2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Bryozoan reefs
Updated: 2021-08-29
The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment "State and Trend of Bryozoan Reefs". ***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the "On-line Resources" section of this record as "EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend – Bryozoan Reefs"*** ---------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/HABITAT/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT Bryozoans (lace corals) are a species-rich group of colonial animals composed of soft and hard-bodied forms; almost 1,000 described and known undescribed species were recorded from Australia (Gordon 1999), occurring off both temperate and tropical coasts. Colonies vary in height or diameter from less than one millimetre to over one metre, and occur as flat sheets, plant-like tufts, fleshy lobes or coral-like growths. In association with small sponges, ascidians and hydroids they form low-relief structured matrix habitat variously termed bryozoan ‘reefs’, ‘thickets’ and ‘turf’ (depending on its height and composition). The matrix acts to stabilise sediments, and its bio-fragments are one of the most conspicuous and abundant components of shelf sediments, e.g. up to 75% of the sediment volume in the GAB (James et al. 2001). These sediments support small infauna (e.g. polychaetes, amphipods and molluscs) that are prey for larger species including fishes; the surfaces and interstices of some bryozoan colonies can support extremely high numbers of other taxa (>100 spp.) including polychaetes, molluscs, crustaceans and ascidians (Bradstock and Gordon 1983). Accordingly, it may be inferred that bryozoans play a vital role in the maintenance of benthic biodiversity. Collectively, bryozoan habitats are one of the main habitat types on the deep continental shelf, shelf break and shallow margin of the upper continental slope. They are typically interspersed with plains of sediment characterised by low microfauna in association with detritus and absence of epifauna, and rocky reefs. Bryozoan matrix forms on unconsolidated sediment and may cover low profile reef. Surveys of the Tasmanian ‘shelf-edge’, the region of the seafloor where the flat continental shelf drops away rapidly to form the continental slope, between 150 and 400 m showed that most bryozoan reef occurred between 200 and 350 m where if forms an important habitat for giant crabs. However, in relatively sheltered areas, including parts of the Tasmanian east coast, bryozoan habitats extend into ~60 m depth on the shelf. Similarly, in the eastern GAB, extensive areas of the shelf and break have high cover of bryozoans (Ward et al. 2003). The shelf edge is an important area for bottom contact fisheries including trawl and trap fisheries, and these represent the major pressure on bryozoan habitats. Bottom trawling has the potential to degrade and remove these habitats (Williams et al. 2009) and impact on other fisheries such as giant crab (Leon et al. 2017). On the GBR shelf, branching and busy bryozoans cover extensive areas in the vicinity of Broad Sound and Shoalwater Bay, the Pompey & Swains Reef Complexes, and the Capricorn-Bunker Regions — in high current channels near Hydrographers Passage, encrusting types form extensive areas of nodules with other associated biodiversity (Pitcher et al. 2007). Over 320 bryozoan taxa (mostly at the genus level) were identified by the latter study, and 124 taxa were mapped in detail throughout the GBR. Bryozoan habitats have been sampled using benthic sleds and dredges in many locations across their temperate and tropical Australian distribution, including the SE, GAB, GBR, Torres Strait, Gulf of Carpentaria and Pilbara. Those samples provided details of species identity, morphology and community composition. However, in situ observations (required to assess status) are limited to the shelf in the GBR, Torres Strait, Pilbara, parts of the Twofold bio-region, but in deeper waters only a few areas around Tasmania due to the logistic difficulty of conducting research at these depths. Around Tasmania, latitudinal variation in composition (as observed in camera imagery) appeared to be slight, with differences between samples driven by depth, and whether the samples were from within canyons. DATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT Data used is outlined in the reports and publications listed in reference section. ---------------------------------------- 2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details] • 2021 • Assessment grade: Good overall. Poor in South-east and Temperate East Assessment trend: Predicted stable-to-slightly improving trend Confidence grade: Barely adequate quality evidence, some consensus Confidence trend: Limited or barely adequate evidence, some consensus Comparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment • 2016 • Assessment grade: Good overall. Poor in South-east and Temperate East Assessment trend: Predicted stable-to-slightly improving trend Confidence grade: Barely adequate quality evidence, some consensus Confidence trend: Limited or barely adequate evidence, some consensus Comparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment • 2011 • [only assessed in the south-east region] Assessment grade: Poor Assessment trend: Stable Confidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus Confidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus ---------------------------------------- CHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT No change.
Data
- SoE_2021_MARINE_State_and_Trend__Bryozoan_reefs.pdf
- State of the Environment (SoE) reporting webpage
- Full metadata link
- http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Algal beds","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Algal Beds\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend – Algal Beds\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/HABITAT/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAlgal beds are generally thought of as algae associated with hard substratum such as rocky reefs that provides a strong point of attachment for algae to grow and maintain position. The majority of Australia’s algal beds are found in temperate waters and are in many cases replaced as the major habitat-forming benthic organisms by corals in more tropical environments where intense grazing by herbivorous fishes contains algal biomass, particularly in clear offshore waters. The changeover from temperate algal covered reefs to coral dominated reefs is a gradual transition, but, as a broad generalisation, is considered to be in the vicinity of the Abrohlos Islands in Western Australia and Brisbane in Queensland, and is driven by the northern limit of the canopy forming kelp, Ecklonia radiata. Throughout this range, algal beds are found from the intertidal zone down to approximately 30 m depth where light availability limits growth. Despite this, lower limits may be much reduced in turbid or coloured water, or substantially exceed this in clear offshore water. Algal beds are composed of many constituent species with more than 1500 species of red, brown and green algae known from temperate and tropical Australia. Despite this, the overall canopy forming species are dominated by a far smaller subset of species, including Ecklonia radiata (the common kelp) which tends to be the dominant habitat-former and the most conspicuous species on temperate reefs, particularly on moderate to high energy coasts where it can form an extensive monospecific canopy above other algae. Given this ecological dominance which is consistent at continental scales, the overall health and extent of Ecklonia is considered to be a suitable indicator of the state of algal beds in general. Despite this, Ecklonia is typically replaced as a dominant species by Sargassum and Cystophora species in sheltered waters such as the Tasmanian north coast and upper reaches of South Australian gulfs, and may replace other species that are under stress (such as Macrocystis pyrifera - the “giant kelp” in Tasmania, or Scytothalia dorycarpa in Western Australia). Hence understanding the condition of algal beds can often require a region-specific knowledge of trends in key species in addition to Ecklonia. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nData used is outlined in reports/papers in the reference section, coupled with quantitative analysis of kelp cover undertaken as part of the SoE Rocky Reef assessment (Stuart-Smith et al.).\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable to deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high-quality consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high-quality consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2016 assessment.\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable to deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high-quality consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high-quality consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment.\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high quality consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus \n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change in overall categories, but noting ongoing decline in the SE due to interaction between Centrostephanus urchin range expansion due to warming and loss of top predators due to removal of top predators by fishing. Also noting that while there had been some recovery in WA following the 2011 heatwave (detailed in the Rocky reef SOE assessment) these systems are vulnerable to predicted increasing frequencies of heatwaves."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Shipping (marine vessel activity)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressures on the marine environment - shipping (marine vessel activity)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Shipping (marine vessel activity)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nAustralia as an island relies heavily on shipping for transportation of its domestic freight and international imports and exports. Australia relies on sea transport for 99 per cent of its international trade (by volume) [1]. In the 2017/18 financial year approximately 1554 million tonnes of cargo were loaded (+21.9% increase since 2013/14), and 155 million tonnes discharged (+2.6%) at Australian wharves by 5859 vessels (+6.5%) that made 34,117 port calls (+18.8%) [2]. As well as commercial vessels, many smaller vessels use Australian waters and provide an important recreational pastime for many Australians. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Low impact\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Limited\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Low\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: High level of consensus\nConfidence trend: High level of consensus\nComparability: Comparable\n• 2011 •\n<not provided>\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Marine turtles","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of marine turtles\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Marine Turtles\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF TAXONOMIC GROUP FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nSix species of marine turtles reside in the marine habitats of Australia, predominantly north of 29ºS and south to the extent of boundary currents sweeping the continental coasts. All six species migrate between marine foraging areas and terrestrial nesting sites. Post hatchlings of five species undertake oceanic migrations that take them outside of Australia’s EEZ. The flatback turtle has a life history largely contained within the waters of the Australian EEZ. Each species can be separated into genetically distinct stocks and Australia shares many of these stocks with neighbouring countries. Marine turtles are of great cultural significance to many Indigenous communities. \nThis assessment focusses marine turtles in their nearshore and offshore foraging areas. Nesting beaches are covered in the coasts chapter. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nData derived from formal surveys and published summary documents.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very poor-good \nAssessment trend: Unclear \nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus \nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus \nComparability: Grade and trend comparable to 2016 assessment \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Poor-good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus \nComparability: Grade and trend comparable to 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Poor\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nSince 2016 some foraging populations of marine turtles are now considered very poor rather than poor. This is primarily due to climate change impacts, particularly the feminisation of the northern Great Barrier Reef green turtle population. Hawksbill turtles in the GBR are now considered very poor due to climate change and overseas fishing pressure."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Primary production","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of primary production\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Primary Production\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF TAXONOMIC GROUP FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nPrimary productivity is the process by which phytoplankton convert dissolved inorganic carbon into the organic compounds that underpin the marine food web through photosynthesis. Rates of primary productivity (PP) and concentrations of phytoplankton biomass (PB, or “primary product”) are dependent upon the available irradiance, and the magnitude and timing of nutrient supply.\n\nThe magnitude of primary productivity in the ocean is reduced by the uncoupling of nutrients and irradiance. Globally, warming has increased oceanic stratification, generally reducing PP and PB (Chavez et al., 2011). The more tropical oceans of northern Australia tend to be strongly stratified restricting nutrient resupply from depth (Chavez et al. 2011). In contrast, in certain temperate regions, seasonal coastal upwelling can enrich surface waters and increase primary production. These areas include the eastern Great Australian Bight (van Ruth et al., 2010; 2018), the Bonney Coast off south eastern South Australia and western Victoria (Nieblas et al., 2009), south western Western Australia (Hanson et al., 2005a, b), and the mid and south coasts of New South Wales (Oke and Middleton, 2001; Suthers et al., 2011). \nClimate projections suggest marine heatwaves in Australian waters will increase in frequency and intensity (Hayashida et al., 2020b; Oliver et al., 2017). Marine heatwaves can significantly impact primary producers by changing phytoplankton biomass and community composition (Hayashida et al., 2020a; Roberts et al., 2019), which can have both beneficial and detrimental effects on the ecosystem (Chiswell and Sutton, 2020). Longer-term, these effects may alter food web dynamics and impact higher trophic levels of the ecosystem. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nData are computed from the level 3 (L3) daily global products using one merging method. PP was computed from merged monthly L3 products using the algorithms developed by Antoine and Morel (1996). Details can be found at http://www.globcolour.info/products_description.html\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThis assessment uses observations same observations but just extended to 2020."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Climate Change – Ocean currents and eddies","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressures on the marine environment - climate change - ocean currents and eddies\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Ocean Currents and Eddies\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nAustralia’s shelf and coastal environment is largely controlled by the dominant Australian boundary currents including the East Australian Current (EAC), Indonesian Throughflow (ITF) and Leeuwin Current (LC), South Australian Current (SAC), Holloway Current (HC), and Zeehan Current (ZC) (Figure 1). \nThe EAC is the western boundary current system of the South Pacific (Oke et a., 2019 and reference therein). In the Australian region, it redistributes heat and carbon between ocean and atmosphere, and between the tropics and mid-latitudes. The ITF, a major component of the global ocean circulation, moves water from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean (Sprintall et al., 2019 and reference therein). It strongly influences Australian climate and seas off Western Australia. The LC flows southwards off Western Australia redistributing Indian Ocean heat to the mid-latitudes. This differs from the cooler, equatorward flowing currents found along other eastern ocean boundaries.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe assessment is based on the results of analysis published in peer reviewed papers.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very high impact\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Deteriorating\nComparability: Grade and trends are somewhat comparable to the 2016 assessment.\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: High impact\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Deteriorating\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nWe have seen significant marine heatwaves and cold events since 2016. The duration and frequency of these events impact the marine ecosystem and industry."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Commercial fishing","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressures on the marine environment - commercial fishing\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Commercial fishing\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nAustralia’s wild-caught marine fisheries are highly diverse and economically significant, contributing $1.79 billion to the economy in 2017-18 (ABARES 2018). These fisheries catch scallops, prawns, crabs, squid, Rock Lobster, Abalone, coastal fish such as whiting and flathead, reef fish such as coral trout, shelf and deep-water fish such as ling and blue-eye trevally, and oceanic tuna and billfish Although fisheries operate across all states and the Northern Territory and out to the limit of the Australian EEZ, fishing effort is not evenly distributed across Australian marine waters with the greatest fishing effort occurring in the Temperate East, South-East, North, and South-West Marine Regions (with effort greatest in the East and South-East). The impact of fisheries on the marine environment also varies with differing gears having differing impacts on species that might be caught as bycatch, and the habitats where fishing takes place. Methods used to capture those species are highly varied ranging from small-scale netting to large-scale pelagic long-line fishing and trawling (Stewardson et al. 2018). In the past five years there have been reductions in fishing effort by all trawl fisheries in all Bioregions, which have reduced trawl footprints over the last 1-3 decades. The most extensive trawl footprints have occurred in the Temperate East, South East, North and Northwest Bioregions (Pitcher 2018), associated with the Queensland East Coast Prawn Trawl, South East Trawl, Northern Prawn, New South Wales Ocean Trawl, and Western Australia trawl fisheries. