used in constructing the financial economic model for prawn aquaculture are as

follows (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008):

Parameter Assumption

Area of ponds (100 @ 1.0 ha) 100

Saleable farm biomass per year (kg) 800,000

Crops per year 1

Average weight at harvesting (g) 30

Feed conversion ratio 1.7:1

Death rate (%) 35

Note:

• It is assumed that the costs (other than the land cost) are similar between Bowen-Burdekin and the Wet Tropics.

• Transaction costs and opportunity costs are not captured in this analysis.

• Taxation is not included in the analysis.

• Residual value has been excluded from the analysis.

4.3.2.2.1 Cash Outflow

Capital costs

The data on the costs involved in establishing a prawn farm is based on the Economic Assessment of

Land Based Marine Prawn Aquaculture for the Bowen-Burdekin Aquaculture Precinct (Queensland

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008) except for the land cost. The land cost is based

on the latest (year 2017) land purchase price in Ingham, Wet Tropics which was previously a cane land

(Felix Reltano Real Estate, 2017).

95

Table 38. The capital costs based on a prawn farm in Bowen-Burdekin for a 100ha farm. Data adapted from the report for the prawn farm proposed in Bowen-Burdekin (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008).

Capital Item Units Unit Cost ($) Total Cost ($)

Land and Buildings Land in Ingham, Wet Tropics (ha) (Felix Reltano Real Estate, 2017) 150 $12,000 $1,800,000

Office and Equipment - $30,000 $30,000

Staff Accommodation 2 $60,000 $120,000

Processing Room - $250,000 $250,000

Coldroom and Fixed Equipment 1 $750,000 $750,000

Sheds (Maintenance / Feed) 2 $100,000 $200,000

Electricity Connection - $160,000 $160,000

Vehicles and Machinery Utility 2 $30,000 $60,000

Motorbike(s) 4 $10,000 $40,000

Truck(s) 2 $50,000 $100,000

Tractor (Second Hand) 2 $20,000 $40,000

Mower/Slasher 1 $4,000 $4,000

Other Plant 0 $0 $0

Boat(s) 2 $2,000 $4,000

Pond related expenditure Pond construction 100 $40,000 $4,000,000

Pond piping and infrastructure 100 $10,000 $1,000,000

Pond electricity connection 100 $8,000 $800,000

Aerators 1,000 $950 $950,000

Moorings and Walkways 200 $200 $40,000

Channels and drains - $400,000 $400,000

Settling pond(s) 2 $120,000 $240,000

Pumps (sheds, valves, filters) 5 $50,000 $250,000

Other Infrastructure and Equipment Generator 4 $20,000 $80,000

Rotary Hoe/Discs 1 $15,000 $15,000

Fertiliser Spreader 2 $1,500 $3,000

Feed Blower 2 $8,000 $16,000

Prawn Cookers 10 $3,000 $30,000

Bulk Bins 50 $1,000 $50,000

Water Monitoring Equipment 3 $8,000 $24,000

Harvesting Equipment - $8,000 $8,000

Prawn Weigh Scales 2 $3,000 $6,000

Pallet Jacks 3 $1,500 $4,500

Ice Machine 1 $75,000 $75,000

Prawn Grader 2 $50,000 $100,000

Prawn Washing Machine 2 $3,000 $6,000

Processing Equipment - $10,000 $10,000

Workshop Tools and Equipment - $40,000 $40,000

Inspection Table 2 $4,000 $8,000

Water Allocation (ML) 700 $250 $175,000

Total $11,888,500

96

Operating costs

The operating costs of a prawn farm mainly comprise of the following components (Queensland

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008):

1) Feed

The estimated amount of feed required is 1,360 tonnes annually as the feed conversion ratio is 1.71

and based on 800 tonnes of a farm biomass. The average cost of the range of feeds used is

approximately $1,564 per tonne (inclusive of freight). Hence, the total feed cost is $2,127,040

annually.

2) Labour

- Allowance for the farm owner/operator is $90,000 per year.

- Permanent employees of 15 people which amount to $1,028,308.

- The 15 employees consist of three skilled permanent staff and 12 permanent labourers.

- During the periods of harvesting and processing, casual staff is hired and the rate used is $17.50/hour

and the allowance allocated for casual labour is 10,000 hours.

3) Fuel, Oil, Repairs and Maintenance (FORM)

Regular maintenance is required for pumps, testing equipment, aerators and other infrastructure

which is estimated to cost $150,000. A total of $190,000 is allocated for the overall FORM which

includes fuel cost.

4) Electricity

The annual cost of electricity is approximately $528,000 for the electric pumps, aerators and other

infrastructure such as cold rooms, ice machines and houses.

5) Fees – Licenses and Permits

An allowance of $10,000 is allocated for licenses and permits as approval for aquaculture

establishment is required from many levels, such as local government, Department of Natural

Resources, Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Environment and Heritage

Protection.

97

6) Processing and Marketing

Table 39. The breakdown of the costs for marketing and processing of Penaeus monodon (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008).

Size Classes Green IQF Retail

Cooked

Cooked

(Styro Pack) Cooked IQF

31 to 40's (11-15g)

Price per kg $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00

% of size class 24% 45% 8% 23%

Kilograms 7,680 14,400 2,560 7,360

21 to 30's (15-23g)

Price per kg $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 $13.00

% of size class 24% 45% 8% 23%

Kilograms 28,800 54,000 9,600 27,600

16 to 20's (23-30g)

Price per kg $14.75 $14.75 $14.75 $14.75

% of size class 24% 45% 8% 23%

Kilograms 76,800 144,000 25,600 73,600

10 to 15's (30-45g)

Price per kg $17.00 $17.00 $17.00 $17.00

% of size class 24% 45% 8% 23%

Kilograms 67,200 126,000 22,400 64,400

Under 10's (> 45g)

Price per kg $18.50 $18.50 $18.50 $18.50

% of size class 24% 45% 8% 23%

Kilograms 11,520 21,600 3,840 11,040

The processing costs of the prawns based on different size classes and categories are as shown above.

The assumption made is the prawn products are primarily sold in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney

market as most QLD prawn farmers sell domestically.

It is assumed that the estimation of the freight costs is to be $0.65/kg of prawn product with 3.5%

paid for the agent’s commission. Hence, the total cost of processing (includes packing and ice) and

transportation is around $1,250,345 annually.

7) Pond management

In managing the ponds, some of the expenses involved are the purchase of lime, fertiliser and

chemicals such as dyes and chlorination which amount to $22,000 annually.

98

8) Administration

Administration expenses include insurance, legal fees, travel (conferences), office supplies, medical

supplies for prawn health and vehicle registrations. An allowance of $193,200 annually is allocated for

this purpose.

9) Water usage

The evaporation of water from the ponds requires the use of fresh water to compensate and it is

estimated to be $400 per megalitre. The evaporation rates are not as high as the dry tropics Bowen-

Burdekin as the proposed cane land conversion is in the Wet Tropics region. However, it is assumed

that the evaporation rate is similar for the purpose of this study; so 700 megalitres of fresh water is

estimated to be required annually, which costs $280,000.

