INDEPENDENT EXPERT PANEL - MINUTES

Date Thursday, 9 May 2019, 9:00am – 4:00pm

Venue QUT Gardens Point – Council Room

ATTENDEESMembers

Prof Ian Chubb AC, ChairDr Andrew AshProf Damien Burrows (not present for item 9b)Prof Bill Dennison Prof Terry Hughes

Dr Russell Reichelt (not present for item 8b)Dr Britta Schaffelke (not present for item 9b)Adj Prof Natalie Stoeckl Dr Stuart WhittenProf Kerrie Wilson

OtherMs Deb Callister Assistant Secretary, Department of the Environment and EnergyMs Rebekah Hamed Director, Department of the Environment and EnergyMr Craig Moore Director, Department of the Environment and EnergyMs Milica Milanja Secretariat, Department of the Environment and EnergyMs Elisa Nichols Executive Director, Office of the Great Barrier Reef, DESMs Louise Smyth Director, Office of the Great Barrier Reef, DES

Dr David Wachenfeld Chief Scientist, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (not present for 9b)

Dr Mel Cowlishaw Assistant Director, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park AuthorityDr Roger Shaw Chair, Reef Water Quality Independent Science Panel (item 7)Ms Anna Marsden Managing Director, Great Barrier Reef Foundation (item 8a)Ms Therese Fyffe Executive Director, Great Barrier Reef Foundation (item 8a)Dr Cedric Robillot Associate-eReefs Project Director, Great Barrier Reef Foundation (item 8a)Ms Jennifer Loder Project Director, Great Barrier Reef Foundation (item 8a)Dr Paul Hardisty CEO, Australian Institute of Marine Science (item 9a, by video)Mr David Mead Australian Institute of Marine Science (item 9a)Dr Ken Anthony Australian Institute of Marine Science (item 9a)Dr Line Bay Australian Institute of Marine Science (item 9a, by video)Dr Karen Hussey Australian Institute of Marine Science (item 9a, by video)Dr Peter Mayfield Executive Director, CSIRO (item 9a)Dr Bruce Taylor CSIRO (item 9a)Dr Christian Roth CSIRO (item 9a)Prof Peter Mumby University of Queensland (item 9a)Ms Jane Urquhart Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (item 9a)

Members

Ms Meg Harlow Department of the Environment and Energy (item 9a)

APOLOGIES

Members

Dr Eva Abal Prof Ove Hoegh-GuldbergProf Helene MarshAdj Assoc Prof Stephan SchniererMs Jane Waterhouse

1 Acknowledgement of Country

The Chair acknowledged the traditional custodians of the area. He acknowledged their continuing culture and contribution they make to the region and paid respects to their Elders past and present.

2 Welcome to Members

The Chair welcomed members and presenters to the meeting, noting apologies from Dr Eva Abal, Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Prof Helene Marsh, Adj Assoc Prof Stephan Schnierer and Ms Jane Waterhouse.

The Chair noted that the two main items of business on the agenda were to develop and provide advice on the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program Investment Case and the Reef Trust-GBRF Partnership Draft 2019-20 Annual Work Plan.

The Chair acknowledged that this was Adj Prof Natalie Stoeckl’s last meeting with the Panel, as she had opted to step down from the Panel at the end of her current appointment period. The Chair thanked Adj Prof Stoeckl for the valuable contribution she has made during her tenure.

3 Conflicts of interest

Panel members declared actual and perceived conflicts and the Chair outlined actions to manage potential conflicts in accordance with the Panel’s protocol. The Chair reiterated the importance of continuing to be very clear about managing any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

The Chair and the Panel agreed that it was appropriate for all members to be present for presentations and question/answer sessions on the Reef Trust Partnership-GBRF 2019-2020 Draft Annual Work Plan (Agenda Item 8a) and the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program Investment Case (Agenda Item 9a). The Chair noted that members that had declared actual or perceived conflicts of interest for these items should ensure any comments offered during these sessions were factual in nature should not offer opinions or any form of advocacy.