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThis assessment is based on information contained in the 2018 Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS; https://www.fish.gov.au/) Reports and the published literature. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Low-High\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus \nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus \nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Low-High\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are not comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Not directly comparable\nAssessment trend: Not directly comparable\nConfidence grade: Not directly comparable\nConfidence trend: Not directly comparable\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change since 2016 assessment."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Non-plastic marine pollution","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressure of Non-plastic Marine Pollution\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Non-plastic Marine Pollution\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nIn the north east parts of Australia, monitoring and management has been focussed on land-based nutrients, pesticides and sediment inputs while pollution by hydrocarbons is a nation-wide concern. Excess nutrient loads, or the presence of contaminants have the potential to affect the ecological integrity of marine environments. Australia-wide, other threats include microplastics (see marine debris assessment) and pharmaceutical products for which Australia has limited monitoring data (Kroon et al. 2020). \nRelative to north-eastern Australia, population density, agricultural activities and coastal development is less intense in the north, south and west coasts where inputs of suspended sediments and pollution (especially metals from spoil or dredging) is understudied but likely to represent a minor pressure on the health of the marine environment (Stoddart et al. 2019). \nThe use of low sulphur fuel oils (LSFOs) by all vessels is now a mandatory requirement introduced by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) from January 2020. While the sulphur contents has been reduced to 0.5% m/m (IMO 2019), the physicochemical characteristics of the LSFOs are highly variable and little is known of their fate and behaviour once in the environment, should an accidental discharge occur on Australian coastlines.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nPeer-reviewed literature (2015-2020) \nGovernment and Industry reports (2015-2020) \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Poor- Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good-Poor\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nAdditional management efforts have been implemented for the Great Barrier Reef e.g. Reef 2050 Plan \nNew regulations from the International Maritime Organisation regarding the mandatory use of low sulphur fuel oils."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Water clarity (turbidity, transparency and colour)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Water clarity (turbidity, transparency and colour)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Water Clarity\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nMarine environments (continental shelf and open ocean) are influenced by regional variation in climate, geomorphology and oceanography, all of which regulate the concentration and nature of the dissolved and particulate materials in seawater. These constituents collectively determine water quality. \nAustralian marine waters are generally low in suspended sediments and colour resulting in relatively deep light penetration that allows pelagic primary producers (phytoplankton) to persist at depths greater than 100 m. Marine ecosystems are adapted to these conditions and therefore any deterioration in water quality (i.e., increased turbidity or decreased optical transparency) threatens key habitat-forming benthic primary producers such as kelps and seagrasses. \nIn oceanic and outer continental shelf waters the major determinant of turbidity, transparency, and colour is the biomass of phytoplankton (Yentsch 1960), with phytoplankton growth largely being driven by the availability of dissolved nutrients. However, water transparency declines strongly toward shore due to increased sources of sediment, nutrients and greater phytoplankton biomass. \nThe northern waters of Australia (Timor and Arafura Seas) have highest suspended sediment (lowest transparency) relative to southern waters, and those in the Coral Sea have greatest transparency (Secchi disk depth; Fig. 1). Water transparency is strongly seasonal, reaching a minimum in spring in the Temperate East and Southeast and in winter in the North, Northwest, Southwest and Coral Sea, due to growth of phytoplankton (as indicated by peaks in chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) concentration; Fig. 1; Thompson et al 2020). \nTidal flows and waves contribute to turbidity, but extreme events such as tropical cyclones and storms can increase the level of suspended sediment by up to 3 orders of magnitude (x1000) due to both runoff and bottom disturbance by waves. In addition, tropical rivers in areas of high rainfall can deliver large amounts of sediment to the coastal zone, with plumes sometimes being quite extensive. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nWater quality data was derived from two sources: \ni) IMOS National Reference Stations, sampled monthly \nii) Globcolour, a time-series of ocean colour data merged from four satellite data sources: MERIS, MODIS, SeaWIFS. Globcolour data was accessed in a bounding box of 110-150 oE and -10:-45 oS over a time period that spanned the last 2 SOE periods, 2011 – 2020. The TSS product was only available from early 2016 onwards. \nFor more information: https://www.globcolour.info/products_description.html \n \nSatellite sensors have the appropriate spatial (m to km) and temporal coverage (min to days), to assess water quality but require algorithms to convert satellite remote sensing reflectance into biogeochemical properties. While global algorithms are biased towards validation data collected predominantly in the northern hemisphere, satellite data remain the longest time-series with which to assess the status of marine water quality. These data are complemented by in-situ time series at IMOS National Reference Stations in a limited number of locations around Australia. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Somewhat adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate \nComparability: Grade and trend comparable to 2016 assessment \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThere was a significant increase in Secchi disk depth from 2009-2015 in the Australian region (10°S to 45°S and 105°E to 160°E), indicating the water was becoming more transparent. The assessment from 2016-2021 indicates that this can mostly be attributed to a decrease in non-pigmented particles (total suspended solids), as Chl-a concentrations are increasing in some regions."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend - Water column – deep (>200 m)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Water column – deep (>200 m)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend - Water column – deep (>200 m)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe parts of the water column of the open ocean that lie below the surface 200 m (the epipelagic zone) are widely known as the mesopelagic zone (most commonly defined as 200 to 1000 m), the bathypelagic zone (1000 to 4000 m) and the abyssal zone (> 4000 m). Much of the life found in these deeper waters occurs primarily in the mesopelagic layer, which is also commonly called the ‘ocean twilight zone’. The mesopelagic zone (along with the waters of the bathypelagic and abyss; hereon collectively termed the “deep water column”) is arguably the most under-studied part of the world’s ocean (St John et al 2016; Martin et al 2020), but supports globally important ecosystem services playing a key role in ocean carbon drawdown and supporting important biodiversity values including major prey resources for predators such as tunas and many marine mammals (St John et al 2016; Hidalgo & Browman 2019; Kwong et al. 2020).\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nInformation for this assessment was drawn from peer-reviewed publications (including other SoE 2021 expert assessments).\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Very limited\nComparability: Somewhat comparable\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Very limited\nComparability: Somewhat comparable\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Limited\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThe delineation of water column habitats/communities has changed since 2016, but the state and trend were uniform across all water column habitats/communities in 2016, meaning that the 2016 and 2021 assessments are comparable despite the change in delineation."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Seamounts","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of seamounts\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Seamounts\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAustralia’s marine realm encompasses many seamounts (undersea mountains, often with volcanic origin); the best known are the Tasmanian seamounts and the Tasmantid seamount chain (Figure 1). Additional seamounts continue to be discovered and mapped – particularly in the Coral Sea.\nSeamounts provide ‘oasis’ habitats of hard substratum in the deep sea that often support elevated biomass and productivity — including dense aggregations of corals with high associated biodiversity (Clark et al. 2010; Rowden et al. 2010). These often contain vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME) (e.g. UNGA 2006; Clark et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2020a). An ecological definition for seamounts (Pitcher et al. 2007) is preferred to geological (elevation of >1,000 m) because small seamounts frequently support high biodiversity.\nA rich variety of seamount benthic fauna in Australia’s south-east and south-west regions is associated with biogenic habitats formed by live and dead stony coral, mostly Solenosmilia variabilis, to ~1500 m depth (Thresher et al. 2014; Williams et al. 2020a). Communities and habitats on deeper seamounts (>1500 m) are usually less diverse and abundant, but see Thresher et al. (2014). Tasmantid Chain seamounts are mapped and used for commercial fishing (e.g. Williams et al. 2016), but their epifaunal communities remain poorly documented compared to Tasmania’s seamounts (Williams et al. 2012). \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nRV Southern Surveyor and RV Investigator survey data, held in CSIRO MarLIN.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very good-Poor\nAssessment trend: Stable- Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence or high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence or high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trends are somewhat comparable to the 2016 assessment, but confidence is improved based on additional data collection\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Very good-Poor\nAssessment trend: Stable- Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence or high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence or high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trends are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Sea snakes","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Sea Snakes\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend – Sea Snakes\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nSea snakes occur in a variety of shallow-water marine habitats in northern Australia, including estuaries, coral reefs, soft-sediment habitats, and seagrass meadows (Rasmussen et al. 2014). These species have a completely marine lifecycle and are highly susceptible to climate change, habitat degradation and bycatch within Australian coastal trawl fisheries. Australia has approximately ~32 sea snake species, including 13 endemic species. Two endemic species are listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act and IUCN Red List, a further two endemics listed as Endangered and Near Threatened by IUCN have not been assessed under the EPBC Act (Elfes et al. 2013). A recent Red List re-assessment of Australian sea snake species (currently in review) has downgraded the two ‘Critically Endangered’ species to ‘Data Deficient’ based on expanded area of occupancy based on new sightings outside previously recognised ranges, and a lack of population trend information in the new locations.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nData primarily collected from past IUCN assessments, reports and publications by Reef Life Survey, Vinay Udyawer, Michael Guinea, and Kate Sanders.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very poor\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Very poor\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very poor\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nLargely agrees with 2016 SOE assessment."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Case Study – Calls for ocean action: Australia's National Marine Plan within the context of international initiatives","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Case Study \"Calls for ocean action: Australia's National Marine Plan within the context of international initiatives\". \n***A PDF of the full Case Study, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"CASE STUDY 2021 – Calls for ocean action: Australia's National Marine Plan within the context of international initiatives\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY\nPrior to the publication of the 2016 State of the Environment report, Australia’s science community came together collectively to develop a ten-year plan to be carried out over the period 2015-2025 with a focus on identifying the science needed for addressing the largest sustainability challenges to Australia’s marine estate, and prioritising investment in order to fulfil Australia’s blue economy’s potential – the National Marine Science Plan (NMSP; Treloar et al. 2016; see also the case study in the 2016 State of the Environment report, Evans et al. 2017). \nA mid-term review of the NMSP has recently been completed and will be delivered in 2021, a year in which a number of relevant international initiatives are either launching or moving into implementation phases. These include the United Nations (UN) Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (IOC-UNESCO 2020; Pendleton et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2021), the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (Young and Schwartz 2019; Fischer et al. 2020) and the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (HLP 2020), all of which Australia has approved (via engagement in the relevant UN commissions and programs) or is directly engaged in with partner countries. These initiatives all recognise the life supporting role of the ocean and the need for action to ensure continued provision of the essential services the ocean provides to humanity. All recognise that transformations that provide solutions for the sustainable management of the ocean within national jurisdictions and safeguard areas beyond national jurisdiction are required to achieve this. \nAustralia’s science community has the opportunity to align efforts and focus the implementation of the original recommendations of the NMSP and the emerging priorities identified in its mid-term review through these international initiatives. Many of the objectives set out under the UN Decades align directly with the recommendations of the NMSP and the commitments set out by the High Level Panel, particularly those focused on increasing understanding of ocean state and changes occurring in marine systems, reducing and responding to the impacts of climate change, ensuring sustainable management of Australia’s marine estate, supporting environmentally sustainable industries and enabling nature-based solutions to coastal development. A coordinated approach to providing the science to support decision making is central to the NMSP and is critical if Australia is to effectively contribute to the UN Decades and meet the commitments it has set itself under the High Level Panel. The National Marine Science Committee through its membership is well placed to drive the collaboration and coordination across disciplinary, sectoral and jurisdictional boundaries needed. The success of the UN Decades and the High Level Panel in achieving the transformation in ocean science that is needed to achieve the UN 2030 Agenda, the associated Sustainable Development Goals and a sustainable future ocean economy will depend on the joint efforts of researchers, engineers, and scholars from all disciplines working in close collaboration with stakeholders from all sectors of the community. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN CASE STUDY\nSynthesis of literature published and expert knowledge of the case study author."