Summary of Production Costs (annual)

Table 40. The summary of the operation costs of 150 ha prawn aquaculture pond (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008).

Cost Amount ($)

Feed 2,127,040

Labour 1,028,308

FORM 190,000

Electricity 528,000

Licenses & Permits 10,000

Processing, marketing, transport 1,250,345

Administration 193,200

Pond management 22,000

Water usage 280,000

Post larvae 700,823

Capital 973,122

TOTAL 7,302,838

99

4.3.2.2.2 Cash Inflow

Revenue

The average price of prawn products used in this study is $15.27 per kg. The prices used in this study

are according to the industry survey conducted by Ross Lobegeiger (the DPI aquaculture extension

officer) (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2008).

The scale of the farm size considered is due to the fact that most of the prawn farms in QLD operate

using 100 hectares of ponds on average, and each hectare produces around 8 tonnes of prawns

annually. Therefore, a gross revenue of $12,216,000 is expected to be achieved.

4.3.2.3 NPV for prawn aquaculture

NPV analysis – base case

• Project length: 10 years

• Total area of model farm: 150 ha for 100 ha prawn ponds.

(The additional 50ha is the allowance for infrastructure and settlement ponds).

• Capital costs $ 11,888,500

• Annual operating costs $ 7,302,838

• Revenue $ 12,216,000

Table 41. NPV analysis for prawn farm using different discount rates under the base case.

Discount

rate

NPV

(150 ha land which consists of 100 ha prawn ponds + 50 ha

of settlement pond and infrastructure)

NPV per ha

7% $22,619,494 $ 150,797

10% $18,300,754 $ 122,005

12% $15,871,961 $ 105,813

15% $12,769,523 $ 85,130

Based on the base case, the NPVs for prawn aquaculture in the Wet Tropics lead to positive NPVs even

with different discount rates used such as 7%, 10%, 12% and 15%. Therefore, this project investment

100

is deemed feasible to be undertaken in the region. Note that the values might be different for different

prawn farmers due to other various factors such as land, vicinity to infrastructure and others. To

simulate the potential risks such as increased costs, Table 42 illustrates the NPVs in this scenario.

NPV analysis if costs increase by 20%

Annual operating costs and capital costs of operating prawn farm increase by 20%.

• Capital costs $14,266,200

• Annual operating costs $ 8,763,406

• Revenue (unchanged) $ 12,216,000

Table 42. NPV analysis for prawn farm using different discount rates if costs increase by 20%.

Discount rate NPV (150 ha land) NPV per ha

7% $ 9,983,375 $ 66,556

10% $ 6,948,496 $ 46,323

12% $ 5,241,726 $ 34,945

15% $ 3,061,570 $20,410

As shown in the table above, the NPVs for establishing prawn aquaculture are also positive even with

the increase of costs by 20%. A sensitivity analysis of various discount rates used also show that the

NPVs remain positive under this scenario.

101

4.3.2.4 NPV analysis comparison for the use of 100ha land in the Wet Tropics

Table 43. The comparison of NPV when the cane land is used for transition into better class management or by converting it to prawn aquaculture.

Industry scenario NPV per ha ($) NPV for 100ha

($)

100 ha sugarcane farm transition from class C to B

(7% discount rate in a 10-year timeframe).

588 58,800

100 ha sugarcane farm transition from class B to A

(7% discount rate in a 10-year timeframe).

-540 -54,000

100 ha sugarcane farm converted to prawn aquaculture

(by using 7% discount rate in a 10-year timeframe).

66,556 6,655,600



46,323 4,632,300



34,945 3,494,500

One of the ways to determine which project or industry that has the superior economic benefits for

the cane land in the Wet Tropics is to compare the NPVs as shown in Table 44. The transition of the

cane land from class C to B generates positive NPVs but the transition to class A may not be feasible

as the sugarcane farmers will experience loss.

The conversion of the cane land to prawn aquaculture generates greater positive NPVs even though

higher discount rates than 7% are used. This shows that the conversion of the cane land to prawn

aquaculture may be a more suitable option to ensure the return of economic benefits.

102

4.4 Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter investigates the economic benefits of sugarcane farming and prawn aquaculture in the

Wet Tropics region. As the Wet Tropics is one of the main priority management regions, it is vital to

ensure that the main threat to the GBR is eliminated through an alternative use of the sugarcane land,

which contributes to the high level of DIN released into the GBR waterways. Therefore, this chapter

explores the possibility of converting a marginal sugarcane land in the Wet Tropics into prawn

aquaculture.

It has been shown that the GVP for sugarcane farming and prawn aquaculture are $2,206/ha/yr and

$145,000/ha/yr respectively. This chapter further explores the NPVs of both industries in which the

transition of sugarcane farms from class D to class C and B would generate positive NPVs but the

transition to the aspirational class A will result in negative NPVs. It is imperative to reiterate that the

complete adoption of best management practice by the sugarcane farms in the Wet Tropic region will

still be insufficient to reach the goals set in the Reef Plan to safeguard the GBR from further

deterioration (NESP, 2016).

Therefore, a new potential land use for the region is investigated and one of the options is prawn

aquaculture. This chapter illustrates that that the conversion of marginal sugarcane land in Ingham,

Wet Tropics into prawn aquaculture will generate positive NPVs. A sensitivity analysis such as different

discount rates used also show that the NPVs would still maintain positive. This suggests that the

conversion of the cane land into prawn aquaculture may be feasible. The project (NESP, 2016) also

outlined some of the main steps needed to investigate the alternative for cane land for better

protection of the GBR by ensuring the water quality is improved.

The potentially high financial return from prawn aquaculture industry may be evident in the case of

Guthalungra prawn farm in which the Pacific Reef agreed to proceed with the development even with

the stringent regulatory in place. Specifically, the Pacific Reef has proven that it can operate based on

the ‘zero net discharge’ condition by: (i) the innovation of the algal bio-remediation step in the

proposed three-treatment system, and (ii) through the nutrient offset strategy required by assisting

the sugarcane industry to improve their land management practices annually at a cost of

approximately $ 95 304 for the 1680 ha of cane land (The Parliament of the Commonwealth of

Australia, 2016). This may suggest that only with the potentially enormous revenue ($50 million per

annum) from prawn aquaculture farm that they proposed at Guthalungra, that the Pacific Reef agreed

with the requirements which incur significant extra costs to them. Furthermore, the applications for

the Guthalungra prawn farm development approval have caused Pacific Reef a huge amount of $3

103

million in the span of 14 years (The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2016). In this thesis

chapter, the NPVs calculated may further validate the potentially high profitability from prawn

aquaculture development.

When the sustainability aspect of both sugarcane farm and prawn aquaculture is compared, it shows

that the latter has the financial capacity to operate sustainably in the GBR catchments whereas the

former struggles to adopt even the best management practice.