To manage potential conflicts, the Panel noted that some members would absent themselves from deliberation and summation of advice under agenda items 8b and 9b, as noted in the attendance list above.

The Chair noted that several Panel members had been copied onto a pre-meeting planning document sent to the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program Steering Committee prior to today’s meeting. The Chair noted that the document did not contain any sensitive information, however, he asked that the email be circulated to all Panel members to ensure everyone had access to the same material.

4 Closed member session

The Chair noted that this was a closed session for Panel members only and, as such, the Joint Secretariat and other attendees left the room.

At the conclusion of the session, the Joint Secretariat re-joined the meeting. The Chair provided the Secretariat with the key points from the discussion, noting that the focus had been on the IEP appointment/re-appointment process to be undertaken during June/July 2019.

5 Panel business

The Panel endorsed the minutes of Meeting 13, which was held on 28 February 2019.

The Chair acknowledged the out-of-session work done by Panel members in March 2019 to develop a submission to the Queensland Parliamentary Committee for Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee on the Environmental Protection (Great Barrier Reef Protection Measures) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. (Attachment A)

6 Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program – update

Dr Wachenfeld provided the Panel with an update on progress with development of the Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program (RIMReP) and the work underway to finalise the program development phase and plan for program implementation.

The Panel noted that:

Existing monitoring programs operate at hugely different scales across the Reef

Current monitoring programs that focus on ecosystem state and condition (e.g. number of corals, number of fish) are not as effective at measuring growth rate, reproduction and mortality.

The Panel sought further information from Dr Wachenfeld on:

the quantum of additional monitoring required in future, compared to what is currently being done

indicators that monitor the condition of the reef, noting that using a mix of species instead of just coral cover would be a better indicator

the Program’s aspiration relating to visualisation and availability of data to the public, and the methodologies for linking steadily improving data streams with the Reef 2050 Plan, and

how the monitoring program data from RIMReP will inform the Reef 2050 Plan and the Outlook Report, and how it would be complemented by other research.

The Panel noted that the Reef is often referred to as a homogenous entity, but that after the bleaching events of 2016 and 2017, the differentiation in parts of the Reef has become more significant. The Panel asked that at their next meeting they are provided with more detail about how RIMReP will handle the regional differences in the Reef and what can be learnt from the outliers. The Panel noted that the Reef’s heterogeneity also needs to be addressed in the Reef 2050 Plan.

The Panel noted that the Ministerial Forum will receive an update on progress with RIMReP and the plan for future implementation at its next meeting.

7 Update from Reef Water Quality Independent Science PanelDr Roger Shaw provided the Panel with an overview from the 12 April and 2-3 May 2019 meetings of the Reef Water Quality Independent Science Panel (ISP).

The report from the 2-3 May ISP meeting was tabled by Dr Shaw, who provided a summary for the Panel.

The Panel noted the update from the Chair of the Reef Water Quality ISP, and in particular that:

ISP has provided comments on regional report cards at their 12 April and 2-3 May meetings, including the Mackay Whitsundays regional report, the Wet Tropics report card and the groundcover and catchment loads for the Reef report card.

The Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum appointed Professor John Rolfe to the ISP. The ISP will seek to appoint a replacement for Professor Bronwyn Harch who provided statistics expertise on the ISP.

The Panel noted and supported the recommendations in the ISP reports for:

Additional monitoring of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in marine waters at a range of depths to allow the eReefs model to provide a satisfactory TSS indicator for inshore waters (noting that this monitoring is not currently funded and will be considered as part of the RIMReP Program Design).

The development of the eReef model’s capacity to model pesticides in the marine environment and that further discussions will be held about this in future.

The Panel discussed modelling, noting that the ISP wants to see the inclusion of paddock to reef modelling in future Tier 2 reports. Dr Shaw noted that more detail about Reef modelling and monitoring would be provided at the next IEP meeting.