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Deepwater corals and sponges (dark, > 150 m)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of deepwater corals and sponges (dark, > 150 m)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Deepwater Corals and Sponges (dark)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nCorals and sponges are habitat-forming biota that enhance benthic biodiversity in the deepsea by providing complex structural living spaces for a large number of species from a variety of taxa (Buhl-Mortensen et al. 2010, Fromont et al. 2012). Many species form prominent colonies attached to hard seabed, others are well adapted to living on soft sediment. \nColdwater corals include stony corals (Scleractinia), black corals (Antipatharia), and octocorals (Alcyonacea) (Fig 1). Knowledge of deep-sea octocoral diversity and distribution in Australia has expanded recently (Alderslade et al., 2014; Althaus et al., 2017; Williams et al. 2020), including the identifying of distinct depth bands occupied by different species. \nDeepwater sponges include demosponges, calcareous and glass sponges (Fig1). Demosponge richness and abundance decreases with depth and latitude; glass sponges show an opposite trend (Fromont et al. 2012). Seamounts are dominated by lithistid (rock sponges). Calcareous sponges are regarded as deep-sea tropical sponges, which have retreated from the shallows over geological timeframes. Recent collections of carnivorous sponges from eastern and southern Australia have shown some of the highest diversity in the world (Ekins et al. 2020a; 2020b). \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThis assessment is based on data from several Marine National Facility Surveys (available via CSIRO Data Trawler http://www.cmar.csiro.au/data/trawler/). Links to specific data sets are provided in the \"On-line resources\" section of this record.\n • Challenger Expedition 1873-1876 \n • CIDARIS, The Deep Sea Bottom Fauna of the Barrier Reef Shelf and Adjacent Coral sea, 1986 (RV Franklin FR 3/86, FR 03/86)\n • Deep Down Under Expedition, 2009 \n • Seamounts, Canyons & Reefs of the Coral Sea \n • Visioning the Coral Sea Marine Park \n • Sampling the Abyss (IN2017_V03)\n • NORFANZ survey of Lord Howe Rise and Norfolk Ridge (TAN0308 – NORFANZ)\n • Tasmanian Seamounts surveys (SS01/1999, SS02/2006, SS02/2007, SS01/2008, TT01/2008, IN2018_V06)\n • Great Australian Bight Deepwater Marine Program (GABDMP) (IN2015_C01, IN2017_C01, IN2015_C01, RE2017_C01)\n • Great Australian Bight Research Program (GABRP) (SS2013_C02, IN2015_C02)\n • The great Australian Deep-sea coral and canyon adventure \n • Voyage of Discovery south-west (SS07/2005, SS10/2005)\n • Habitat and population assessment of giant crabs (2003 - 2005) (SS07/2005, SS10/2005)\n • Illuminating Biodiversity of Ningaloo Canyons \n • Voyage of Discovery north-west (SS 05/2007)\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Poor - Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trends are somewhat comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Poor - Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trends are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Ocean nutrients and dissolved oxygen","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressure of Ocean nutrients and dissolved oxygen\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Pressure – Ocean nutrients and dissolved oxygen\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nThe vital physical processes supplying nutrients to the upper ocean (Figure 1) are the seasonal deepening of the surface ocean mixed layer, the upwelling and vertical mixing associated with ocean eddies, and wind-driven upwelling. In the Australian region, the first two processes dominate because wind-induced upwelling is confined to a few small areas (e.g. Bonnie Upwelling off South Australia). As the climate warms, the upper ocean will develop a stronger vertical gradient in temperature, becoming more stratified, reducing the vertical supply of nutrients to the surface ocean (Kwiatkowski et al., 2020). Climate change is also projected to modify winds, and strengthen boundary currents and increased eddy activity their vertical nutrient supply (e.g. the East Australia Current, Matear et al., 2013).\nOxygen is essential to living aerobic organisms in the ocean. In the surface ocean, oxygen levels are high because air-sea exchange keeps oxygen near saturation levels. Due to aerobic respiration, the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the ocean interior decline and are lowest in the intermediate water (300 m to 1000 m) away from regions these waters exchange with the atmosphere (i.e. the Southern Ocean, Figure 2). High oxygen consumption in coastal regions can lower oxygen to a level where it can no longer support aerobic organisms leading to fish kills (Hobbs and McDonald, 2010). Solubility of oxygen is reduced in a warming ocean, and climate change is projected to lead to the expansion of areas with low oxygen (Kwiatkowski et al., 2020).\nWith climate change warming of the ocean, marine heatwaves in Australian waters are projected to increase in frequency and intensity (Hayashida et al., 2020b).\nAdditional pressures exist in coastal ocean regions, such as increased nutrient input (rives and estuary); which reduces oxygen with the potential for local anoxic events and increases nutrients with the increase phytoplankton blooms.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nData come from the CARS climatological atlas of nitrate, phosphate and oxygen (1996). Details can be found at http://www.globcolour.info/products_description.html.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: High impact\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Low\nConfidence trend: Low\nComparability: Somewhat comparable (oxygen and nutrients assessed separately in 2016\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThe seasonal climatologies are based on the latest version of CARS, which brings in additional observations collected since 2016. Additionally, dissolved oxygen and nutrient supply and cycling were previously assessed separately, but have been combined into a single ‘biogeochemistry’ assessment for 2021."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Inner shelf (0-30 m) – invertebrate species","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of inner shelf (0-30 m) – invertebrate species\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Inner shelf (0-30 m) – invertebrate species\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nA wide range of both sessile and mobile invertebrate species inhabit the continental shelf. Large areas of soft sediments are dominated by infauna and mobile epifauna, but there are also areas that have abundant sessile epifauna — which are covered in other sections. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nPeer reviewed publications, fishery stock assessment reports and data from the IMOS autonomous underwater vehicle facility. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence\nConfidence trend: Low evidence or consensus \nComparability: Comparable\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence\nConfidence trend: Low evidence or consensus \nComparability: Somewhat comparable\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Pinnipeds","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Pinnipeds\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend – Pinnipeds\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAustralian sea lion \nThe endemic Australian sea lion (ASL, Neophoca cinerea) is listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act as and the IUCN Red List (Goldsworthy 2015). They breed between The Pages Islands in South Australia (SA) and the Houtman Abrolhos Islands on the west coast of Western Australia (WA). Genetic analyses indicate that female ASLs typically breed in their birth colony, and males may disperse up to ~200km resulting in population sub-structuring at small scales (20km) (Campbell 2003; Lowther et al. 2012; Ahonen et al. 2016). There are three main sub-populations: South Australia (SA), southern Western Australia (WA) and west-coast WA. ASLs forage on the benthos over the continental shelf, with juveniles, adult females and adult males rarely exceeding depths of 90, 130 and 150 metres, respectively (Goldsworthy et al. 2010, Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013). ASLs eat demersal cephalopods, fish and crustaceans (McIntosh et al. 2006; Fowler et al. 2007; Peters et al. 2014). \n\nLong-nosed fur seals \nLong-nosed fur seals (LNFS, Arctocephalus forsteri) are listed as marine species under the EPBC Act as and globally as of Least Concern under the IUCN Red List (Chilvers and Goldsworthy 2015). Within Australia, LNFSs breed between south-west Western Australia (WA) and southern New South Wales (NSW) with most (80%) of the Australian population in South Australia (SA) (Shaughnessy et al. 2015). The species also occurs in New Zealand and was nearly wiped out by sealers in the early 1800s and populations have been recovering over the last 50 years. \nLNFS breed annually and feed on shelf waters targeting pelagic and bentho-pelagic prey including fish, cephalopods and seabirds, and in oceanic waters where they target epipelagic prey (Hoskins et al. 2017). Foraging strategies and diet differ with age and sex, with adult females constrained by nursing young (Harcourt et al. 2002; Page et al. 2006; Baylis et al. 2008a, b, 2012; Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013). \n\nAustralian fur seals \nAustralian fur seals (AUFS, Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) are listed as a marine species under the EPBC Act and globally as least concern under the IUCN Red List (Hofmeyr 2015). AUFSs are closely related to the Cape fur seal (A. p. pusillus) in southern Africa, and range across south-eastern Australia. Annual breeding occurs on offshore islands and in coastal caves from SA to NSW, with most pups born in Victoria (68%) and Tasmania (32%). \nAUFS are generalist predators that forage on benthic/demersal fish and cephalopods over the continental shelf, with females typically showing strong site fidelity (Hoskins et al. 2015,2017; Hume et al. 2004; Salton et al. 2019). Prey availability can be affected by local and large-scale oceanographic processes as well as bathymetry (Hardy et al. 2017, Kliska 2015; Speakman et al. 2020). \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n---Australian Sea Lion---\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very poor\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Very poor\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n\n---Long-nosed Fur Seals---\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n\n---Australian Fur Seals---\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Poor\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nMethod used includes ground and aerial counts and capture-mark-resights."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Seabed, deep/outer shelf (30-200 m)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Seabed, deep/outer shelf (30-200 m)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend – Seabed, deep/outer shelf (30-200 m)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/OMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe outer shelf seabed consists primarily of unconsolidated sediments but also includes a mix of other habitats that range from stable gravels and rocky reef through mesophotic and relict coral reefs. However, the condition of several of these habitats are assessed via other SoE metrics, including deepwater corals and sponges, bryozoan reef, seagrasses, algae and coral reefs, so this assessment focusses on the condition of sedimentary habitats on the mid to outer shelf (30-200 m depth, or otherwise outer limit of shelf). Indeed, depths of 30 m to 50 m are commonly found on the inner shelf as well, so despite the “Outer shelf” in the title, this assessment is based on all waters on the shelf deeper than 30m. Note that this assessment differs slightly from the 2011 assessment that focussed on the 50-200 m depth range and the 2016 assessment that focussed on the 25-250 m depth range, and it isn’t clear from the 2011 assessment notes whether that assessment was confined to soft sediment habitat; it is assumed that this was the case, and this assumption was made for the 2016 assessment. \n\nSoft sediment habitats in the 30-200 m depth range are usually dominated by coarse to fine sand in exposed coast locations at shallower depths that tends to grade to finer sand/silts with increasing depth, but with a strong overlay on this gradient whereby increasing seabed stress in response to swells and currents sweeps away fine fractions thus leaving coarser sands and gravels. Muddy and unstable sediments tend to have little epibenthic cover, but such biogenic cover can be higher in stable coarse sediments where currents are stronger but not excessive. In addition, at shallower depths (30-50m) the seabed may have little epibenthic cover due to disturbance by swells, but this cover may increase as wave energy declines below 50m and the fauna may include a moderate cover of sponges, bryozoans, octocorals and hydroids. Upwellings and productivity may also be an important driver of shelf biogenic habitats. Recent IMOS AUV surveys using high resolution imagery have indicated that a turfing layer of bryozoans, hydroids and other epibenthic fauna may be an extensive feature in many offshore locations. \n\nWhile cover of habitat-forming epifauna is lower on fine sediments, it is often still a significant component on coarser sediments that enhances benthic biodiversity in deep shelf waters by providing complex structural living spaces for a large number of species from a variety of taxa (Pitcher et al. 2007a, Buhl-Mortensen et al. 2010, Fromont et al. 2012). Such biological assemblages are generally fragile and readily disturbed by activities such as benthic trawling and large storm events. Nevertheless, the primarily unconsolidated sediments of the outer shelf seabed tend to be dominated by mobile invertebrates such as crustaceans, echinoderms and molluscs, with deposit/detritus feeding types typifying finer sediments and suspension feeding types typifying coarser sediments. \n\nOur knowledge of these taxa in Australian waters at shelf depths stems mainly from a few broad-scale biodiversity surveys covering the Gulf of Carpentaria (Long et al. 1995; Bustamante et al. 2011), Great Barrier Reef shelf (Pitcher et al. 2007a), Torres Strait (Pitcher et al. 2007b), Pilbara (Pitcher et al. 2016b, Keesing 2019), southern south-east, north-west (Keesing et al. 1018a/b, Pitcher et al. 2016b), and western south –west regions, and the Lord Howe/ Norfolk ridge area (McEnnulty et al. 2011, Williams et al. 2011, Dunstan et al. 2012) (Table 1). Fine/muddy sediments tend to be less diverse than coarse sediments and hard ground but are still diverse — and belie their often barren appearance — with many undescribed species, as well as many ‘unknown’ (sensu Hooper et al. 2013) species (Pitcher et al. 2007ab; McEnnulty et al. 2011, Fromont et al. 2012, Alderslade et al. 2014). In addition, species turn-over between samples in fine/muddy sediments tends to be lower than on coarser sediments and in sessile epifaunal communities (Poiner et al. 1998; Pitcher et al. 2007a). Recent studies have started to focus in infaunal assemblages (e.g. Przeslawski et al. 2013) but, as yet, have not provided a temporal component to assess change or status. \n\nWhile there have been other concurrent cross shelf studies by a range of other agencies over this time (e.g. Jordan et al. 2010, and the IMOS AUV program) the majority of these have focussed on hard rather than soft substrates, with few examples of time-series data from soft sediments. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThis is outlined in the reports and papers included in the reference section.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Oceanic reefs","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of oceanic reefs\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Oceanic reefs\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAssemblages of plants and animals found on shallow offshore reefs in the 0-30 m depth range. This largely relates to reefs in the Coral Sea, Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs, Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island, and the offshore reefs in the North and North-west, based on results from the national case study ‘Australia’s changing reefs’.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nUnderwater visual census data from Reef Life Survey, as reported in references. NW and Elizabeth & Middleton reefs surveyed in 2013 and 2018, Lord Howe Island 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020. Coral Sea 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 (2020 data not yet available for assessment), Norfolk Island (2009, 2013). \nWhile results were based on those regions covered in the national case study ‘Australia’s changing reefs’ in which quantitative comparisons were made with standardised data, other relevant monitoring data have been collected by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, James Cook University, CSIRO and the Sydney Institute of Marine Science. It is uncertain whether trends reported here are consistent with those indicated by those other monitoring programs.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate/limited\nComparability: High. This is the second assessment in a row based on standardised quantitative data from the same sources (noting that 2016 assessment was titled “Offshore banks, shoals, islands”)\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Offshore renewable energy generation","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressure of Offshore renewable energy generation\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Offshore Renewable Energy Generation\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nOffshore Renewable Energy (ORE) is yet to be deployed at scale in Australia. To date, only small scale (<500 kW) experimental / prototype wave and tidal technologies have been deployed. Offshore wind is a commercial industry internationally, not yet deployed here. Several development proposals for large offshore wind farms (>100 MW) are progressing, with the most mature proposal being offshore eastern Victoria, currently undergoing environmental assessments under a Commonwealth exploration license.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nGiven the limited deployments in Australian waters, data used in the assessment is inferred from international assessments.