Some of the limitations in the economic analysis presented in this chapter are the exclusion of taxation

and transaction costs. For the sugarcane economic analysis, the transaction costs include the time

spent to purchase and learn the new equipment necessary for the transition in the sugarcane ‘ABCD’

framework. The same also applies for the economic analysis of the prawn aquaculture in which the

transaction costs excluded are the time spent to educate potential farmers to start prawn aquaculture

and to learn using the new equipment. In summary, the exclusion of the transaction costs (e.g. time

spent to purchase and to learn new equipment) applies for both the analysis made for sugarcane

farming and prawn aquaculture as mentioned in the assumption. Major costs such as the capital costs

to purchase new equipment for the transition to improved management practices and the preparation

for settlement ponds have all been included in the economic analysis for the sugarcane farms and

prawn aquaculture respectively.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that further analysis and financial modeling may be

necessary to investigate the impact of prawn-related diseases such as white spot disease on the

industry’s NPVs, such as in the case that happened to prawn farms on the Logan River recently (Briggs

and Cluff, 2017). Since the white spot disease outbreak occurred after the initial submission of this

thesis, it is important to acknowledge the need to include this possibility in the future analysis of NPV.

This disease outbreak has caused a major alarm in Australia especially the aquaculture industry and

crop diversification (e.g. gropers) may be an option for the prawn farmers until the industry recovers

again (Briggs and Cluff, 2017).

104

CHAPTER 5 Conclusions

5.1 Introduction

This thesis primarily analyses the key selected industries operating adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef

(GBR) with the objective to move forward in the direction of improving the resilience of the GBR in

order to protect it from further deterioration. Due to the fact that the GBR is in the state of serious

need of recovery and the main priority region identified for management is the Wet Tropics, this thesis

investigates the potential environmental and economic benefits of an alternative land use such as

prawn aquaculture. The need for an alternative land use has been acknowledged by many sources

such as Dr Frederieke Kroon (Kroon et al., 2016), the GBR Water Science Taskforce (Queensland Audit

Office, 2015) and the National Environmental Science Program (NESP, 2016). This is primarily because

it has been determined that even with complete implementation of sugarcane best management

practice, this will still not be sufficient to achieve the nutrient reductions as set in the GBR Water

Quality Guidelines. The main focus of this thesis is on nitrogen reduction as dissolved inorganic

nitrogen (DIN) leads to crown-of-thorn starfish (COTS) outbreak which is a top threat to the GBR.

This thesis also discovers the errors detected in the Jacobs SKM benchmark study and suggests other

ways (e.g. bioindicators) in comparing environmental impacts of the industries which have different

nature of pollution as shown in chapter 3. The approach used by Jacobs SKM benchmark study in using

the same parameter ‘nutrient per hectare’ to compare sugarcane industry with prawn aquaculture

may not be the best way to correctly conclude which industry poses higher environmental risk to the

GBR due to the different nature of pollution.

Another main objective of this thesis is to analyse the laws passed on aquaculture and other

agricultural industries operating adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. Since the GBR is listed as the

World Heritage Area, the location of aquaculture adjacent to GBR is covered by the Commonwealth

legislation and this leads to arrays of regulatory complexities (CIE, 2014).

Furthermore, the main challenge faced in achieving the Reef Plan targets was also investigated.

Diffuse source pollution such as from sugarcane farming is only regulated through voluntary approach

and that the adoption of best management practice is slow and is insufficient to achieve the Reef Plan

targets. Whereas the point source pollution, through end-of-pipe, such as from prawn farming seems

to be strictly regulated since its inception and this industry has demonstrated its capacity to fulfil the

increasing requirements to operate sustainably such as the requirement of ‘zero net discharge’

through the innovation of algae bioremediation water treatment system and by funding the sugarcane

105

farmers to adopt improved management practices. This suggests that prawn aquaculture has

potentially high profitability as it can innovate the needed water treatment system to operate

sustainably and also as it can assist in funding sugarcane farmers to adopt BMP. Chapter 4 of this thesis

also illustrates the potentially high NPVs that this industry can generate.

Although it might be easier to monitor the pollution from ‘end-of-pipe’ point source pollution such as

prawn aquaculture, it is imperative to note that this may deter future investments in this potentially

lucrative industry. Moreover, the main source of pollution (e.g sugarcane industry) needs to be

addressed quickly instead of focusing on the fraction of the pollution contributor. Even though the

‘grandfathering’ policy may apply to the sugarcane industry, the condition of the GBR calls for drastic

intervention in which the adoption of BMPs is just not enough to cause a change to the water quality

of the GBR as mentioned previously.

5.2 Recommendations

In summary, the recommendations proposed in protecting the GBR by strengthening its resilience are:

1) To convert marginal cane land to a potentially more sustainable and profitable industry such

as prawn aquaculture.

2) To retire certain cropping lands for conservation and restoration.

3) To impose a more scientifically based regulatory framework.

This is also in accordance with the suggestions made by the Great Barrier Reef Water Science

Taskforce (Queensland Audit Office, 2015) and Dr Frederieke Kroon, Principal Research Scientist at

AIMS, in order to achieve the Reef 2050 Plan’s targets (Kroon et al., 2016).

Due to the potentially higher NPVs from prawn aquaculture in comparison to the transition of

sugarcane farming to BMPs (as shown in chapter 4), a marginal cane land in the Wet Tropics may be

diversified into prawn aquaculture. Moreover, the innovative techniques enabled them to operate

sustainably, especially with the invention of the proposed water treatment system through sand

filtration and algal treatment that can potentially produce cleaner water.

The rest of the sugarcane farms can be restored for conservation and to allow only the sugarcane

landholders which can fully adopt the BMP to continue farming. Through this way, it may be possible

to obtain large economic returns while preserving the GBR. This is because by shutting down certain

106

sugarcane farms in the Wet Tropics, a region which contributes to majority of the DIN runoff into the

GBR, we can directly reduce this nutrient in a faster way than waiting and investing more money into

the voluntary adoption of BMP. Furthermore, as aforementioned, the voluntary BMP adoption is

ineffective and insufficient to achieve the Reef Plan water quality targets.

In relation to that, the amount of funding ($ 146 million) that has been allocated for water quality

grants to encourage the BMP adoption is enormous. Recently, another $45 million has been injected

by the Federal Government with one of the aims to encourage the adoption of BMP. I assert that this

amount of money can be better utilized through the diversification of land use as aforementioned by

preparing the necessary steps needed in order to initiate the transformation.

5.3 Limitations and Future Directions

It is undeniable that the diversification from sugarcane farming to prawn aquaculture requires

significant amount of time, efforts and resources. One of the limitation of this thesis is a detailed study

on the potential transaction costs of the transition to prawn aquaculture such as the costs needed to

educate the potential sugarcane farmers who are interested and the opportunity cost of the time

foregone learning the new industry.