8a Reef Trust-GBRF Partnership Draft 2019-20 Annual Work Plan – Presentation and Q&A session

The Chair welcomed Ms Anna Marsden, Ms Theresa Fyffe, Dr Cedric Robillot and Ms Jennifer Loder from the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, who attended the meeting to present on the Draft 2019-2020 Annual Work Plan and to provide further detail and clarification on particular aspects of the Work Plan where required.

The Panel noted that they would discuss and formulate their advice in the next session (item 8b).

8b Reef Trust-GBRF Partnership Draft 2019-20 Annual Work Plan – Discussion and summation of IEP advice on Draft Annual Work Plan

The Panel discussed the Reef Trust-GBRF Partnership Draft 2019-2020 Annual Work Plan.

Overall the Panel was impressed with the work done by the Foundation to bring together this complex piece of work and noted that the Work Plan does an excellent job of setting out the priority activities, outcomes and budget for the Partnership Components.

The Panel noted that the Work Plan could be strengthened by:

the inclusion of further information about how the different components and work streams will be effectively managed and integrated

further details about how the activities and investments planned for the first year of the program fit within, and lead to, the achievement of goals and outcomes for the five-year program

being more specific about the search for (and the need for) innovation and innovative approaches to this complex program.

The Panel agreed it would finalise its advice out of session and provide it to the Foundation in coming weeks.

9a Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP) Investment Case presentation

The following officials from the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program joined the meeting in person or by video link: Dr Paul Hardisty, Mr David Mead, Dr Ken Anthony, Dr Line Bay and Dr Karen Hussey from the Australian Institute of Marine Science; Dr Peter Mayfield, Dr Bruce Taylor and Dr Christian Roth from CSIRO; and Prof Peter Mumby from the University of Queensland.

Dr Hardisty introduced the session, noting that the Panel had been provided with drafts of the Investment case. Dr Hardisty noted that he had brought along RRAP team members with a wide range of knowledge and expertise to ensure they could effectively address Panel member

questions.

The Panel discussed and sought clarification on particular elements of the Investment Case. Members noted that they would formulate their advice under item 9b.

9b RRAP – Discussion and summation of IEP advice on Investment Case

The Panel discussed the Investment Case and acknowledged the high quality work and collaborative approach taken by the RRAP consortium to identify innovative measures to sustain the Great Barrier Reef and assist it in adapting to global warming and climate change. The Panel noted that the group of people and organisations drawn together as part of the RRAP process has produced an impressive body of work. The Panel noted matters that could be addressed in the Investment Case to strengthen it, including:

clarification of vision and purpose

inclusion of further details on the Program’s governance arrangements

an explanation of the rationale for emphasising adaptation over restoration

a clearer presentation of the economic analysis, and

including more detail on stakeholder engagement.

The Panel agreed it would finalise its advice out of session and provide it to the RRAP consortium and Ministers following the meeting.

10 Other business

The Panel agreed that a communiqué would be finalised out-of-session and published on the Department of the Environment and Energy’s website.

The Panel noted the 2019 forward work plan.

Members noted that the next Panel meeting was scheduled for 13 August 2019.

The Panel did not raise any other business.

Meeting closed at 5.20pm.

Attachment A

The Reef 2050 Plan Independent Expert Panel

Submission to Queensland Parliamentary Innovation, Tourism, Development and Environment Committee

  

The Reef 2050 Plan  Independent Expert Panel (IEP) advises the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments. It was established under the Reef 2050 Plan to provide scientific advice related to the Great Barrier Reef, including to support implementation and review of the Reef 2050 Plan, Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, Reef Trust, and other matters, as requested.

In response to the Queensland Parliamentary Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee’s request for submissions on the Environmental Protection (Great Barrier Reef Protection Measures) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, the IEP provides the following key points. 