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very low\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Very low\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very low\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Species redistributions","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of species redistributions\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Species Redistributions\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nA systematic review suggests that since 2003, at least 198 Australian marine species have undergone long-term shifts in their geographic distributions. These redistributions are strongly associated with ocean warming. Indeed, 87.3% of shifts (173 species) align with expectations under warming trends i.e., these shifts are polewards in direction. Extreme climate events such as El Niño and marine heatwave events have also facilitated the contraction of warmer range limits and extension of cooler poleward range limits of species in Australia.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nLiterature search spanning all peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to marine species redistributions in Australia (Gervais et al., In Review)\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Poor \nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence or high-level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence or high-level of consensus\nComparability: Not Previously Assessed\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot previously assessed"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Canyons","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of canyons\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Canyons\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nSubmarine canyons are a class of geomorphic seabed feature used as a physical surrogate for biodiversity distribution during Australia’s marine planning process and in designing the network of Australian Marine Parks. They are one of two ‘special’ feature types (together with seamounts) (Harris et al., 2008) considered to have potentially high influence on and value for marine biodiversity distribution and protection. It is these characteristics that have been used to define some canyons as Marine Key Ecological Features (Department of the Environment, 2012). \nSubmarine canyons are located on all sides of the Australian continental margin. They form deeply incised networks of valleys and channels that extend from the continental shelf edge (<200 m water depth) to the foot of the continental slope (>4000 m water depth). Based on a 2014 compilation of all available bathymetric data for the Australian EEZ, 713 submarine canyons are identified on the continental margin, with an additional 40 canyons that fringe islands within Australia’s external territories (Table 1; Huang et al., 2014). The majority (618) of the identified canyons are classified as ‘blind canyons’, meaning that they are located only on the continental slope and typically with their heads in water depths of ~500 to 1000 m. The other 95 canyons are classified as ‘shelf-incising’ canyons that extend from the slope and incise the continental shelf edge, with canyon heads that define an abrupt depth transition between the slope and shelf of up to 400 m. Between Marine Planning Regions canyons vary in number and spatial distribution. Thus, canyons are most abundant in the South-East (206 canyons) and South-West (204) Marine Regions, with the latter having the higher proportion (51) of shelf-incising canyons. The Temperate East has 124 canyons. In contrast, the North-West and North Marine Regions incorporate 90 and 6 canyons, respectively. \nWithin canyons, the seabed is characteristically irregular with underlying substrate exposed along steep canyon walls, in places forming undersea cliffs hundreds of metres high. These localised areas of hard rock outcrop provide a stable surface for benthic biological communities, including sponges, corals and associated sessile flora and feeding grounds for demersal fishes (Schlacher et al., 2007; Fromont and Pisera, 2011; Currie and Sorokin, 2014; Kloser et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2018). Canyons also provide a pathway for the transport of sediments and nutrients (and pollutants), not only laterally from the shelf to the deep sea, but also vertically via upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich waters from the deep ocean toward the shelf (Kampf, 2010; Currie et al. 2012). An assessment of the habitat potential of submarine canyons on the Australian margin found that shelf-incising canyons have higher potential for supporting benthic communities than those confined to the slope (Huang et al., 2018). Canyons with particularly high habitat potential are located mainly offshore of the Great Barrier Reef and the NSW coast, on the eastern margin of Tasmania and Bass Strait, and on the southern Australian margin. Many of these canyons have complex bottom topography, are likely to have high primary and secondary production, and experience less disturbance to seabed sediment by near-bed currents; this latter factor favoring infaunal communities. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nNational Submarine Canyons of Australia [Geoscience Australia data product]\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good to Poor\nAssessment trend: Stable or unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus \nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus \nComparability: Grade and trend somewhat comparable to 2016 assessment \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good but poor in the South-East\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence and limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence and limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Management Effectiveness – Indigenous commercial fishing","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Management Effectiveness of Indigenous commercial fishing\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Management Effectiveness - Indigenous Commercial Fishing\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH TO MANAGING THE PRESSURE\nManagement of Indigenous Commercial Fisheries requires regulatory bodies to understand and enable practices for access, inclusion, and decision-making by Traditional Owners. Management measures need to be consistent with the rights of Indigenous Peoples and avoid unintentionally or unnecessarily impeding the economic development for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Around Australia, each community experiences their own inherent challenges with securing access to commercial fisheries, inclusion in the management of the commercial fisheries and influence and input into management measures (Lee, 2019; Schnierer et al., 2018; Schnierer & Egan, 2012). Opportunities within commercial fishing enterprises remain inaccessible to most Traditional Owners in Australia. This inaccessibility has flow on consequences to limiting the involvement of Traditional Owners in the operation and management of Indigenous commercial fishing industries.\n\nIn Australia, experiences have demonstrated that policy initiatives aimed at creating development and employment opportunities for Indigenous communities often fail because they do not incorporate the broader prerequisites for success. These include closely involving the community in designing and implementing initiatives, as well as, investing in education, business training and broader capacity-building. Indigenous fishing principles were developed by the National Indigenous Fishing Technical Working Group (NIFTWG) in 2004 to encourage the recognition of Indigenous traditional fishing practices, to enhance Indigenous involvement in commercial fisheries related enterprises (commercial fishing, charter fishing and eco-tourism activities) and to encourage greater participation in fisheries management. An audit carried out by Schnierer et al. (2018) assessed the frequency of the NIFTWG principles in fisheries related documents. The audit reported that all seven principles occurred in approximately 4% of documents and none of the principles were addressed in 53% of documents. This highlights the ongoing and still incomplete process of legislative reform and transition to best practice of culturally grounded management frameworks. \n\nTo date in Australia, there are no examples of co-management approaches in commercial fisheries. A study by Plagányi et al. (2020) describes a harvest strategy developed in an indigenous commercial fishery in the Torres Strait with consultation that provides a vehicle for traditional knowledge and objectives but is still constrained within the institutional (top-down) governance and policy obligations. In the Torres Strait, Traditional Owners have been involved in guiding the harvest strategies for commercial species over many years. This history is seeing the harvest strategy, in the case of the beche-de-mer fishery, being designed to have regard to Traditional Knowledge and the ability for communities to manage fishery resources locally, complemented by customary and traditional laws for guiding local practices by communities (Plagányi et al., 2020). A roadmap is being developed and lead by the Torres Strait Regional Authority towards 100 per cent ownership of the commercial fisheries by Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal Traditional Owners in the region. \n\nSince 2016, there has been some re-structures and transitions within fisheries management frameworks intended to recognise Indigenous fishing and build strengthened engagement with Indigenous fishing stakeholders. The Productivity Commission Review on Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture (Productivity Commission, 2016) devoted a chapter on Indigenous Fisheries and raised recommendations relating broadly to policy, leadership, and consistent approaches. In 2017, changes were made to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to require the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to ensure interests of Indigenous fishers considered in Commonwealth fisheries management decisions. Alongside this, was the release of Commonwealth fisheries resource sharing framework in 2020 and a call to develop an Indigenous Engagement Strategy for fishing interests with a focus on Commonwealth fisheries. The Indigenous Reference Group of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation has been actively responsive to regulatory and policy change, as well as, supporting priority areas of research. Foundations and connections are being advocated and incrementally built for research learnings and recent re-structures frameworks to better support the primacy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to grow Indigenous commercial fisheries. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe information used in the assessment was based insightful statements from reports and articles on Australian Indigenous commercial fishing.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• Approach •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Limited\nComparability with 2016: Not previously assessed.\n• Outputs •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Limited\nComparability with 2016: Not previously assessed.\n• Outcomes •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Limited\nComparability with 2016: Not previously assessed.\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNot previously assessed."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Climate Change – Ocean acidification","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressures on the marine environment - climate change - ocean acidification\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Ocean Acidification\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nOcean acidification describes changes in dissolved carbonate chemistry resulting from the ocean taking up about 25% of the annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The changes include decreases in seawater pH and a lowering of the saturation state of aragonite, a major mineral form used by marine organisms to produce shells and skeletal material. The changes are rapid with the pH change being ten-fold greater than at any time in the past 300 million years (Hönisch et al., 2012). Superimposed on the large-scale change is increased variability at seasonal and local scales, particularly in coastal regions (Mongin et al., 2016; Shaw et al., 2012).\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nOffshore data from around Australia as described in Lenton et al. 2016.\nLenton, A., B. Tilbrook, R. Matear, T. Sasse and Y. Nojiri (2016) Historical reconstruction of Ocean Acidification in the Australian region, Biogeosciences, 13: 1753–1765. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-1753-2016 \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very high impact\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Somewhat adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability: Comparable\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Very high impact\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nMore data are now available."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Case Study – Australia's changing reefs","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Case Study \"Australia's Changing Reefs\". \n***A PDF of the full Case Study, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"CASE STUDY 2021 – Australia's Changing Reefs\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE FOCUS OF THE CASE STUDY\nShallow temperate and tropical reefs around Australia, including their macroalgal and coral habitats, fishes and mobile invertebrates. A nationally standardised dataset is used to provide a quantitative metric-based analysis of state and trends in these components across the continent, rather than presenting a review of location-specific knowledge.\n\nPRESSURES/ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE\nChanges in the ocean climate have been widespread on shallow reefs since the last SoE report (2016), including three major tropical heatwaves responsible for widespread coral bleaching (2016, 2017 and 2020), and increasing annual maximum sea temperatures along much of the Australian coastline [1].\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN CASE STUDY\nAll trends are calculated from compatible underwater visual census data from the Reef Life Survey (RLS; https://reeflifesurvey.com/), Australian Temperate Reef Collaboration (ATRC; https://atrc.org.au/) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS; https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/reef-monitoring.html) Long Term Monitoring program. All RLS and ATRC data used are available through the National Reef Monitoring Network database through IMOS. Only data collected between the years 2008-2020 (inclusive) were used, with spatial coverage as shown in plots. Indicator calculation is provided in reference 5, and at https://reeflifesurvey.com/indicators/. \nA number of other monitoring programs exist around Australia, albeit not all with directly compatible and/or open access data with which to calculate the indicators used for this case study. As such, trends reported are those from analysis of this national standardised dataset and the knowledge of the authors, and should not be taken to reflect a synopsis of all published research and results of other monitoring programs."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Case Study – Baselines, monitoring and integrated ecosystems assessements: Supporting status reporting and decsion-making for Australia's marine environment and Blue Economy","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Case Study \"Baselines, monitoring and integrated ecosystems assessements: Supporting status reporting and decsion-making for Australia's marine environment and Blue Economy\". \n***A PDF of the full Case Study, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"CASE STUDY 2021 – Baselines, monitoring and integrated ecosystems assessements\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY\nRecommendations in the National Marine Science Plan 2015-25 (NMSP; Treloar et al 2016) are crucial for Australia to achieve sustainable use of our marine environment and to reap the full benefits from the Blue Economy. Two recommendations are particularly relevant to SoE and other national status and trend reporting (e.g. State of the Climate, Status of Australian Fish Stocks): \n -- Establish and support a National Marine Baselines and Long-Term Monitoring Program; \n -- Develop a dedicated and coordinated science program to support decision-making by policy makers and marine industry in the face of challenges such as cumulative impacts, multiple pressures and social and economic considerations. \nImplementing these recommendations will also provide more complete data and information to support assessment of cumulative impacts and management effectiveness. \nTwo working groups were established by the National Marine Science Committee (NMSC) to develop advice on establishing and supporting these national programs. Reports from the two working groups (Hedge et al 2021; Smith et al 2021) have recently been endorsed by the NMSC. \n---\n[see attached Case Study for more]\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN CASE STUDY\nSynthesis of literature published and expert knowledge of case study authors."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Anthropogenic noise","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressures on the marine environment - anthropogenic noise\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Anthropogenic Noise\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nThe main anthropogenic activities generating noise in marine environments are geophysical surveys of sub bottom strata (seismic exploration using air gun arrays), sonars (military, scientific surveying, depth finders, fish finding echo sounders), explosions (military exercises, port construction), pile driving (construction of wharves, ports, coastal infrastructure), vessels (recreational, transport, national and international freight), dredging (port, harbour, shipping routes) and offshore platform activities (construction, operations and decommissioning) (Studds and Wright 2007). Seismic surveys in Australian waters have been concentrated in the main offshore oil and gas regions of the north west shelf and Bass Strait (see overview in the 2016 State of the Environment report; Evans et al. 2017), military sonar concentrated in designated maritime exercise areas such as the Western Australian Exercise Area (near Perth) and the East Australian Exercise Area (near Sydney) and pile driving in major port development areas (e.g. expansion of the Port of Melbourne (PoM 2020)). Noise generated by shipping is present around much of Australia with higher levels being generated long shipping lanes with higher densities of vessel traffic (see Peel et al. 2018 for an assessment of shipping distribution densities), with noise generated by coastal activities (such as port construction, inshore commercial vessels, recreational activities) concentrated in inshore regions adjacent to populated areas. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nNational Offshore Petroleum Information Management System database (https://nopims.dmp.wa.gov.au/nopims) and records held by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). Information on activities in state and territory waters were extracted from state and territory databases and/or provided by relevant state and territory departments (see below). \nWestern Australia: Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety Petroleum and Geothermal Information (WAPIMS) https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Petroleum-and-Geothermal-1497.aspx \nVictoria: Earth Resources Regulation Annual Statistics Reports 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020. https://earthresources.vic.gov.au/legislation-and-regulations/regulator-performance-reporting/annual-statistical-reports \nTasmania: Department of State Growth Mineral Resources Tasmania Exploration Release Area (ERA) system. https://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/exploration \nSouth Australia: Department of Energy and Mining South Australian Resources Information Gateway (SARIG): https://www.petroleum.sa.gov.au/data-centre/online-databases/sarig; PEPS (South Australia): https://peps.sa.gov.au/ \n\nShipping \nBITRE. (2019). Statistical report Australia sea freight 2016-17. Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development, Canberra, Australia. \n\nNaval operations \nExpert input from Navy Safety and Environment, Royal Australian Navy. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Low\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Limited\nComparability: Comparable\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Low-High impact\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Not previously assessed\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Management Effectiveness – Recreational fishing","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Effectiveness of Management – Recreational fishing\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Effectiveness of Management - Recreational Fishing\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH TO MANAGING THE PRESSURE\nIn Australia, participation in the recreational sector is high by global levels (Hyder et al., 2018) and complex. Fishers target highly diverse but low productivity ecosystems, which lead to variable catches of many species. For some species, the proportion of the catch taken by recreational fishers can be large, at times rivalling or exceeding the harvest from commercial fisheries (Henry and Lyle, 2003; Brown, 2016; van Putten et al., 2017). The intensity of recreational fishing activities can therefore pose a threat to both stocks and marine biodiversity, at least at a local scales (Stuart-Smith et al., 2008; Edgar et al., 2018; Little et al., 2019). It should be noted, however, that recreational fishing can also have positive socio-economic roles, creating significant economic activity, playing an important social role for coastal communities and providing nutrition (Pascoe et al., 2014; Griffiths et al., 2017; Cooke et al., 2018).\n\nRegulatory responsibilities for Australian fisheries are shared between the Australian Commonwealth Government and the governments of each state or territory. States manage recreational fisheries but are required to adhere to State or Commonwealth regulations as they apply to access and prohibitions such as “no take” reserves for biodiversity conservation such as National Park or Sanctuary Zones in Marine Parks. Marine recreational fishery catch, is solely managed by the states, even when occurring in Commonwealth waters, and are regulated through a combination of input and output controls as well as licensing and spatial and temporal access controls (Lynch et al., 2019). \n\nRecreational fisheries management typically relies on output controls, mainly possession and size limits to reduce potential overharvest and protect spawning biomass. There are also examples of input controls, such as closed seasons, gear restrictions and gear exclusions. Spatial and/or temporal closures are also used to protect spawning events, rebuild stocks, limit impacts in sensitive area or life history stages. Closures are also used in marine reserves and parks for the conservation of biodiversity. \n\nRecreational fisheries assessments are conducted by all states and territories across Australia. Assessments include telephone–diary surveys, which provide catch and effort estimates at broad spatial (state-wide, regional) and temporal (annual, seasonal) scales (Table 1). Smaller-scale, targeted research that includes onsite roving, progressive counts, and access-point surveys are also undertaken to deal with complexity and meet legislated requirements for particular fishery performance and resource allocation (Smallwood et al., 2012; Wise et al., 2012; Lynch, 2014; Ochwada-Doyle et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2016; Lynch et al., 2020). \n\nWhile there is growing professional regional cooperation and coordination between Australia’s recreational fishery scientists, through workshops and collaborations, surveys are not synchronized or aligned temporally between states (Table 1). Surveys are expensive and, between jurisdictions, there are varying gaps in time series continuity between repeat surveys. While basic methodologies for each of the state-wide surveys are similar, there are also some differences, such as the sampling frames used (telephone number lists vs fishing licence) and survey scope (e.g. coverage of interstate fishers, replication). Ultimately, the objectives, scale and resources available to individual states across Australia’s federal system are what drives survey design and frequency. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nSynthesis of literature published in the last 5 years and expert knowledge of the assessment authors.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• Approach •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Somewhat comparable\n• Outputs •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Comparable\n• Outcomes •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Comparable\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nConsistent with 2016 assessment."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Secondary production (zooplankton)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of secondary production (zooplankton)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Secondary Production (Zooplankton)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nSecondary production in the ocean is the generation of biomass by zooplankton – the primary consumers of phytoplankton. The most common zooplankton, the copepods, are the most abundant animals on Earth, even potentially outnumbering insects (Schminke 2006). Zooplankton are important components of the biological pump, shunting carbon from surface to deeper waters through sinking of faeces, exuviae and carcasses (Turner 2015). The recruitment of fish and the carrying capacity of marine ecosystems – the mass of fish, squid, shellfish, marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles – is regulated by secondary production (Bakun 2006). Productivity hotspots, such as Eden and Bonney upwelling zones, have high densities of zooplankton, sustaining invertebrates, fish and whales alike (Gill 2002).\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nWe analysed secondary production (zooplankton) data in Coastal areas (from nets at IMOS National Reference Stations, see Eriksen et al. (2019) for detailed methodology) and Offshore bioregions (from the IMOS Australian Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey, see Richardson et al. (2006) for detailed methodology). \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Somewhat adequate\nConfidence trend: Somewhat adequate\nComparability: Somewhat comparable (2016 assessment was based the same data sources but trends were assessed in terms of biomass).\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Not previously assessed\n• 2011 •\n(not previously assessed)\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThe 2016 assessment based only on IMOS CPR data suggested the trend in zooplankton abundance was stable. The longer IMOS time series now available, together with combined information from both the NRS and AusCPR, have provided more data and greater confidence in the results."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Case Study – Australia's Blue Economy","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Case Study \"Australia's Blue Economy\". \n***A PDF of the full Case Study, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"CASE STUDY 2021 – Australia's Blue Economy\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY\nThe ‘blue economy’ is an increasingly accepted term for ocean-based industries that maintain environmental and social stewardship and protection (UNEP 2016, Voyer et al 2018).\n---\n[see attached Case Study for more]\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN CASE STUDY\ntba"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Minerals, oil and gas extraction and production","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressures on the marine environment - minerals, oil and gas extraction and production\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Minerals, oil and gas extraction and production\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nMineral (a naturally occurring substance or naturally occurring mixture of substances other than oil and gas), oil and gas extraction and production activities include those associated with geophysical surveys of sub bottom strata, exploratory and development drilling, blasting and dredging of materials, pipeline and facility construction, offshore oil and gas production facilities and oil rig decommissioning. Pressures associated with oil and gas extraction and production occur predominantly in offshore waters with activity concentrated in the North-west and South-east marine bioregions (Figure 1). Those associated with mineral extraction are limited to nearshore regions with activities similar to those reported in SoE 2016: shell sand mining operation in Cockburn Sound (Western Australia), iron ore mining at Cockatoo and Koolan Islands (Western Australia), sand mining in Moreton Bay (Queensland) and exploration for tin in Ringarooma Bay (Tasmania; NT EPA 2020). Some offshore oil and gas production facilities are connected to onshore processing and so cross state jurisdictions either via seabed pipelines or via subsurface wells drilled from onshore (VEAC 2019).\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nOil and gas exploration, drilling, wells, and facilities were extracted from the National Offshore Petroleum Information Management System database (https://nopims.dmp.wa.gov.au/nopims) and records held by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). Information on activities in state and territory waters were extracted from state and territory databases and/or provided by relevant state and territory departments (see below). \nSee also relevant publications for key statistics and data associated with hydrocarbon production data. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Low impact\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence or high level of consensus \nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence or high level of consensus \nComparability: Somewhat comparable\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Low impact\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nPressures associated with mining activities were reported separately in the 2016 SoE assessment."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Management Effectiveness – Offshore renewable energy generation","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Management Effectiveness of Offshore renewable energy generation\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Offshore renewable energy generation\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH TO MANAGING THE PRESSURE\nNo Commonwealth regulatory framework for offshore clean energy infrastructure currently exists. A draft discussion document was released in Feb 2020, with DISER currently working towards preparation of policy. NOPSEMA has been identified as proposed regulator for offshore clean energy developments. \nStates/Territories have inconsistent processes by jurisdiction. Victoria’s marine and coastal policy now captures process for offshore renewables in planning for Victoria’s State waters. A need for consistent regulatory framework across jurisdictions is recognised if the sector is to advance in Australia. \nCurrent major projects undertaking environmental assessments, typically need to address requirements of both State and Commonwealth jurisdictions (e.g., Star of the South, 2020). \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nReview of Commonwealth and State regulations. Not available for all jurisdictions.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• Approach •\nAssessment grade: Ineffective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Limited\nComparability with 2016: Not previously assessed\n• Outputs •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Limited\nComparability with 2016: Not previously assessed\n• Outcomes •\nAssessment grade: NA (insufficient activity to make an assessment)\nAssessment trend: NA (insufficient activity to make an assessment)\nConfidence grade: NA (insufficient activity to make an assessment)\nConfidence trend: NA (insufficient activity to make an assessment)\nComparability with 2016: Not previously assessed\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Coral reefs (<30m)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of coral reefs (<30m)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Coral reefs (<30m)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThis assessment relates to the state and trends of coral reefs (<30m) in five bioregions: i) The Offshore Territories of Christmas and Cocos Islands, ii) North East (including the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea), iii) the North (Northern Territory), iv) North West (including the Kimberley, Pilbara and Ningaloo regions) and v) the Temperate East (including Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs). Coral reefs in the South-east and South-west regions have not been included in this assessment. Emphasis is restricted to reporting the trends in hard coral cover, as information on changes to coral diversity and assemblage structure were unavailable for most regions. Further information on the trends in other reef-associated taxa can be found in the national case study ‘Australia’s changing reefs’ and assessments for ’Oceanic Reefs’ and ‘Inner shelf (0-30 m) - reef fish species’.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nPhoto transects and manta tow surveys undertaken in the GBR from the Australian Institute of Marine Science monitoring programs. Photo-quadrats or -transects taken by divers in WA as part of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD), the Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia, School of Molecular and Life Science, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia (1990-2020) (summarized in Gilmour et al. 2019). Additional data used as a basis for this assessment come from the GBR, Coral Sea, North, NW, and Temperate East from photo quadrats taken by divers as part of the Reef Life Survey, as reported in the case study Australia’s changing reefs.\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Poor\nAssessment trend: Declining\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability: Grade and trend comparable to 2016 assessment \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Poor-Good\nAssessment trend: Stable -Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThe assessments are largely comparable to 2016. Declines are now occurring in the NW bioregion, however, and new data has become available to guide assessments about the Temperate East bioregion."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Water column – neritic (0-200 m, on-shelf)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Water column – neritic (0-200 m, on-shelf)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend – Water column – neritic (0-200 m, on-shelf)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe water column (pelagic) community includes microbes, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish and other higher trophic levels including seabirds, marine reptiles and marine mammals. By definition, the pelagic community is mobile, as smaller species are moved passively by currents, and larger species often move over large distances, both horizontally and vertically. Here we focus on the neritic zone, the area close to the coast and overlying the continental shelf. We analyse the abundance/biomass of a selected group of pelagic trophic levels, those that are monitored and readily available in the neritic pelagic region from IMOS (i.e., Chlorophyll a representing phytoplankton biomass, Zooplankton biomass and Fish larval abundance).\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nWe analysed Chlorophyll a, Zooplankton biomass and Fish larval data from the IMOS National Reference Stations, see Eriksen et al. (2019) for detailed methodology for Zooplankton, Davies & Sommerville (2020) for Chlorophyll a and larval fish methodologies).\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: N/A\n• 2016 •\nN/A\n• 2011 •\nN/A\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot previously assessed"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Case Study – Assessing cumulative effects and risks","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Case Study \"Assessing cumulative effects and risks\". \n***A PDF of the full Case Study, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"CASE STUDY 2021 – Assessing cumulative effects and risks\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY\nThe Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) calls for consideration of direct, indirect and offsite impacts on biodiversity. Upstream, downstream and facilitated impacts are specifically defined in the Significant Impact Guidelines and the act allows for broad-scale strategic assessments . However, the EPBC Act does not explicitly address cumulative effects (Dales, 2011; Dunstan et al., 2020; Samuel, 2020). Multiple stressors impacting on multiple ecological values requires an ecosystem-based approach (Levin et al., 2009). This will require a systemic and integrated assessment of all pressures on marine and coastal systems (HLPO, 2020). \n---\n[see attached Case Study for more]\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN CASE STUDY\nSynthesis of literature published in the last 5 years and expert knowledge of the case study authors."