Furthermore, the economic analysis used for prawn aquaculture in this study was mainly based on the

data from a proposed prawn farm in Bowen-Burdekin, Dry Tropics (although the land cost was based

on the data for a cane land in Ingham, Wet Tropics). Therefore, another economic analysis that derives

the potential latest costs and revenue from a prawn farm in Wet Tropics would be beneficial to

compare and validate the findings. Note that the land costing used in the prawn aquaculture economic

analysis was based on the data for a cane land in Ingham, Wet Tropics, which is higher than the land

cost in the Bowen-Burdekin.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the recent white spot disease that hit the prawn farms on the

Logan River was unexpected due to the reputation of Australian aquaculture industry as to have the

world’s best practice in terms of environmental management (Horvat, 2016). Up until end of 2016,

Australia was one of the only two remaining countries which was free from white spot disease (Horvat,

2016). One of the possible sources of the disease is through the imported prawn that was already

infected which was used as bait by recreational fishers (Horvat, 2016). Following the unfortunate

spread of white spot disease in Queensland, the Australian government has then banned imported

107

prawns to safeguard the local prawn industry. Therefore, constructing NVP analysis by taking account

the possible risks of prawn-related diseases may be necessary in the future. Although this unfortunate

incident may look like a disaster to the prawn aquaculture industry now, it has prompted the

Australian government to implement ban on imported prawns (Silva, 2017). Hence, once the prawn

aquaculture industry recovers later on, it may likely to have a better control of the environment from

the possible prawn-related diseases and potentially a better grip of the local market share as well.

108

REFERENCES

2016. Reef 2050 Plan - Policy guideline for decision makers. AAP. 2015. Reef not 'in danger' for now: UNESCO [Online]. SBS: SBS. Available:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/05/29/reef-not-danger-now-unesco [Accessed 6 March 2016 2016].

ABARES 2010. Australian Fisheries Statistics 2010. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.

ABARES 2014. Australian fisheries and aquaculture statistics 2013. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Science.

ABC. 2014. Prawn farmers say a maze of regulation is stifling investment [Online]. Available: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/perplexed-prawn-farmers-hope-for-end-to-regulatory-malaise/5312772 [Accessed].

ACIL 2002. Submission to the Productivity Commission on Industries in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment and Measure To address Declining Water Quality.

AIMS 2017. Crown-of-thorns starfish. Australian Institute of Marine Science. APH 2016. Inquiry into Opportunities for Expanding Aquaculture in Northern Australia. In:

AUSTRALIA, J. S. C. O. N. (ed.). Commonwealth of Australia. ARMOUR, J., HATELEY, L. & PITT, G. L. 2009. Catchment modelling of sediment, nitrogen and

phosphorus nutrient loads with SedNet/ANNEX in the Tully-Murray basin. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60, 1091-1096.

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT 2009. Great Barrier Reef-wide summary. First Report Card (2009 Baseline).

BAINBRIDGE, Z. T., BRODIE, J. E., FAITHFUL, J. W., SYDES, D. A. & LEWIS, S. E. 2009. Identifying the land-based sources of suspended sediments, nutrients and pesticides discharged to the Great Barrier Reef from the Tully–Murray Basin, Queensland, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60, 1081-1090.

BARTLEY, R. & SPEIRS, W. 2010. Review and summary of constituent concentration data from Australia for use in catchment water quality models. eWater Cooperative Research Centre Technical Report. CSIRO.

BEEDEN, R., MAYNARD, J., PUOTINEN, M., MARSHALL, P., DRYDEN, J., GOLDBERG, J. & WILLIAMS, G. 2015. Impacts and Recovery from Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi on the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS ONE, 10, e0121272.

BENGTSON, R. L., SELIM, H. M. & RICAUD, R. 1998. Water quality from sugarcane production on alluvial soils. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 41, 1331-1336.

BETTLES, C. 2017. Prawn prices set to soar due to import ban [Online]. Farm Online Available: http://www.farmonline.com.au/story/4396927/prawn-prices-set-to-soar-due-to-import-ban/ [Accessed 3 February 2017.].

BRENNAN, D. 1999. Pollution Control Policies for Australian Prawn Farms. 43rd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. Christchurch, New Zealand.

BRIGGS, C. & CLUFF, R. 2017. Queensland gropers sent to south-east to help prawn farmers battling white spot disease. ABC News.

BRODIE, J., FABRICIUS, K., DE'ATH, G. & OKAJI, K. 2005. Are increased nutrient inputs responsible for more outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish? An appraisal of the evidence. Mar Pollut Bull, 51, 266-78.

BRODIE, J., LEWIS, S., WOOLRIDGE, S., BAINBRIDGE, Z. & WATERHOUSE, J. 2014. Ecologically relevant targets for pollutant discharge from the drainage basins of the Wet Tropics Region, Great Barier Reef. TropWATER Report 14/33. Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research: James Cook University, Australia.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/05/29/reef-not-danger-now-unesco

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/perplexed-prawn-farmers-hope-for-end-to-regulatory-malaise/5312772

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/perplexed-prawn-farmers-hope-for-end-to-regulatory-malaise/5312772

http://www.farmonline.com.au/story/4396927/prawn-prices-set-to-soar-due-to-import-ban/

http://www.farmonline.com.au/story/4396927/prawn-prices-set-to-soar-due-to-import-ban/

109

BRODIE, J., MCKERGOW, L. A., PROSSER, I. P., FURNAS, M., HUGHES, A. O. & HUNTER, H. 2007. Sources of Sediment and Nutrient Exports to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research.

BRODIE, J. & MITCHELL, A. 2005. Nutrients in Australian tropical rivers: changes with agricultural development and implications for receiving environments. Marine and Freshwater Research, 56, 279-302.

BRODIE, J. & WATERHOUSE, J. 2012. A critical review of environmental management of the ‘not so Great’ Barrier Reef. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 104–105, 1-22.

BRODIE, J., WATERHOUSE, J., LEWIS, S., BAINBRIDGE, Z. & JOHNSON, J. 2010. Current loads of priority pollutants discharged from Great Barrier Reef Catchments to the Great Barrier Reef.

BRODIE, J., WATERHOUSE, J., SCHAFFELKE, B., FURNAS, M., MAYNARD, J., COLLIER, C. & LEWIS, S. 2013. Chapter 3 : Relative Risks to the Great Barrier Reef from degraded water quality. 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement.

BRUNO, J. F., SELIG, E. R., CASEY, K. S., PAGE, C. A., WILLIS, B. L., HARVELL, C. D., SWEATMAN, H. & MELENDY, A. M. 2007. Thermal stress and coral cover as drivers of coral disease outbreaks. PLoS Biol, 5, e124.

BURFORD, M. A., COSTANZO, S. D., DENNISON, W. C., JACKSON, C. J., JONES, A. B., MCKINNON, A. D., PRESTON, N. P. & TROTT, L. A. 2003a. A synthesis of dominant ecological processes in intensive shrimp ponds and adjacent coastal environments in NE Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1456-1469.

BURFORD, M. A., COSTANZO, S. D., DENNISON, W. C., JACKSON, C. J., JONES, A. B., MCKINNON, A. D., PRESTON, N. P. & TROTT, L. A. 2003b. A synthesis of dominant ecological processes in intensive shrimp ponds and adjacent coastal environments in NE Australia. Mar Pollut Bull, 46, 1456-69.

BURKE, L., REYTAR, K., SPALDING, M. & PERRY, A. 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited, Creative Commons. CAL-GRAN. 2016. Six Easy Steps passes the test [Online]. Available:

http://www.calgran.com.au/News/Latest%20News/Six%20Easy%20Steps%20passes%20the%20test [Accessed 5 July 2016.].