The IEP:

1. recognises the important role of regulations as part of the mix needed to accelerate progress towards achievement of the Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan (Australian and Queensland governments 2018) targets and commends the Queensland Government for progressing this approach.

2. acknowledges that the content of the proposed regulations has been based on best available knowledge, including comprehensive consideration of the underpinning evidence, conclusions and recommendations included in the 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement (Waterhouse et al. 2017). 

3. offers a number of observations related to effective delivery and implementation of the proposed Regulations, including the need for targeting and prioritisation, consideration of other options in addition to management practice change, integration of factors related to climate variability and the importance of effective and efficient data capture, management, evaluation and sharing.

This is further supported by the following commentary.

1. Mitigation of poor water quality is a high priority for the Reef now. The cumulative impacts of global warming, acute disturbances such as tropical cyclones, and regional pressures such as poor water quality, are reducing the resilience of Great Barrier Reef coastal and marine ecosystems. Poor water quality specifically reduces the recovery capacity of coral reefs (Ortiz et al. 2018; Wolff et al. 2018, MacNeil et al. 2019), which is particularly concerning in a context of more severe and/or more frequent disturbances. Recovery and complete coral community reassembly after major disturbance takes about a decade on offshore reefs, while inshore reefs require even longer timeframes (Johns et al., 2014). Current best understanding is that the recovery of seagrass meadows needs between two and eight years - without further disturbances (McKenzie et al., 2016). Improved water quality is expected to facilitate the recovery of the ecosystem, at least in some parts of the Reef, until greenhouse gas emissions are reduced (MacNeil et al. 2019). In effect this would 'buy' time to maintain the values of coastal and marine ecosystems and for the potential adaptation of key Reef organisms to future conditions. 

2. Water quality outcomes are not on target. As noted in the Strengthening Reef regulations factsheet, at the present rate of practice change the Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan (Australian and Queensland governments 2018) targets for a healthy Reef will not be met. This slow uptake of practice change is also evident in the water quality outcomes (Figure 1), which shows the rate of progress to achieving the 2025 water quality targets. Progress to targets has not been sufficient to give confidence that 

the 2025 targets will be achieved. This highlights the importance of implementing a range of management, technical, policy and regulatory interventions to meet the targets i.e. no single approach will be successful. There is published evidence worldwide to suggest that voluntary approaches alone are not successful.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025

Reduction in pollutant load (%)

Sediment Dissolved inorganic nitrogen

Figure 1. Reduction in sediment and nutrient loads since 2009 compared with the water quality targets for 2025. Data adapted from the Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2016 (Australian and Queensland governments 2017). 

3. Action needs to be targeted. The proposed Reef regulations adopt a targeted approach, which is consistent with the science that shows sediment, nutrient, pesticide losses are spatially heterogeneous. For example, 12 of the 47 GBR catchments deliver 87% of the dissolved inorganic nitrogen entering the GBR lagoon whilst the Burdekin and Fitzroy regions account for ~60% of the total suspended sediments (Bartley et al. 2017). The sources of these land uses are also well documented with nutrients typically sourced from intensive cropping including sugarcane in coastal areas, and sediment sourced from rangeland grazing areas in the upper catchments (Bartley et al. 2017). Within sugarcane producing areas, there are areas where nitrogen use efficiency (the ratio of crop production to nitrogen fertiliser applications) is low and this contributes excess dissolved nitrogen. These areas need to be identified and factors leading to better management practice identified and adopted. Previous water quality targets were on a Reef wide basis but with the development of the Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan (Australian and Queensland governments 2018), end of catchment pollutant load reduction targets are now set on an individual catchment basis. This approach will support better targeting and prioritisation of on-ground management and investment, as will specific identification of hotspots for sediments and nutrients within catchments (Bartley et al. 2015). 