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Management Effectiveness – Commercial fishing","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Management Effectiveness of Commercial fishing\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Management Effectiveness - Commercial Fishing\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH TO MANAGING THE PRESSURE\nAll Australian jurisdictions understand the direct pressures that commercial fishing has on the marine environment. Almost all management agencies across Australia are using evidence-based processes such as harvest strategies for commercially important species to determine sustainable catch levels, and risk-based assessments of the broader ecosystem effects of fishing. Implementation, however, is not uniform with some stocks having an unknown sustainability status. \nThe Australian partnership approach between managers, commercial fishers, scientists and other stakeholders is recognised globally as a standard for fisheries management (Marchal et al., 2016). Management agencies rely to varying degrees on co-funding of management costs from industry. Increased use of risk-based intelligence-gathering and reporting of fishing activity, and uptake of vessel monitoring systems is benefitting compliance. \nAustralian jurisdictions have sought to implement single jurisdiction stock management where possible. Historically, the Offshore Constitutional Settlement has been the primary means to do so. More recently the emphasis has been to develop common (cross-jurisdictional) stock assessments and harvest strategies for shared stocks without changes in jurisdiction. \nSpatial management is used widely to reduce conflicts between sectors and increasingly to reduce the fishing impacts on vulnerable species and habitats. Some closures prohibit specific fishing methods within sensitive habitats. An increasing range of mechanisms and technical tools are being used to reduce interactions with seabirds, marine mammals, reptiles and other vulnerable species. Such bycatch reduction devices include tori lines, sprayers, seal and turtle excluder devices. \nManagement agencies and industry recognise that climate change is affecting Australian fisheries, and the changing nature of marine ecosystems is receiving greater attention. However, implementation challenges remain. \nManagement across sectors remains a challenge in terms of both of accurate data collection to understand stock status, and resource sharing. Cross-sectoral management with recreational sector continues to improve with several jurisdictions committed to regular surveys and rules around catch limits that better reflect stock levels. Traditional fishing is being increasingly recognised, but there remains no common agreement between indigenous Australians and jurisdictions about how to move forward. \nA range of best practice guidelines for fisheries management have been developed (Penney et al. 2016; Hobday et al. 2019; Sloane et al. 2014) and are steadily being deployed. Small-scale/data-limited fisheries are prevalent and remain a challenge (Hill et al., submitted; Dowling et al. 2016). Jurisdictions have begun to use a range of processes and decision-support tools to better ensure the sustainability of these fisheries including harvest strategies. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• Approach •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Somewhat comparable. Increased uptake of harvest strategies and ecological risk assessments by most jurisdictions. \n• Outputs •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Comparable. Number of stocks assessed nationally by SAFS has increased since 2016. \n• Outcomes •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Comparable. Improving recognition of key threats in policy and management, including climate change, cross jurisdictional issues and recreational fishing. \n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Tuna and billfish","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of tuna and billfish\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Tuna and billfish\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF TAXONOMIC GROUP FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThis assessment focuses on those tuna and billfish species that are caught in commercial and recreational fisheries in Australian waters. Southern bluefin tuna are caught predominantly by commercial fisheries in the south-west and temperate east bioregions with recreational catches occurring in the north-west and south-east bioregions. Yellowfin, bigeye and albacore tunas, swordfish and striped marlin are predominantly caught by commercial and recreational fisheries in the north-west, south-west, temperate east and north east bioregions with recreational catches occurring in the north and in the south-east seasonally. Blue and black marlin are caught recreationally in the north, north-east, temperate east, and north-west bioregions with commercial catches of the species not permitted (Larcombe et al. 2020, NSW DPI 2018; Patterson et al. 2020a; Williams et al. 2020).\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAssessment based on review of most recent stock assessments conducted by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations – see references for spatial and temporal coverage of data incorporated into assessments.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence or high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence or high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are not comparable to the 2011 assessment\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nAssessment has not changed."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Deep seabed (>700m)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Deep seabed (>700m)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Deep seabed (>700m)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThis specified depth range (> 700 m) aggregates several habitats and communities that are clearly distinct in geological, environmental and biological characteristics: the mid-continental slope, lower slope and rise, and abyss. Our knowledge of very deep-sea habitats around Australia has increased substantially since the 2016 assessment due to recent survey effort in the Great Australian Bight and off the Eastern Australian Margin (Williams et al. 2018a, b; O’Hara et al. 2020a, b). For example, the slope topography of the latter was shown to be more complex and rugged than originally expected (O’Hara et al. 2020b), which suggests a higher diversity of habitats, and by implication opportunity for more diverse faunal assemblages.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nMetadata records related to surveys can be found on MarLIN (http://www.marine.csiro.au/marlin/search.html); and on the CSIRO Data trawler (https://www.marine.csiro.au/data/trawler/) the reference indicates Survey names for effectively searching the databases\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence; uncertain climate effects\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence; uncertain climate effects\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Case Study - Marine biodiversity protection in Australia","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Case Study \"Management of shared marine biodiversity values\". \n***A PDF of the full Case Study, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"CASE STUDY 2021 – Management of shared marine biodiversity values\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY\nThis synopsis describes arrangements for protecting marine biodiversity in accordance with Australia’s national responsibilities for the marine estate and as a party to international conventions including those for Biological Diversity, Migratory Species, World Heritage and Wetlands of International Importance.\n\nISSUES OF IMPORTANCE\nThreats to Australia’s marine biodiversity include increasing use of the marine domain, pollution, habitat modification or loss and climate change. Direct impacts include harvest (e.g., commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishing), bycatch, habitat disturbance and pollution, all of which may indirectly impact all ecosystem components. These pressures may act cumulatively to increase the overall impacts. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN CASE STUDY\nSynthesis of literature published, and expert knowledge of the case study authors."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Seabed, shallow/inner shelf (0-30 m)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Seabed, shallow/inner shelf (0-30 m)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend – Seabed, shallow/inner shelf (0-30 m)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/OMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe inner shelf seabed consist of a mix of habitats that range from rocky reef through coral reef, seagrass, algae and soft sediment, although this assessment focusses on open coast unvegetated soft sediment habitats on the inner shelf (0-30 m depth) as the other inshore habitats are assessed in other SoE metrics. Note that this assessment differs slightly from that in 2011 that focussed on the 0-50 m depth range, and the 2016 assessment that focussed on the 0-25 m depth range, and we assume the 2011 assessment (undocumented) was also confined to soft sediment habitat. The 2011 and 2016 assessments concluded that the overall condition was good at a national scale, but poor in the SE and East, this was likely to be stable, but it was based on limited evidence and trends from the previous assessments. \nInner shelf soft sediment habitats are usually dominated by coarse to fine sand in exposed coast locations but can grade to finer silts in sheltered habitats with nearby estuarine inputs and with depth. In specific locations, significant habitat mapping and/or biodiversity sampling programs have substantially improved knowledge of the spatial distribution of these habitats, and have provided an initial description of their current condition (e.g. Barrett et al. 2001; Pitcher et al. 2007ab, 2016; Jordan et al. 2010; Kangas et al. 2007; Currie et al. 2003, 2009; Keesing et al 2018ab). However, at a national scale there has been little integration and synthesis of this information on which to base condition assessments. In addition, there is little information to assess the extent of temporal trends or habitat degradation from baseline conditions. Despite this, there are a number of threats that can be identified and assessed to determine the potential current trends. These are outlined below. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nInformation used in this assessment is contained in reports listed in the reference section for historical condition and reports published since 2016 for updates to condition.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Mesopelagic fish species","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of mesopelagic fish species\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Mesopelagic fish species\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nMesopelagic fish species (200 to 1000 m depth) occur throughout the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) region where the seabed depth exceeds 200 m (Flynn and Kloser, 2012; Flynn et al., 2018; Sutton et al., 2018). Mesopelagic fishes reside at depth during the day and a portion migrate to shallower waters to feed at night, revealing diel vertical migration in the sound scattering layer (Figure 1a; Brierley 2014). Ecosystem and carbon models associated with observational studies of mesopelagic fishes highlight their importance to ecosystem services and carbon sequestration role (Fulton et al., 2005; Lehodey et al., 2010; Boyd et al., 2019). This is particularly important for Australia’s continental slope commercial species and other top predators for ecosystem-based management (Smith et al., 2011). The importance of mesopelagic fishes to ecosystem services is recognized yet their biomass and trophic efficiency are uncertain with net and acoustic estimates differing by 2 orders of magnitude in Tasman Sea Australian waters (Kloser et al., 2009; Irigoien et al., 2014). This difference is due to different sampling gear and methods used to interpret the data.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe primary data used are the georeferenced, calibrated, and processed single-beam water column volume backscattering coefficient values, representing the linear sum of backscatter from acoustically detectable individual organisms within the sampling volume. The spatial coverage of data used for assessing the state of mesopelagic biogeography is 75oS-45oN and 20oW-330oW with a temporal coverage 2004-2018. The spatial coverage of data used for assessing trends in selected regions is 35oS-50oS and 180oW-220oW with a temporal coverage 2004-2018.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Somewhat adequate\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThe extent of processed bioacoustic data archived under IMOS Bioacoustics sub-Facility is expanding with an improved spatial and temporal coverage, facilitating future state and trend analyses."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Ocean connectivity","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of ocean connectivity\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Ocean Connectivity\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nOcean connectivity refers to a range of processes that govern the movement of physical, chemical and biological material within the ocean. Ocean currents transport heat, salt, nutrients and planktonic organisms, whereas many larger organisms can control their connectivity through active swimming between habitat patches (e.g. reefs) or over longer migratory pathways (e.g. seasonal migrations of marine mammals and birds). Changes in connectivity may result from seasonal, interannual or long-term changes in current patterns, habitat distributions, species changes, or from barriers to movement including structures in the ocean, and noise and light pollution. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Poor. Human activities or declining environmental conditions have caused substantial changes to habitats, species/taxa groups, physical, biogeochemical, biological or ecological processes, resulting in persistent and substantial effects on habitats, species groups or processes \nAssessment trend: Deteriorating. Increasing connectivity for physical ocean process. Decreasing biological connectivity \nConfidence grade: High (Physical and Biological). Evidence for change comes from multiple sources. Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus.\nConfidence trend: Physical trends: High. Evidence for change comes from multiple sources. Biological trends: Moderate. Baseline and time series data are not widely available for the range of species and habitats. Limited evidence or limited consensus.\nComparability: GGrade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment.\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Poor\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are not directly comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 • Connectivity – spatial/physical disjunctions\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade & trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n• 2011 • Connectivity – biological, migration, flyways\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade & trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n• 2011 • Connectivity – recruitment, settlement\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade & trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n• 2011 • Connectivity – genome structures, genetic adaptation\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade & trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot supplied"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Case Study – Marine restoration in a changing climate","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Case Study \"Marine restoration in a changing climate\". \n***A PDF of the full Case Study, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"CASE STUDY 2021 – Marine restoration in a changing climate\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY\nUntil recently, marine conservation and management have primarily focused on reducing the drivers that cause biodiversity and habitat loss. While actions such as managing overfishing and reducing pollution have led to some improvements, marine ecosystems continue to decline. Habitat restoration is increasingly seen as a viable tool to slow and even reverse these declines. However, since ongoing climate change is a driver of habitat loss in many instances, restoration can be a complex and multifaceted challenge often requiring novel ‘engineering’ solutions; especially when coupled with a need to sustain the provision of ecosystem services and support Australia’s rapidly growing Blue Economy.\n---\n[see attached Case Study for more]\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN CASE STUDY\nSynthesis of literature published, and expert knowledge of the case study authors."