CARL, C., NYS, R. D., LAWTON, R. J. & PAUL, N. A. 2014. Methods for the Induction of Reproduction in a Tropical Species of Filamentous Ulva. PLos ONE, 9.

CARRIGAN, A. D. & PUOTINEN, M. L. C. L. 2011. Assessing the potential for tropical cyclone induced sea surface cooling to reduce thermal stress on the world's coral reefs. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, n/a-n/a.

CAXTON LEGAL CENTRE 2016. Environmentally Relevant Activities. CHAPMAN, L. Fertiliser Nitrogen Management in Australia. Australian Society of Sugar Cane

Technologist, 1994. 83-92. CHOPIN, T., COOPER, J. A., REID, G., CROSS, S. & MOORE, C. 2012. Open-water integrated multi-

trophic aquaculture: environmental biomitigation and economic diversification of fed aquaculture by extractive aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 4, 209-220.

CIE 2013. Aquaculture in Queensland: Priortising Regulatory Reform. The Centre for International Economics.

CIE 2014. Comparative review of aquaculture regulation. The Centre for International Economics. CLARK, T. R., LEONARD, N. D., ZHAO, J.-X., BRODIE, J., MCCOOK, L. J., WACHENFELD, D. R., DUC

NGUYEN, A., MARKHAM, H. L. & PANDOLFI, J. M. 2016. Historical photographs revisited: A case study for dating and characterizing recent loss of coral cover on the inshore Great Barrier Reef. Scientific Reports, 6, 19285.

COURTNEY, P. 2015. Prawn Politics. In: LANDLINE, A. (ed.). ABC Landline. CRESSEY, D. 2016. Coral crisis: Great Barrier Reef bleaching is “the worst we’ve ever seen”. Nature. CSIRO 2002. The environmental management of prawn farming in Queensland — worlds best

practice. CSIRO 2017. Novacq prawn feed.

http://www.calgran.com.au/News/Latest%20News/Six%20Easy%20Steps%20passes%20the%20test

http://www.calgran.com.au/News/Latest%20News/Six%20Easy%20Steps%20passes%20the%20test

110

DE’ATH, G., FABRICIUS, K. E., SWEATMAN, H. & PUOTINEN, M. 2012. The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17995-17999.

DEHP 2016. Waste management for business. DELOITTE ACCESS ECONOMICS 2013. Economic contribution of the Great Barrier Reef. DEPARMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2015. Australia's seafood trade. Commonwealth of Australia. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES 2015. Regulatory Framework. Queensland

Government. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, F. A. F. 2014. Crop Nutrient Application Rates. Queensland

Government. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT 2015. EPBC Act 1999. In: GOVERNMENT, A. (ed.). DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE PROTECTION 2013. Operational Policy: Licensing

wastewater releases from existing marine prawn farms in Queensland. In: PROTECTION, D. O. E. A. H. (ed.). Queensland Government.

DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING 2008. North East Gold Coast strategic land use, economic development and infrastructure study. Issues and options paper. Queensland government.

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES 2006. Health management for profit. Australian Prawn Farming Manual. The State of Queensland.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Innovations in sugar cane farming: Case study. Australian Government.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 2016. Crown-of-thorns starfish management programme: Case study. Australian Government.

DIANA. 2016. Sugarcane farmers the 'Game Changer' for our reef [Online]. Available: http://catchmentsolutions.com.au/sugarcane-farmers-the-game-changer-for-our-reef/ [Accessed 7 April 2016].

DONOVAN, D. J. 2001. Environmental Code of Practice for Australian Prawn Farmers. APFA. DORSETT, J. 2016. Great Barrier Reef policies not enough to meet targets set out in Reef 2050 Plan:

AIMS. ABC News. ELLIOT, B. 17 April 2014 2014. RE: Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

comment on the QCA's Issue Paper Aquaculture Regulation in Queensland February 2014. Type to QCA.

ERFTEMEIJER, P. L. A. 2014. Benchmark Study : Emissions, Productivity and Employment for Aquaculture and other Types of Land Use in Queensland. Jacobs SKM.

FABRICIUS, K. E., OKAJI, K. & DE’ATH, G. 2010. Three lines of evidence to link outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns seastar Acanthaster planci to the release of larval food limitation. Coral Reefs, 29, 593-605.

FELIX RELTANO REAL ESTATE. 2017. Lannercost Land for Sale [Online]. Available: https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/property/scott-s-road-lannercost-qld-4850-2013516589 [Accessed 6 April 2017.].

FIRST REPORT CARD 2009. First Report Card (2009 Baseline). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan: Queensland Government.

FURNAS, M., MITCHELL, A., SKUZA, M. & BRODIE, J. 2005. In the other 90%: phytoplankton responses to enhanced nutrient availability in the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon. Mar Pollut Bull, 51, 253-65.

GBRMPA 2010. Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

GBRMPA 2014. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014. Townsville. GBRMPA 2016a. Coral bleaching. GBRMPA 2016b. Coral disease on the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Government.

http://catchmentsolutions.com.au/sugarcane-farmers-the-game-changer-for-our-reef/

https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/property/scott-s-road-lannercost-qld-4850-2013516589

https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/property/scott-s-road-lannercost-qld-4850-2013516589

111

GBRMPA. n.d. Legislation [Online]. Australian Government. Available: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-us/legislation-regulations-and-policies/legislation [Accessed].

GLENCROSS, B., TABRETT, S., IRVIN, S., WADE, N., ANDERSON, M., BLYTH, D., SMITH, D., COMAN, G. & PRESTON, N. 2013. An analysis of the effect of diet and genotype on protein and energy utilization by the black tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon – why do genetically selected shrimp grow faster? Aquaculture Nutrition, 19, 128-138.

GRAHAM, N. A., CHONG-SENG, K. M., HUCHERY, C., JANUCHOWSKI-HARTLEY, F. A. & NASH, K. L. 2014. Coral reef community composition in the context of disturbance history on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. PLoS One, 9, e101204.

GREAT BARRIER REEF FOUNDATION 2016. Bleaching. GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK, A. 2013. Coral bleaching risk and impact assessment plan. 2nd

edition. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GREAT BARRIER REEF WATER SCIENCE TASKFORCE 2015. Interim Report December 2015. GRECH, A., PRESSEY, R. L. & DAY, J. C. 2015. Coal, Cumulative Impacts, and the Great Barrier Reef.

Conservation Letters, n/a-n/a. GRIEKEN, M. E. V., WEBSTER, A. J., POGGIO, M., THORBURN, P., BIGGS, J., STOKES, C. & MCDONALD,

C. 2010a. Implementation costs of agricultural management practices for water quality improvement in the Great Barrier Reef Catchments. Report to the Marine and Tropical Research Facility. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship.

GRIEKEN, M. V., POGGIO, M., EAST, M., PAGE, J. & STAR, M. 2010b. Economic Analysis of Sugarcane Farming Systems for Water Quality Improvement in the Great Barrier Reef Catchments. Water for a Healthy Country Flagship series.

HAMMILL, B., ANDERSEN, C., JOHNSON, C. & HENRY, N. 2015. Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce In: PROTECTION, D. O. E. A. H. (ed.). State of Queensland.