Prioritisation of practice change needs to be undertaken in the context of how the biophysical system responds, including system lags. For example, the proposed Reef regulations requires rapid implementation of minimum standards for grazing management by those producers with land in poor condition. Yet it can take more than a decade for land in poor condition to recover vegetative function sufficiently to reduce sediment and nutrient loss (Bartley et al. 2014) i.e. the system recovery may not occur until after the WQIP 2025 target. To ensure targets are met, there is a need to also target areas of land that are still in moderate condition and can recover relatively rapidly after improved grazing management is introduced (Ash et al. 2011). 

Similarly, in intensive cropping systems such as sugarcane, the adoption of some improved practices may require implementation of a full crop cycle (typically 5 to 6 years), e.g. controlled traffic systems for minimising runoff) to be fully effective, but there are some practices where the water quality benefits may be evident in the shorter term (1-2 years, e.g. reduced fertiliser and pesticide inputs). Further, groundwater flow is a potentially important transport pathway for dissolved nitrogen (Bartley et al. 2017). Targeting action in areas where nitrogen is rapidly transported from fields to rivers through groundwater will provide benefits more quickly. 

Social factors including economic and cultural influences, also have an important role in identifying priority actions and areas and need to be considered in future prioritisations. Delivery capacity varies between regions and catchments, and where possible, should also be taken into account.

These factors will be important in designing the enforcement and compliance programs for implementation of the Regulations and supporting investment programs to ensure maximum effectiveness and efficient use of the available resources.

4. Water quality targets will not necessarily be met by management practice improvements alone; other actions such as largescale landscape remediation are also required. The focus of efforts in water quality is, appropriately, through farmers and producers via capacity building, incentives, market instruments and regulation. For nutrients and pesticides, the outcomes for the GBR are almost entirely in response to inputs at the farmer/producer scale. Targets may not be met by improvements in management practices alone and other changes in land management may be required e.g. different cropping systems, targeted land retirements, incorporation of perennial pastures.

Similarly, for sediments, it is unlikely that water quality targets can be met by management alone, with or without supporting regulation. Based on tracer studies, the contribution of sediments to the GBR are approximately 40% from gullies, 30% from streambanks, 20% from deep rill erosion from hillslopes and 10% from hillslope sheet wash erosion (Wilkinson et al. 2013). In individual catchments sub-surface erosion can contribute more than 80% of fine sediments (Olley et al. 2013). Improved grazing management will mostly reduce hillslope erosion losses and prevent new gullies from forming. Existing gullies and streambank erosion are less amenable to management actions and engineering solutions (e.g. gully remediation, check dams) are required to address these erosion sources. With 87,000 km of gullies in the GBR catchments (Wilkinson et al. 2015), this presents a significant challenge. The cost of fully repairing just 10% of gullies in the Burdekin catchment has been estimated to be $1.09 billion (cumulative present value) (Alluvium 2016). It is therefore important to recognise that the pathway to meeting targets needs a variety of approaches in addition to on-farm management e.g. appropriate policy instruments (Goulder and Parry 2008).

The development of strategic water quality improvement implementation plans for the highest priority catchments would assist to design the best mix of actions that will deliver the greatest water quality benefits in a timely and cost-effective manner. These must build on the existing Regional Water Quality Improvement Plans.

5. Management and policy responses need to better integrate climate variability and change. The issue of climate variability and change is not mentioned in the regulations, nor does it feature strongly in best management practice frameworks. Recommended practice management standards focus on the key inputs that affect water quality outcomes i.e. nutrient inputs, cultivation, machinery use, agronomic practices, pesticide use, grazing and herd management. One of the challenges for farmers and producers in managing nutrients and sediment loss is climate variability, and increasingly the emerging impacts of climate change. Management standards in some cases have adapting to climate variability implicitly built in to the recommended practices or there are recently developed techniques available (e.g. Everingham et al. 2018). 

Thus there is a strong case to explicitly include management practice standards that recognise both the existing challenges that climate variability imposes as well as the increasing risks posed by human-induced climate change. 

