The site, aimed at correcting ‘false claims’ about Abbot Point decision, is just a political document, scientist says

This article is more than 6 years old

This article is more than 6 years old

A Queensland government website aimed at correcting “false and extreme claims” about the Great Barrier Reef is itself highly misleading, according to a leading marine scientist.

The site, called Reef Facts, addresses the contentious decision to allow the dredging and dumping of 5m tonnes of seabed sediment within the Great Barrier Reef marine park in order to expand the Abbot Point port.

Citing research by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the site attributes the loss of coral cover on the reef to storms, crown of thorns starfish and bleaching. Pollution from port development and dredging is “minor”, the site states.

The Abbot Point dredging will be done “responsibly within strict environmental limits”, the website claims, with the sediment dumped 40km from the nearest reef. It points out the disposal area covers 0.0005% of the total area of the marine park.

Andrew Powell, Queensland’s environment minister, said the government was putting “facts ahead of opinion and hysteria”.

“The constant focus on Abbot Point and the impacts of dredging is completely out of proportion and not based on the facts,” he said.

“Most significant is the fact that the dredging that will take place is less than 8% of what was proposed by the former Labor government and will be carefully managed.

“Australia is an island and ports are the lifeblood of our economy. We can strike a balance between sensible and safe port development and continued protection of our precious reef.

“We are fully committed to protecting the reef and fulfilling our international obligations under the World Heritage convention. The Great Barrier Reef’s outstanding universal value and integrity remain largely intact.”

The dredging project was approved by federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, in December. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority allowed the dumping in January although documents released under freedom of information on Monday show that the authority felt it posed an “unacceptable social and environmental risk”.

Jon Brodie, a research scientist at the Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research at James Cook University, told Guardian Australia that the Reef Facts website is “not very accurate”.

“It’s a political document and it’s best to think of it as that,” he said. “It’s a misdirection.

“The website suggests that the Great Barrier Reef doesn’t have dolphins, fish, dugongs and so on. It also implies it doesn’t have inner shore reefs in areas such as Hamilton Island and Hayman Island, with their big resorts. These areas are declining due to sediment delivery from the land, hence the issue with the dredging.”

Brodie said the website made little mention of the impact of climate change and downplayed the sheer amount of spoil that would be placed onto the reef by the Abbot Point project and others in the future.

“The average sediment coming from rivers onto the reef is 6m tonnes a year, so 5m from Abbot Point over three years isn’t an insignificant amount by any means,” he said. “The concern is the precedent because there’s a huge amount of dredging to come in Townsville, Cairns and Gladstone.

“The [park authority] itself said there will be damage done to the corals and seagrasses. There are perfectly good other alternatives that would cause less damage, so why did we choose the most damaging? It’s a slap in the face to Unesco.”

Unesco’s World Heritage Committee will decide whether the Great Barrier Reef should be listed as “in danger” in June, having previously warned the Australian government about levels of port development alongside the vast ecosystem.

Felicity Wishart, a campaigner at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, told Guardian Australia that the Reef Facts site made glaring omissions about the state of the reef.

“Dredging spoil can travel up to 80km, so the fact the nearest reef is 40km is largely irrelevant,” she said.

“Clearly the community is up in arms about the threat to the reef. We can only conclude the Queensland government has heard those concerns and has sadly chosen to provide a website to mislead the community.

“The reef is in the worst condition it has ever been in. This is on their watch and they need to take action.”