HARVELL, C. D., KIM, K., BURKHOLDER, J. M., COLWELL, R. R., EPSTEIN, P. R., GRIMES, D. J., HOFMANN, E. E., LIPP, E. K., OSTERHAUS, A. & OVERSTREET, R. M. 1999. Emerging marine diseases--climate links and anthropogenic factors. Science, 285, 1505-1510.

HARVEY, S., ROLFE, J., TAYLOR, B. & WHITTEN, S. 2014. Regulations versus voluntary mechanisms to improve adoption of best management practices in GBR catchments. Reef Rescue Research & Development.

HATELEY, L. 2014. Modelling reductions of pollutant loads due to improved management practices in the Great Barrier Reef catchments - Wet Tropics. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013. State of Queensland: Department of Natural Resource and Mines

HAYES, M. L., BONAVENTURA, J., MITCHELL, T. P., PROSPERO, J. M., SHINN, E. A., VAN DOLAH, F. & BARBER, R. T. 2001. How are climate and marine biological outbreaks functionally linked? The Ecology and Etiology of Newly Emerging Marine Diseases. Springer.

HEIDENREICH, M. 2015. Aquaculture production summary for Queensland 2014-15. Ross Lobegeiger Report to Farmers Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

HOFF, M. 2007. What’s Behind the Spread of White Syndrome in Great Barrier Reef Corals? PLoS Biology, 5, e164.

HORVAT, P. 2016. White spot disease update. FRDC: Fisheries Research & Development Corporation. INVESTOPEDIA. 2016. Utilitarianism [Online]. Available:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp [Accessed 5 January 2016]. JACKSON, C., PRESTON, N. & THOMPSON, P. J. 2004. Intake and discharge nutrient loads at three

intensive shrimp farms. Aquaculture Research, 35, 1053-1061. JACKSON, C., PRESTON, N., THOMPSON, P. J. & BURFORD, M. 2003. Nitrogen budget and effluent

nitrogen components at an intensive shrimp farm. Aquaculture, 218, 397-411. JACOBS SKM 2014. Guthalungra Prawn Farm. Nutrient Offset Strategy.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-us/legislation-regulations-and-policies/legislation

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp

112

JAIME. 2014. Introducing the Game Changer Program [Online]. Reef Catchments. Available: http://reefcatchments.com.au/introducing-the-game-changer-program/ [Accessed 5 March 2016 2016].

JENKINS, H. 2014. RE: Re: Inquiry into the Development of Northern Australia – Pivot North report. Type to FORCE, N. A. T.

JOO, M., RAYMOND, M. A. A., MCNEIL, V. H., HUGGINS, R., TURNER, R. D. R. & CHOY, S. 2012. Estimates of sediment and nutrient loads in 10 major catchments draining to the Great Barrier Reef during 2006–2009. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 65, 150-166.

KNUTSON, T. R., MCBRIDE, J. L., CHAN, J., EMANUEL, K., HOLLAND, G., LANDSEA, C., HELD, I., KOSSIN, J. P., SRIVASTAVA, A. K. & SUGI, M. 2010. Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geosci, 3, 157-163.

KROON, F. J. 2012. Towards ecologically relevant targets for river pollutant loads to the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 65, 261-266.

KROON, F. J., THORBURN, P., SCHAFFELKE, B. & WHITTEN, S. 2016. Towards protecting the Great Barrier Reef from land-based pollution. Global Change Biology, n/a-n/a.

LAWTON, R. J., MATA, L., DE NYS, R. & PAUL, N. A. 2013. Algal Bioremediation of Waste Waters from Land-Based Aquaculture Using Ulva: Selecting Target Species and Strains. PLoS ONE, 8, e77344.

LOCKIE, S. & ROCKLOFF, S. 2005. Landholder Attitudes to Wetlands and Wetland Conservation Programs and Incentives. Sustainable Land Management and Wetlands Conservation on Freehold and Leasehold Land in the Great Barrier Reef Ctachment. Australian Government: CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management.

LUCAS, J. S. 2013. Crown-of-thorns starfish. Current Biology, 23, R945-R946. MAULONI, D. 2016. Sugarcane farmers the 'Game Changer' for our reef. Terrain NRM. MBD LIMITED. 2016. Bioremediation of industrial emissions for environmental gain and the

sustainable production of valuable products. [Online]. MBD. Available: http://www.mbdenergy.com/ [Accessed].

MCCARTHY, J. 2014. Queensland sugarcane farmers on track for $1.7b harvest if it rains in coming weeks. Courier Mail: Courier Mail.

MCPHEE, D. 2001. A comparison of anthropogenic discharge quality and quantity into Queensland East Coast catchments.: APFA.

MOORE, S. 2014. Sugar shaker: state of play Australian sugarcane industry. canegrowers. NAYLOR, R. L., GOLDBURG, R. J., MOONEY, H., BEVERIDGE, M., CLAY, J., FOLKE, C., KAUTSKY, N.,

LUBCHENCO, J., PRIMAVERA, J. & WILLIAMS, M. 1998. Nature's Subsidies to Shrimp and Salmon Farming. Science, 282, 883-884 %R 10.1126/science.282.5390.883.

NEALES, S. 2013. Prawn farming made more profitable by CSIRO. [Online]. The Australian. Available: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/prawn-farming-made-more-profitable-by-csiro/story-e6frg8y6-1226688377267 [Accessed 14 March 2016 2016].

NESP 2016. Project 2.1.2 Scoping options for low lying, marginal cane land to reduce DIN in priority wet tropics catchments. Tropical Water Quality Hub: National Environmental Science Programme.

NG KEE KWONG, K. F., BHOLAH, A., VOLCY, L. & PYNEE, K. 2002. Nitrogen and phosphorus transport by surface runoff from a silty clay loam soil under sugarcane in the humid tropical environment of Mauritius. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 91, 147-157.

NYSTRÖM, M., GRAHAM, N. A. J., LOKRANTZ, J. & NORSTRÖM, A. V. 2008. Capturing the cornerstones of coral reef resilience: linking theory to practice. Coral Reefs, 27, 795-809.

O'SULLIVAN, D. 2002. Rejuvenated Ayr prawn farm. Austasia Aquaculture. O'SULLIVAN, D. 2010. Regulations restricting prawn farm development in Queensland. Austasia

Aquaculture. O'SULLIVAN, D. 2011. Environmental certification and biofloc technology boost prawn farm

profitability. Austasia Aquaculture.

http://reefcatchments.com.au/introducing-the-game-changer-program/

http://www.mbdenergy.com/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/prawn-farming-made-more-profitable-by-csiro/story-e6frg8y6-1226688377267

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/prawn-farming-made-more-profitable-by-csiro/story-e6frg8y6-1226688377267

113

OKAJI, K., AYUKAI, T. & LUCAS, S. J. Selective feeding by larvae of the crown-of-thorns starfish, Acanthaster planci (L.). Coral Reefs, 16, 47-50.

ORG, P. 2013. 'Perfect' food for 'perfect' prawns [Online]. Available: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-food-prawns.html [Accessed].