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Epipelagic fish species","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of epipelagic fish species\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Epipelagic Fish Species\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF TAXONOMIC GROUP FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAustralia’s small epipelagic fishes (<50 cm) are comprised of a range of species including Australian Sardine, Jack Mackerel, Blue Mackerel, Redbait, Yellowtail Scad, Australian Herring, Australian Anchovy, Maray, Blue and Sandy Sprats, scads, hardyheads and silversides. Species assemblages vary among regions and through time with distinct temperate and tropical assemblages (Hobday et al. 2009; Norriss and Grounds 2020). This assessment focuses on temperate species off southern Australia waters as information on tropical stocks is limited. Blue Mackerel, Jack Mackerel, Redbait and Australian Sardine are targeted by the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF). The SPF is managed in two sub-areas, east and west (of latitude 146°30’E), based on evidence of eastern and western stocks for jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait. State fisheries target a range of epipelagic species, including Australian Sardine, Maray, Blue Mackerel, Yellowtail Scad, Sandy Sprats, Australian Herring, tropical sardine (Scaly mackerel) and other species (e.g. Norriss and Grounds 2020, Stewart et al. 2015). Recreational fishers also catch epipelagic species including Blue Mackerel, Yellowtail Scad and Australian Herring (Ryan et al. 2019, Murphy et al. 2020; See also the 2020 SoE Pressure Assessment for Recreational fisheries) \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe assessment is based on data and analyses published in the peer review literature, stock assessment reports and minutes of the meetings of the Small Pelagic Fishery Scientific Panel and South Australian Sardine Fishery. Details of specific data sets used to generate the assessment have not been provided. Coverage focusses on the temperate stocks as information for tropical stocks is limited.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Stable/ increasing\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus \nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to 2011 and 2016 assessments in all regions\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nSeveral assessments have been undated since 2016. Improved data and assessments for new species have also been published, reducing uncertainty. At least one stock has been determined to be recovering (Australian herring), resulting in an increasing biomass trend."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Recreational fishing","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressures on the marine environment - recreational fishing\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Recreational fishing\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nCoastal recreational fisheries are often characterised by a concentration of effort close to large urban population centres (West et al., 2015; Ryan et al., 2019). In the last thirty years, however, improved infrastructure, shifting demographics and increased tourism has led to a growth in recreational fishing in regional areas (Voyer et al., 2017). Coastal recreational fisheries now have increasingly widespread pressure but with intensity highly variable over multiple timescales (hours, days, seasons and years) (Smallwood et al., 2011; Smallwood et al., 2012; Lynch, 2014; Flynn et al., 2018; Lynch et al., 2020a). For both coastal and offshore marine waters there are also spatially stable hotspots of effort that are associated with habitat features and/or access points (Lynch, 2006; Lynch, 2014; Wood et al., 2016; Flynn et al., 2018) \n\nOffshore marine waters have become more accessible to recreational fishing over the last decade due to increased sophistication, affordability, and availability of navigation, searching and fishing tackle technologies (Griffiths & Fay, 2015). Three major species groups are targeted by recreational fishers in offshore Commonwealth waters: (i) large pelagic fishes that occupy vast expanses of the open ocean (e.g. tunas and billfishes); (ii) deep-water demersal species that are often caught beyond the continental shelf or on sea mounts (e.g. blue eye trevalla); and, (iii) tropical reef species that inhabit remote coral reefs (e.g. lutjanids) (Zischke et al., 2012; Griffiths and Fay, 2015). Despite the lower levels of recreational effort documented in Australia’s offshore waters, recreational fishing does exert pressure on these marine populations, but where it has been identified as impacting it is being managed through a variety of mechanisms (Moore et al., 2015; Tracey et al., 2020) \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nSynthesis of literature published in the last 5 years and expert knowledge of the assessment authors. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: High impact\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: High impact\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are not comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Low impact\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nConsistent with 2016 assessment."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Management Effectiveness – Climate and system variability and climate change","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Management Effectiveness of Climate and system variability and climate change\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Climate and system variability and climate change\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nBACKGROUND\nClimate variability, extremes and change affect Australia’s oceans, ecosystems and users of marine ecosystem services, with impacts that include changes in species distribution and abundance, disease outbreaks (e.g. corals, shellfish), and shifts in community composition. Managers of these marine ecosystem services variously respond to short and long-term impacts on a range of temporal and spatial scales. This assessment reports on the effectiveness of regional and local management responses to short-term climate variability, including extreme events, and long-term anthropogenic climate change impacts in Australia’s oceans. \nIncreasing frequency and/or intensity of extreme events (e.g. cyclones and storm surge, marine heatwaves (flood plumes covered in Coasts chapter)), and long-term change in winds, ocean temperatures and pH (sea level is covered in Coasts chapter), can only be directly managed by global-scale emission reduction, carbon sequestration, and other climate system manipulations (geoengineering). The effectiveness of management of these manipulations is not covered in this assessment (e.g. Brent et al 2018, McDonald et al. 2019; McDonald et al. 2020; Gattuso et al 2021 for more information).\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH TO MANAGING THE PRESSURE\nReactive and proactive management in response to climate pressures is influenced by the “agility” and risk appetite of the particular marine sector (Hodgkinson et al. 2014). Agility in both extractive (e.g. fishing, aquaculture, energy) and non-extractive (e.g. biodiversity, tourism) marine sectors is influenced by a range of factors related to innovation capacity (Figure 1). These are (1) degree to which system manipulation is possible (e.g. aquaculture vs wild fisheries), which can be related to the life cycle of the biological components (e.g. short-lived) or accessibility for manipulation (e.g. Alderman and Hobday 2017) and any associated infrastructure (moveable, restricted, flexible), (2) the regulatory environment (e.g. how flexible are management rules (Marshall et al. 2013)), (3) market forces (e.g. tourism season, consumer preference, competition), \n(4) value/profitability and relative size of marine industries, (5), leadership and key influencer attitudes, including political power and influence, (6) social expectations (e.g. expected to manage coral reefs, world heritage areas), and (7) visibility of impacts from extreme events or long term change (e.g. De’ath et al. 2012; Babcock et al. 2019). \nCurrently most management responses are reactive (after an event) or implemented in real-time based on in situ or synoptic information. Proactive management, defined as forward planning ahead of an impact, can be informed by short-term forecasts and/or long-term climate projections (e.g. IPCC reports). Short-term forecasting approaches include using climatological patterns (i.e. manage conservatively using long term averages), analogue approaches (e.g. manage based on recent experience of an event), or dynamical forecasts (e.g. Hobday et al. 2018). Advance warnings at a range of time scales allows marine managers to implement strategies to minimise impacts of change. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nPublished papers and reports on climate variability. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• Approach •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: N/A\n• Outputs •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: N/A\n• Outcomes •\nAssessment grade: Partially effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: N/A\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThe assessed state and trend of this pressure has increased from low/stable in 2016 to high/increasing for 2021 based on research documenting a trend for overall higher extremes of impacts associated with climate variability over the reporting period that is expected to continue."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Pressure – Marine plastics and debris","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Pressures on the marine environment - marine plastics and debris\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Marine plastics and debris\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE\nMarine debris is recognized as a globally important stressor in the marine environment, with increasing reports of impacts on marine biodiversity reported during the last four decades (Claro et al. 2019; Gall and Thompson 2015) and an estimated 19-23 million metric tons (11% of plastic waste generated in 2016) entering aquatic environments (Borelle et al. 2020). This is an increase from the 6-12 million metric tons of plastic waste estimated to enter the ocean each year (as of 2010) (Jambeck et al. 2015). Furthermore, it is estimated that 1.2-2.4 million metric tonnes of plastic enters the global ocean each year from rivers alone (Lebreton et al. 2017). Marine litter includes consumer items such as glass or plastic bottles, cans, bags, balloons, rubber, metal, fiberglass, cigarettes and other manufactured materials that end up in the ocean and along the coast, and other materials intentionally or unintentionally discarded at sea (UNEP 2009). In Australia, marine debris has been identified as a key threatening process for threatened and endangered vertebrate fauna by the federal Threat Abatement Plan or TAP (Commonwealth of Australia 2018). Marine litter also has socioeconomic impacts, it acts as a transporter of invasive species, can be a navigation hazard and there are increasing concerns over the human health risks due to food security issues from seafood (Rochman et al. 2015). With estimates of ¾ or more of marine debris coming from land-based sources, and continued growth in plastics production and usage, waste leakage is a ubiquitous problem, with high but variable concentrations of marine debris found both in coastal and marine environments (Hardesty et al. 2014). Based on research in the great Australian Bight, it is estimated there is 25 or more times more microplastics alone on the seabed floor than floating on the ocean’s surface, with more than 14 million tonnes of debris across the ocean floor (Barrett et al., 2020). \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nConcentrations derived from a single survey around Australian coastline and at sea, carried out between 2011-2013 as well as data and analyses presented in peer review publications, a recent review of the TAP for marine debris.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: High impact\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus \nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus \nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nConfidence trend: Adequate high quality evidence and high level of consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change in grade/trend from 2016 assessment."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Management Effectiveness – Minerals, oil and gas extraction and production","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Effectiveness of Management – Minerals, oil and gas extraction and production\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Effectiveness of Management – Minerals, oil and gas extraction and production\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH TO MANAGING THE PRESSURE\nManagement of pressures associated with mineral, oil and gas extraction and production varies across jurisdictions with a range of legislative processes in place (Table 1). Most oil and gas exploration and production activity is conducted in Commonwealth waters, while most mining activities occur in coastal waters under state regulation (see mining oil and gas pressures assessment). \nIn Commonwealth waters and coastal waters where regulatory powers and functions have been conferred, regulation of oil and gas activities and associated pressures on the marine environment is carried out by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA)1. The environmental management authorisation process conducted by NOPSEMA’s under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act and Environment Regulations is endorsed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This approach to regulation is considered appropriate for accounting for all environmental risks and impacts as required under legislation (Finkel 2019). NOPSEMA is subject to an independent operational review of its regulatory performance and review of the EPBC Act streamlining process every five years. The most recent Operational Review including the EPBC Program Review was conducted in 2020 and will be published in 20212. \nCurrent mineral exploration and extraction regulatory arrangements establish 11 separate authorities (one for each state/Northern Territory and four external territories) to administer offshore mineral titles. Each of the state/Northern Territory regulatory authorities, known as Designated Authorities, is required to apply their own state-based environment, safety and mining regulations to adjacent Commonwealth waters. In Australia’s external territories, regulation is carried out by the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. \nAcross state and territory waters, environmental management for mining, oil and gas is carried out in accordance with state and territory legislation, in most instances, by a single regulator, but may be carried out in conjunction with a number of regulators (e.g. by the licensing regulator and an environmental regulator). In some states and territories, specific policies for activities in coastal waters have been developed, while in others, policies developed for activities on land apply to those in coastal waters (see Table 1). Updating of relevant policies and regulation frameworks varies depending on the state/territory. Victoria is currently developing policies for oil and gas regulation in marine waters, due for release in mid-2021 (Jess Stephenson personal communication). The Northern Territory recently reviewed environmental impacts and management of seabed mining (NT EPA 2020) as part of a review of a moratorium on seabed mining established in 2012. \nConsideration of environmental impacts (and therefore direct management of pressures) by individual proponents is required across all jurisdictions via environment plans submitted to and assessed by the relevant regulator. Guidelines for the development of these plans vary across jurisdictions, with some jurisdictions identifying clear steps in the assessment and approval process, while others are less specific. Most guidelines identify that in developing environment plans, relevant stakeholders should be consulted and all risks to the environment are considered, including those resulting from unplanned events (e.g. uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons as a result of compromised well integrity). Some regulators provide for public comment on environment plans, with comments received needing to be taken into account by the proponent in furthering development of environmental plans. In the case of NOPSEMA, new regulatory requirements result in the publication of a statement identifying how the titleholder has taken into account any public comments on their seismic or exploratory drilling environment plans. \nIn most cases, guidelines identify that environmental risks and impacts need to be managed to levels that are both as low as reasonably practicable and acceptable (see links to guidelines in Table 1). Proponents are also responsible for reporting environmental incidents to relevant agencies. Approaches to overall regulation and management of mining, oil and gas activities remains unchanged since the last State of the Environment (SoE) report reporting period (see Evans et al. 2017). \n\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nInformation on regulation of oil and gas activities in Commonwealth waters was provided by NOPSEMA. Information on regulation of mining activities in Commonwealth waters was provided by the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resource. Information on regulation of mining, oil and gas activities in state/territory waters was provided by Kate Buckley and Louis Gomatos (Resource and Environmental Compliance Division , Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, Western Australia), Sally-anne Strohmayr (Petroleum Operations, Department of Environment, Parks and Water Security, Northern Territory), Jarrod Spencer (Energy Resources Division, Department of Energy and Mining, South Australia) and Jess Stephenson (Earth Resources Regulation, Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, Victoria). Information on regulation of mining, oil and gas activities in other state waters was extracted from the relevant state government websites.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• Approach •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Somewhat adequate\nConfidence trend: Stable\nComparability with 2016: Not comparable\n• Outputs •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Somewhat adequate\nConfidence trend: Stable\nComparability with 2016: Not comparable\n• Outcomes •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Somewhat adequate\nConfidence trend: Stable\nComparability with 2016: Not comparable\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nPressures associated with mining activities were reported separately in the 2016 SoE assessment."