As short-term (3-10 days) and seasonal forecasts improve in their accuracy there is an opportunity to more proactively incorporate them into management of fertiliser and pesticide application in cropping and horticulture systems, and in setting stocking rates in beef production systems. Increasing rainfall variability and intensity of extreme events associated with climate change (CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology 2015) will make it more challenging to effectively and efficiently use fertilisers and pesticides and in beef enterprises, matching forage supply to animal numbers to maintain land in good condition. This is especially important in the GBR catchments because there is evidence that climate change will exacerbate natural climate variability, especially through changes to the frequency and intensity of El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Cai et al. 2015). These risks need to be better incorporated into management practice standards. 

6. Systemic and transformative changes in land management and land use need consideration.  Whilst this issue is not within the remit of the proposed regulations, it is nevertheless an area that needs to be considered in the context of implementing a range of approaches alongside regulation to achieve the best outcomes possible. Current management standards and proposed regulations are largely predicated on existing land use and enterprises. There may be opportunities to reconfigure enterprises in a way that generate more significant water quality outcomes and provide co-benefits. For example, intensifying production on more productive and less vulnerable landscapes on beef enterprises and retiring more marginal and vulnerable land from grazing may maintain profitability, achieve better water quality outcomes, be better adapted to climate change, and provide co-benefits in biodiversity, methane reduction and other ecosystem services e.g. carbon. Evidence indicates that sediment reduction can be as high as 77% when gullied areas are retired from grazing (Wilkinson et al. 2018). 

Whole of supply chain impacts need to be considered when contemplating enterprise change e.g. retirement of land from production or shifting land from one crop to another may have negative impacts in a vertically integrated industry such as sugarcane where modest declines in sugarcane output in a district may make a sugar mill unviable (van Grieken et al. 2013). Avoiding perverse incentives within regulatory frameworks that prevent these types of adaptation responses is important to cost effectiveness.

7. Better availability and use of data and information to support decision-making. Management and policy decisions will be more rigorous if they are better informed by a strong evidence base. Making information on inputs (fertiliser use, pesticide use, stock numbers, agronomic and other management practices) and outputs (adoption rates of best management practice, crop yields, beef production, water quality, etc) more widely available is necessary to support a stronger evidence base for improving management and policy and reporting progress against targets. There are issues of privacy and trust which are constraining more effective use of data and information. Establishment and maintenance of well-resourced data management systems that facilitate the capture, evaluation, application and sharing of information as part of the proposed Regulation is an essential component of implementation that warrants dedicated consideration and resource allocation as a matter of priority. 

Submitted by the Reef 2050 Plan Independent Expert Panel

Professor Ian Chubb AC

Chair, Reef 2050 Plan Independent Expert Panel

References

Alluvium (2016). Costs of achieving the water quality targets for the Great Barrier Reef by Alluvium Consulting Australia for Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane.

Ash, A. J., Corfield, J. P., McIvor, J. G., Ksiksi, T. S. (2011). Grazing management in tropical savannas: utilization and rest strategies to manipulate rangeland condition. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 64(3), 223-239.

Australian and Queensland governments, 2018. Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017-2022. Queensland government, Brisbane, Australia.  https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/assets/reef-2050-water-quality-improvement-plan-2017-22.pdf.

Bartley, R., Corfield, J.P., Hawdon, A.A., Kinsey-Henderson, A.E., Abbott, B.N., Wilkinson, S.N., Keen, R.J. (2014). Can changes to pasture management reduce runoff and sediment loss to the Great Barrier Reef? The results of a 10-year study in the Burdekin catchment, Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 36(1), 67-84.

Bartley, R., Croke, J., Bainbridge, Z. T., Austin, J. M., & Kuhnert, P. M. (2015). Combining contemporary and long-term erosion rates to target erosion hot-spots in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Anthropocene, 10, 1-12.