OSBORNE, K., DOLMAN, A. M., BURGESS, S. C. & JOHNS, K. A. 2011. Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009). PLoS ONE, 6, e17516.

OZAQUACULTURE. 2015. Tru blu shrimp farm for sale [Online]. Available: http://www.ozaquaculture.com.au/article/tru-blu-shrimp-farm-for-sale [Accessed 5 April 2017 2017].

PACIFIC REEF FISHERIES 2014. Proposal to construct and operate the Guthalungra prawn farm at Abbot Bay. In: PRF (ed.).

PACKETT, P., DOUGHALLL, C., ROHDE, K. & NOBLE, R. 2009. Agricultural lands are hot-spots for annual runoff polluting the southern Great Barrier Reef lagoon, Marine Pollution Bulletin.

PANNELL, D. J., MARSHALL, G. R., BARR, N., CURTIS, A., VANCLAY, F. & WILKINSON, R. 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46, 1407-1424.

PARK, G. & ROBERTS, A. 2014. Wet Tropics WQIP - INFFER Assessment In: LTD, N. D. P. (ed.) Water Quality Improvement Plan.

PIGGOTT-MCKELLAR, A. E. & MCNAMARA, K. E. 2016. Last chance tourism and the Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-19.

PRESTON, N. & FITZGERALD, R. 2013. Novacq™ Increases Shrimp Growth Rate 30% [Online]. Shrimp News International: Shrimp news International. Available: https://www.shrimpnews.com/FreeReportsFolder/NewsReportsFolder/AustraliaNovacqFeedGrowth.html [Accessed 1 April 2016].

PRESTON, N., JACKSON, C., THOMPSON, P., AUSTIN, M., BURFORD, M. & ROTHLISBERG, P. 2000. Prawn farm effluent: Composition, origin and treatment. FRDC: CSIRO, CRC.

PROVE, B. G., MOODY, P. W. & REGHENZANI, J. R. 1997. DAQ3S Nutrient Balances and Transport from Agricultural and Rainforest Lands: 1997 Final Report.

QCA 2014. Aquaculture Regulation in Queensland. In: AUTHORITY, Q. C. (ed.). QUEENSLAND AUDIT OFFICE 2015. Managing water quality in Great Barrier Reef catchments. In:

GREAVES, A. (ed.) Report 20: 2014-2015. Queensland Audit Office: QAO. QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES 2008. Economic Assessment

of Aquaculture in the Bowen-Burdekin Aquaculture Precinct. In: GOVERNMENT, Q. (ed.) Part A: Land Based Marine Prawn (Penaeus monodon).

QUEENSLAND FARMERS' FEDERATION 2016. Reef gets $45 million boost through QFF led Reef Alliance Project. Queensland Farmers' Federation.

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT 2003. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan: For catchments adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. In: QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF PREMIER AND CABINET, B. (ed.).

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT 2015a. Reef protection regulations. In: GOVERNMENT, Q. (ed.). QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT 2015b. Report Card 2014. Marine results. Queensland Government. QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT 2016a. Environmental Protection Act 1994. Parliamentary Counsel. QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT 2016b. Queensland Competition Authority final report on Aquaculture

Regulation in Queensland. Government response. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT 2017. Regulatory framework for aquaculture. Business Queensland. QUEENSLAND TREASURY 2015. GVP by commodity. Agriculture. Queensland Government

Statistician's Office. REEF & RAINFOREST RESEARCH CENTRE 2015. Final Program Report: Overview of research findings

and program outcomes. Reef Rescue Research & Development. REEF PLAN 2014a. Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2014. Results. Australian Government: Queensland

Government.

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-food-prawns.html

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-food-prawns.html

http://www.ozaquaculture.com.au/article/tru-blu-shrimp-farm-for-sale

https://www.shrimpnews.com/FreeReportsFolder/NewsReportsFolder/AustraliaNovacqFeedGrowth.html

https://www.shrimpnews.com/FreeReportsFolder/NewsReportsFolder/AustraliaNovacqFeedGrowth.html

114

REEF PLAN 2014b. Report Card 2012 & 2013. REEF PLAN. 2015. First Report Card (2009 Baseline) [Online]. Available:

http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/first-report-card.aspx [Accessed 6 July 2016.].

REEF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PLAN 2013. Securing the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent catchments. The State of Queensland: Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

RIBAUDO, M. O., HEIMLICH, R., CLAASSEN, R. & PETERS, M. 2001. Least-cost management of nonpoint source pollution: source reduction versus interception strategies for controlling nitrogen loss in the Mississippi Basin. Ecological Economics, 37, 183-197.

ROBERTS, A. M. & CRAIG, R. K. 2014. Regulatory reform requirements to address diffuse source water quality problems in Australia: learning from US experiences. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 21, 102-115.

ROBERTSON, A. I. & PHILLIPS, M. J. 1995. Mangroves as filters of shrimp pond effluent: predictions and biogeochemical research needs. Hydrobiologia, 295, 311-321.

ROBERTSON, C. 2000. Prawn farm effluenttreatment and recirculation systems. A review of options in sustainable farm design and operation. Department of Primary Industries.

ROLFE, J. & WINDLE, J. 2011a. Using auction mechanisms to reveal costs for water quality improvements in Great Barrier Reef catchments in Australia. Agricultural Water Management, 98, 493-501.

ROLFE, J. & WINDLE, J. C. W. 2011b. Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef. Water Resources Research, 47, n/a-n/a.

ROWAN, R. 2004. Coral bleaching: Thermal adaptation in reef coral symbionts. Nature, 430, 742-742. SCHROEDER, B., HUBERT, J., HUBERT, C., HUBERT, F., PANITZ, J., WOOD, A. & PARK, G. Recognising

difference in soil type to guide nutrient inputs on-farm - a case study from Bundaberg. Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 2007.

SCHROEDER, B., WOOD, A., MOODY, P., BELL, M. & GARSIDE, A. Nitrogen fertiliser guidelines in perspective. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2005. 291-304.

SCHROEDER, B., WOOD, A., MOODY, P., PANITZ, J., AGNEW, J., SLUGGETT, R. & SALTER, B. 2006. Delivering nutrient management guidelines to growers in the central region of the Australian sugar industry. . Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 28.

SCHROEDER, B., WOOD, A., SEFTON, M., HURNEY, A., SKOCAJ, D., STAINLEY, T. & MOODY, P. District yield potential: an appropriate basis for nitrogen guidelines for sugarcane production. Proceedings of the 2010 Conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2010 Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia.

SELLARS, M. J., RAO, M., POLYMERIS, N., IRVIN, S. J., COWLEY, J. A., PRESTON, N. P. & GLENCROSS, B. D. 2015. Feed Containing Novacq Improves Resilience of Black Tiger Shrimp, Penaeus Monodon, to Gill-associated Virus-induced Mortality. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 46, 328-336.

SHEPHARD, C. 2016. RE: QLUMP inquiries. SHROEDER, B., HURNEY, A., WOOD, A., MOODY, P., CALCINO, D. & CAMERON, T. 2009. Alternative

Nitrogen Management Strategies for Sugarcane Production in Australia: The Essence of What They Mean. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol, 31.

