Versions of Science Statement for Reef Protection Taskforce, November 2001

In November 2001, four scientists prepared a science statement for the Queensland Government’s Reef Protection Taskforce. Two versions of that statement exist. The differences between them are significant.

The original version, tabled at the Taskforce meeting on 12 November 2001, was cautious in its assessment. It stated that there was “little evidence for widespread deterioration” of near-shore reef systems and emphasised the high level of scientific uncertainty surrounding the impacts of terrestrial runoff.

Just two days later, on 14 November 2001, a revised version was circulated. This version was strengthened. It now referred to “incidences of deterioration already documented” and concluded that there was a “significant risk” that land-based impacts could adversely affect areas of the Reef “beyond those incidences of deterioration already documented.” The call for urgent action to reduce runoff was also made more emphatic.

Both documents were prepared by the same four scientists:

• Christian H. Roth (CSIRO Land and Water)
• David McB. Williams (Reef CRC / AIMS)
• Peter Ridd (James Cook University)
• George E. Rayment (Sugar CRC / NR&M)

Peter Ridd is therefore a co-author of both the original, more measured statement and the revised version that introduced stronger language about existing damage. This is noteworthy because, in later years, Ridd became one of the most prominent public critics of claims that agricultural runoff was causing serious damage to the Great Barrier Reef. He has argued that there is little to no measurable impact from land-based pollutants on Reef health. The 2001 documents show that, at the time, he was willing to sign statements that acknowledged documented localised deterioration and supported the need for significant reductions in runoff.

These statements were prepared at a critical moment. The original version reflected a more uncertain scientific picture. The revised version, produced rapidly after the first was tabled, provided stronger justification for the policy direction the Taskforce ultimately pursued. The revised wording — particularly the reference to deterioration that had “already [been] documented” — became part of the scientific foundation cited for the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan and subsequent regulatory measures affecting Queensland agriculture.

The existence of these two versions, produced within 48 hours of each other by the same authors, raises legitimate questions about how scientific advice was shaped during this period. It is difficult to reconcile Peter Ridd’s later public position — that agricultural runoff has not caused meaningful damage to the Reef — with his co-authorship of a statement that explicitly referred to “incidences of deterioration already documented” and warned of risks beyond those already observed.

Similar inconsistencies can be seen in the work of other prominent Reef scientists. Terry Hughes, for example, has for years presented a narrative of ongoing, serious decline driven by human impacts, while downplaying or ignoring evidence of recovery and the role of natural variability. When key scientists shift their emphasis depending on the audience or the policy objective — sometimes stressing uncertainty and natural processes, at other times asserting clear human causation and the need for urgent intervention — it undermines confidence that the advice being offered is consistently rigorous or independent of external pressures.

The two documents below are primary records from November 2001. They are presented here without alteration.

Original version & associated emails* (tabled 12 November 2001)
2001.11.12_Statement_ReefTaskforce_NoDamagetoGBR_OriginalEvidence
Key excerpt: “whilst there is currently little evidence for widespread deterioration of near-shore systems…”

Revised version (14 November 2001)
2001.11.14_Statement_ReefTaskforce_RiddClaimsDamageV2_Evidence
Key excerpt: “…beyond those incidences of deterioration already documented…”

These documents form part of the historical record of how scientific advice was presented to government during the development of Reef water quality policy.

They deserve to be examined directly rather than through secondary interpretations.

I will be writing much more about this in coming months and years.

* The original version is included as embedded in an email chain from November 2001 when I/Jennifer Marohasy was Environmental Manager for the sugar industry and a member of the Queensland Government’s Reef Protection Taskforce.