Bartley, R., Waters, D., Turner, R., Kroon, F., Wilkinson, S., Garzon-Garcia, A., Kuhnert, P., Lewis, S., Smith, R., Bainbridge, Z., Olley, J., Brooks, A., Burton, J., Brodie, J., Waterhouse, J., (2017). Scientific Consensus Statement 2017: A synthesis of the science of land-based water quality impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, Chapter 2: Sources of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants to the Great Barrier Reef. State of Queensland, 2017.

Cai, W., Santoso, A., Wang, G., Yeh, S.W., An, S.I., Cobb, K.M., Collins, M., Guilyardi, E., Jin, F.F., Kug, J.S. and Lengaigne, M., (2015). ENSO and greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change, 5(9), 849-859.

CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (2015). Climate Change in Australia Information for Australia’s Natural Resource Management Regions: Technical Report, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Australia.

Everingham, Y., Schroeder, B., Skocaj, D., Thorburn, P. (2018). How much N will that crop need? Incorporating climate forecasting to improve Nitrogen management in the Wet Tropics. Final report, SRA project 2015/075.

Goulder, L.H. and Parry, I.W., (2008). Instrument choice in environmental policy. Review of environmental economics and policy, 2(2), pp.152-174.  

MacNeil M.A., Mellin, C., Matthews, S., Wolff, N.H., McClanahan, T.R., Devlin, M., Drovandi, C., Mengersen, K., Graham, N.A.J. (2019) Water quality mediates resilience on the Great Barrier Reef. Nature Ecology & Evolution (in press).

McKenzie, L.J., Collier, C.J., Langlois, L.A., Yoshida, R.L., Smith, N., Waycott, M., (2016). Marine Monitoring Program—Inshore Seagrass, Annual Report for the sampling period 1st June 2014 – 31st May 2015. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, James Cook University, Cairns. 

Olley, J., Brooks, A., Spencer, J., Pietsch, T., Borombovits, D. (2013). Subsoil erosion dominates the supply of fine sediment to rivers draining into Princess Charlotte Bay, Australia. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 124, 121-129.

Ortiz, J-C., Wolff, N.H., Anthony, K.R.N., Devlin, M., Lewis, S., Mumby, P.J. (2018). Impaired recovery of the Great Barrier Reef under cumulative stress. Science Advances 4.

Australian and Queensland Governments (2017). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2016. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, Queensland Government, Brisbane.van Grieken, M.E., Thomas, C.R., Roebeling, P.C., Thorburn, P.J. (2013). Integrating economic drivers of social change into agricultural water quality improvement strategies. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 180, 166-175.

Waterhouse, J., Schaffelke, B., Bartley, R., Eberhard, R., Brodie, J., Star, M., Thorburn, P., Rolfe, J., Ronan, M., Taylor, B., Kroon, F. (2017). 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement: A synthesis of the science of land-based water quality impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. State of Queensland, 2017.

Wilkinson, S. N., Hancock, G. J., Bartley, R., Hawdon, A. A., & Keen, R. J. (2013). Using sediment tracing to assess processes and spatial patterns of erosion in grazed rangelands, Burdekin River basin, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 180, 90-102.

Wilkinson SN, Bartley R, Hairsine PB, Bui EN, Gregory L, Henderson AE. (2015) Managing gully erosion as an efficient approach to improving water quality in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Report to the Department of the Environment. CSIRO Land and Water, Australia.

Wilkinson, S. N., Kinsey Henderson, A. E., Hawdon, A. A., Hairsine, P. B., Bartley, R., Baker, B. (2018). Grazing ‐impacts on gully dynamics indicate approaches for gully erosion control in northeast Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 43(8), 1711-1725.

Wolff, N.H., Mumby, P.J., Devlin, M., Anthony, K.R.N. (2018). Vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change and local pressures. Global Change Biology, 24, 1978-1991.