SILVA, K. 2017. Prawn farmers outraged at levy proposal to fight white spot. ABC News. SKOCAJ, D., HURNEY, A. & SCHROEDER, B. 2012. Validating the 'Six Easy Steps' Nitrogen Guidelines in

the Wet Tropics. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol 34. SKOCAJ, D. M., EVERINGHAM, Y. L. & SCHROEDER, B. L. 2013. Nitrogen Management Guidelines for

Sugarcane Production in Australia: Can These Be Modified for Wet Tropical Conditions Using Seasonal Climate Forecasting? Springer Science Reviews, 1, 51-71.

http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/first-report-card.aspx

115

SLEZAK, M. 2016a. Mass coral bleaching now affecting half of Australia's Great Barrier Reef [Online]. The Guardian. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/11/mass-coral-bleaching-now-affecting-half-of-australias-great-barrier-reef [Accessed 12 April 2016 2016].

SLEZAK, M. 2016b. Scientists resort to advertising to get Great Barrier Reef crisis in Queensland paper. Great Barrier Reef. The Guardian.

SMITH, M. 2015. Catchment runoff continues to threaten Reef health [Online]. Sustainable Queensland. Available: http://sustainablequeensland.info/water-quality-in-gbr-catchments/ [Accessed 2 Novemeber 2015 2015].

SMITH, V. H., TILMAN, G. D. & NEKOLA, J. C. 1999. Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ Pollut, 100, 179-96.

TERRAIN NRM. 2016. Project Catalyst [Online]. Available: http://www.terrain.org.au/Projects/Wet-Tropics-Agriculture/Innovative-Farming/Project-Catalyst [Accessed].

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 2016. Scaling Up: Inquiry into Opportunities for Expanding Aquaculture in Northern Australia. In: AUSTRALIA, J. S. C. O. N. (ed.). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia 2016.

THOMAS, Y., COURTIES, C., EL HELWE, Y., HERBLAND, A. & LEMONNIER, H. 2010. Spatial and temporal extension of eutrophication associated with shrimp farm wastewater discharges in the New Caledonia lagoon. Mar Pollut Bull, 61, 387-98.

THORBURN, P., BIGGS, J., WEBSTER, A. & BIGGS, I. 2011a. An Improved Way to Determine Nitrogen Fertiliser Requirements of Sugar Cane Crops to Meet Global Environmental Challenges. Plant and Soil, 339, 51-67.

THORBURN, P. J., BIGGS, J. S., ATTARD, S. J. & KEMEI, J. 2011b. Environmental impacts of irrigated sugarcane production: Nitrogen lost through runoff and leaching. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 144, 1-12.

THORBURN, P. J., BIGGS, J. S., WEBSTER, A. J. & BIGGS, I. M. 2010. An improved way to determine nitrogen fertiliser requirements of sugarcane crops to meet global environmental challenges. Plant and Soil, 339, 51-67.

TREADWELL, R., MAGUIRE, G. & MCKELVIE, L. 1999. Economic Aspects of aquaculture in North Queensland. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.

TROTT, L. A. & ALONGI, D. M. 2000. The Impact of Shrimp Pond Effluent on Water Quality and Phytoplankton Biomass in a Tropical Mangrove Estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40, 947-951.

TROTT, L. A. & ALONGI, D. M. 2001. Quantifying and predicting the impact of prawn effluent on the assimilative capacity of coastal waterways and Pond and Effluent management. FDRC Project 97/212. Aquaculture CRC Ltd Project E1.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report. Washington D.C: Environmental Protection Agency.

UNESCO 2012. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris.

VALLIS, I., CATCHPOOLE, V. R., HUGHES, R. M., MYERS, R. J. K., RIDGE, D. R. & WEIER, K. L. 1996. Recovery in plants and soils of N applied as subsurface bands of urea to sugarcane. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 47, 355-370 %R http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR9960355.

VAN GRIEKEN, M., LYNAM, T., COGGAN, A., WHITTEN, S. & KROON, F. 2013. Cost effectiveness of design-based water quality improvement regulations in the Great Barrier Reef Catchments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 180, 157-165.

VAN OPPEN, M. J. & GATES, R. D. 2006. Conservation genetics and the resilience of reef-building corals. Mol Ecol, 15, 3863-83.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/11/mass-coral-bleaching-now-affecting-half-of-australias-great-barrier-reef

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/11/mass-coral-bleaching-now-affecting-half-of-australias-great-barrier-reef

http://sustainablequeensland.info/water-quality-in-gbr-catchments/

http://www.terrain.org.au/Projects/Wet-Tropics-Agriculture/Innovative-Farming/Project-Catalyst

http://www.terrain.org.au/Projects/Wet-Tropics-Agriculture/Innovative-Farming/Project-Catalyst

http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR9960355

116

WALKLEY, A. & BLACK, I. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37, 29-38.

WATERHOUSE, J., BRODIE, J., LEWIS, S. & MITCHELL, A. 2012. Quantifying the sources of pollutants in the Great Barrier Reef catchments and the relative risk to reef ecosystems. Mar Pollut Bull, 65, 394-406.

WEBSTER, A. J., BARTLEY, R., ARMOUR, J. D., BRODIE, J. E. & THORBURN, P. J. 2012. Reducing dissolved inorganic nitrogen in surface runoff water from sugarcane production systems. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 65, 128-135.

WEBSTER, A. J., THORBURN, P. J., ROEBELING, P. C., HORAN, H. L. & BIGGS, J. S. 2009. The expected impact of climate change on nitrogen losses from wet tropical sugarcane production in the Great Barrier Reef region. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60, 1159-1164.

WEST, M. 2015. Aquaculture industry stymied by red tape – warns APFA.: APFA. WOLANSKI, E., SPAGNOL, S., THOMAS, S., MOORE, K., ALONGI, D. M., TROTT, L. & DAVIDSON, A.

2000. Modelling and Visualizing the Fate of Shrimp Pond Effluent in a Mangrove-fringed Tidal Creek. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 50, 85-97.

WOOD, A., BRAMLEY, R., MEYER, J. & JOHNSON, A. Opportunities for improving nutrient management in the Australian sugar industry. Intensive sugarcane production: meeting the challenges beyond 2000, 2000 Brisbane, Australia.

WOOD, A., SCHROEDER, B. & STREWART, R. 2003. The development of site-specific nutrient management guidelines for sustainable sugarcane production. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 25.

WOODFORD, J. 2016. Great Barrier Reef: the scale of bleaching has the most sober scientists worried. The Guardian.

WOOLDRIDGE, S. A. & BRODIE, J. E. 2015. Environmental triggers for primary outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 101, 805-815.

ZHU, Y. & CHU, J. 2013. A study on aquaculture industry regulations and policies of globally representative states. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 11, 268-275.

ZORRIEHZAHRA, M. J. & BANAEDERAKHSHAN, R. 2015. Early mortality syndrome (EMS) as new emerging threat in shrimp industry. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci, 3, 64-72.

Date post:	26-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

An investigation of the potential economic and environmental … · 2017-07-11 · Parts of this...

Documents