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Dolphins and porpoises","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of dolphins and porpoises\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Dolphins and Porpoises\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF TAXONOMIC GROUP FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nFollowing taxonomic standards, 20 dolphin species in the Family Delphinidae and one species in the Family Phocoenidae are known to occur in Australian waters (Table 1). A number of these species (e.g. common dolphins, Delphinus delphis) are distributed nationally, others are restricted to particular latitudes (e.g. dusky dolphin, Lagenorhychus obscurus) and others consist of populations that are highly restricted to embayments and tributaries within particular regions (e.g. the endemic Australian snubfin dolphin, Orcaella heinsohni). \nSince the 2016 State of the Environment (SoE) report further insights into the spatial distribution of Australian snubfin dolphin (Blue Planet Marine 2019, Bouchet et al. 2021), Australian humpback dolphins (Sousa sahulensis; Parra and Cagnazzi 2015, Hanf et al. 2016, Hunt et al. 2017; Raudino et al. 2018a, Raudino et al. 2018b, Blue Planet Marine 2019, Burns et al. 2019, Hunt et al. 2020), Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus, Raudino et al. 2018a, Blue Planet Marine 2019, Burns et al. 2019, Haughey et al. 2020), common dolphins (Delphinus delphis, Mason et al. 2016) and orca (Orcinus orca, Jones et al. 2019, Salgado-Kent et al. 2020) have been established. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAssessment based on review of literature published since the 2016 SoE assessment – see references for spatial and temporal coverage of data incorporated into assessments. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nAssessment has not changed."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Case Study - Marine heatwaves","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Case Study \"Marine heatwaves\". \n***A PDF of the full Case Study, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"CASE STUDY 2021 – Marine heatwaves\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY\nThe physical characteristics of the ocean, such as temperature, salinity, oxygen content, and pH are clearly changing in Australia’s oceans as a result of climate change. Summaries from the IPCC and other publications clearly show long term trends that are clearly attributable to increased greenhouse gases. The southeast and southwest of Australia are global warming hotspots (Hobday & Pecl, 2014), with rates of warming above the global average. More recently, extreme events in the ocean environment have received considerable attention as they often cause widespread ecosystem impact and represent examples into future environmental conditions. Marine heatwaves, intense upwelling, deoxygenation, and coastal flooding are examples of extreme events and have already affected habitats around more than 40% of the Australian coastline (Babcock et al. 2019). \nPeriods of extreme ocean warm-water events known as marine heatwaves (MHWs) can have significant impacts on marine ecosystems and industries. The formation of MHWs is a result of heat flux into a region from the atmosphere, or via advection of warm water, often from lower latitudes (Holbrook et al. 2019). MHWs are widely defined based on differences with expected temperatures for the location and time of year, and so may occur during any season, not just summer (Hobday et al 2016). A quantitative MHW definition now often used is when seawater temperatures exceed a seasonally varying threshold (the 90th percentile) for at least 5 consecutive days (Hobday et al 2016). Based on this definition, MHWs increased in frequency (34%) and duration (17%) from 1925 to 2016, resulting in a 54% increase in annual MHW days globally (Oliver et al 2018). These trends can largely be explained by increases in mean ocean temperatures (Oliver et al. 2019), with further increases in MHW days projected to occur under continued global warming with many parts of the ocean reaching a near-permanent MHW state by the late 21st century (Oliver et al. 2019). \n\nISSUES OF IMPORTANCE\nTo aid in the description of MHWs, a categorisation system analogous to earthquake or cyclones has been developed (Hobday et al. 2018). Based on this system, Australia has experienced strong marine heatwaves in recent years, including Western Australia in 2011 (Wernberg et al 2016), the Coral Sea and northern Australia in 2016 (Oliver et al 2017), and the Tasman Sea in 2015/16 (Oliver et al 2017). Coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef was associated with marine heatwaves in successive years (Hughes et al 2018) resulting in impaired recruitment and recovery of reefs (Hughes et al 2019). \nThe contribution of climate change to marine heatwaves can be calculated using the fraction of attributable risk method, which has been used for extreme events since around 2005 (Oliver et al. 2017; Perkins-Kirkpatrick et al. 2019). For example, the Tasman Sea 2015/16 MHW was over 300 times more likely as a result of climate change. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN CASE STUDY\nLiterature and www.marineheatwaves.org/tracker"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Deepwater corals and sponges (mesophotic, 30-150 m)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Deepwater corals and sponges (mesophotic, 30-150 m)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend – Deepwater corals and sponges (mesophotic, 30-150 m)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/HABITAT/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nCorals and sponges are habitat-forming biota that often enhance benthic biodiversity in deep shelf waters by providing complex structural living spaces for a large number of other species from a variety of taxa (Pitcher et al. 2007a, Buhl-Mortensen et al. 2010, Fromont et al. 2012). Most species of corals and sponges need stable substrata for larva to settle and attachment of adult colonies, thus they are usually not associated with mobile or soft-sediment habitats. However, there are exceptions, with many deeper sediments supporting some sponge structure and sediment specialists such as seapens. While corals are often thought of as being associated with tropical waters, coral species are found throughout Australia’s shelf waters and can make up a significant component of the cold-water assemblage. Coldwater corals include stony corals (Scleractinia), black corals (Antipatharia), and octocorals (Alcyonacea). \n\nOur knowledge of these taxa in Australian waters below typical diving depths stems mainly from a few broad-scale biodiversity surveys covering the Gulf of Carpentaria (Long et al. 1995; Harris et al. 2007; Bustamante et al. 2011), Great Barrier Reef shelf (Pitcher et al. 2007a), Torres Strait (Pitcher et al. 2007b), Pilbara (Pitcher et al. 2016b, Keesing 2019), southern south-east, north-west, and western south –west regions, and the Lord Howe/ Norfolk ridge area (McEnnulty et al. 2011, Williams et al. 2011, Dunstan et al. 2012) (Table 1). Both corals and sponges were found to be highly diverse with many undescribed species, as well as many ‘unknown’ (sensu Hooper et al. 2013) species (McEnnulty et al. 2011, Fromont et al. 2012, Alderslade et al. 2014). For example, sponges in the GBR were the most diverse group with the highest levels of rarity (Pitcher et al. 2007a) and some of the most abundant sponges discovered were new species (Sutcliffe et al. 2010). In addition, species turn-over between samples was extremely high for both taxa (Schlacher et al. 2007, Fromont et al. 2012, Alderslade et al. 2014). The sponge fauna of NSW shelf waters was reviewed in order to improve our understanding in east coast subtropical and temperate waters (Davis et al. 2010). \n\nRecently (2008 onwards), IMOS has funded an AUV program that allows repeat photographic surveys to document the cross-shelf distribution of reef associated benthic invertebrate assemblages at a broad set of latitudinally spaced nodes along Australia’s eastern and western coastlines. This program, is allowing long-term monitoring of the state and trend of deep shelf reef sponges and corals at a fixed set of sites and feeds into the SoE assessment. This program is being enhanced in offshore waters by surveys undertaken in the new AMP network, providing a greater spatial framework for assessments. While species identifications are not always possible from such imagery, a national identification framework has been established for consistently annotating this imagery to the finest scale possible (CATAMI Althaus et al. 2015), and initial analyses (e.g. Perkins et al. 2015) demonstrates patterns similar to the biodiversity surveys above, with high diversity and high species turnover between locations samples (e.g. Monk et al., 2016). Both sponges and corals are frequently used as indicators of benthic ‘vulnerable marine ecosystems’ (VME) in conservation planning (FAO 2008, Tracey et al. 2008, Williams et al. 2015). \n\nThe ability of sponges to filter large volumes of water makes them a critical link between the benthos and the overlaying water column (WAMSI 2016), and recent studies of productivity on shallow coral reefs suggest that filter feeding by sponges may account for up to 90% of the trophic coupling between pelagic and benthic ecosystems (DeGoeij et al 2013). Such coupling is equally likely on deeper reefs and temperate latitudes as well. The species-level identification of deepwater sponges has not been standardised across Australian collections at this stage; however, this may be possible in the future through SpongeMaps, an online collaboration tool for sponge taxonomists (Hooper et al. 2013; Hall & Hooper 2014). \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nData used is outlined in the reports and publications listed in reference section.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Improving from fishing. Declining due to ocean warming and heatwaves.\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence, some consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence, some consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment, but more concern around longer-term warming effects \n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence, some consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited or barely adequate evidence, some consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus \n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNo change other than acknowledgement of increasing concern around ocean warming and associated marine heat waves."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – Management Effectiveness – Shipping (marine vessel activity)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"Effectiveness of Management – Shipping (marine vessel activity)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - Effectiveness of Management - Shipping\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH TO MANAGING THE PRESSURE\nThe International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the United Nations agency responsible for safety, security and pollution prevention for international shipping. Australia is a signatory to key IMO conventions relating to maritime safety and environmental protection. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) is the federal agency responsible for maritime safety and environmental protection in Australian waters and works with other countries through the IMO. \nIn Australia, Federal and State Governments work together in the control, risk reduction and risk response measures to manage shipping activity. The National Plan for Maritime Environmental Emergencies (AMSA 2020) sets out the cooperative arrangements in place to respond to maritime emergencies and incidents affecting the environment. \nShipping in the Great Barrier Reef Region is well managed by AMSA, Maritime Safety Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and guided by the North East Shipping Management Plan. Management protections and controls in place include REEFVTS vessel management system and designation as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (GBRMPA 2019). \nInteractions between marine fauna and shipping is largely addressed by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment under the EPBC Act. AMSA provides guidance to the shipping industry on practices to avoid interactions between shipping and marine fauna. \n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nno specific data streams used\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• Approach •\nAssessment grade: Very effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Comparable\n• Outputs •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Comparable\n• Outcomes •\nAssessment grade: Effective\nAssessment trend: Improving\nConfidence grade: Adequate\nConfidence trend: Adequate\nComparability with 2016: Comparable\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nThe assessment has not changed since 2016."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Microbial communities and processes","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of microbial communities and processes\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - microbial communities and processes\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF SPECIES/HABITAT/COMMUNITY/PROCESS FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAustralian marine waters typically contain 10^5-10^7 microbial (bacteria, archaea and unicellular algae) cells/ml, belonging to tens of thousands of different species (Brown et al 2018). This highly diverse and abundant community sensitively and rapidly responds to changes in environmental conditions and is hence a valuable indicator of ecosystem status and health. Microbes also shape the marine environment by playing a central role in biogeochemical cycles, supporting phytoplankton primary productivity, contributing to the ocean carbon pump, and removing a wide range of chemical pollutants.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe assessment is based on >5000 pelagic water samples, collected during marine voyages (sparsely covering most of Australia’s coastal waters) and at the 7 IMOS National Reference Stations (3 of which have been sampled since July 2012; the other 4 since July 2015).\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Deteriorating\nConfidence grade: Limited\nConfidence trend: Limited\nComparability: Not assessed in 2016\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Unclear\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment\nConfidence trend: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment\nComparability: Grade and trend are not comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 •\nAssessment grade: Very good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nNot applicable"}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Whales","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of whales\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - whales\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF TAXONOMIC GROUP FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nA total of 27 species of whales (two of which comprise a number of subspecies) have been documented from Australian waters. A number (e.g. sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus) are distributed nationally, others are restricted to particular latitudes (e.g. Bryde’s whale, Balaenoptera edeni) and others only seasonally utilise Australian waters (e.g. southern right whale, Eubalaena australis). Since the 2016 State of the Environment (SoE) report, the occurrence of Omura’s whale, (Balaenoptera omurai; Cerchio et al. 2019) has been confirmed in Australian waters and new insights provided into the spatial distribution of breeding humpback whales (Megaptera novaengliae; Irvine et al. 2018) in particular, expansion of breeding/calving habitat (Torre-Williams et al. 2019), and the spatial distributions of southern right whales (Mackay et al. 2020) and Shepherd’s beaked whales (Tasmacetus shepherdi; Donnelly et al. 2018). Sightings of humpback whales have been gradually increasing in waters off the Northern Territory, indicating a return to these waters post exploitation (C. Palmer personal communication).\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAssessment based on review of literature published since the 2016 SoE assessment – see references for spatial and temporal coverage of data incorporated into assessments.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are comparable to the 2016 assessment\n• 2016 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Unclear\nConfidence grade: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nConfidence trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\nComparability: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the 2011 assessment\n• 2011 • Baleen whales\nAssessment grade: Poor\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade & trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n• 2011 • Humpback whales\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Increasing\nConfidence grade & trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n• 2011 • Toothed whales\nAssessment grade: Poor\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade & trend: Limited evidence or limited consensus\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nAssessment has not changed."}
- {"title":"2021 State of the Environment Report Marine Chapter – Expert Assessment – State and Trend – Water column – epipelagic (0-200 m, off-shelf)","recordAbstract":"The Marine chapter of the 2021 State of the Environment (SoE) report incorporates multiple expert templates developed from streams of marine data. This metadata record describes the Expert Assessment \"State and Trend of Water column – epipelagic (0-200 m, off-shelf)\". \n***A PDF of the full Expert Assessment, including figures and tables (where provided) is downloadable in the \"On-line Resources\" section of this record as \"EXPERT ASSESSMENT 2021 - State and Trend - Water column – epipelagic (0-200 m, off-shelf)\"***\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nDESCRIPTION OF HABITAT/COMMUNITY FOR EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nThe water column (pelagic) community includes microbes, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish and other higher trophic levels including seabirds, marine reptiles and marine mammals. By definition, the pelagic community is mobile, as smaller species are moved passively by currents, and larger species often move over large distances, both horizontally and vertically. Here we focus on the epipelagic zone, which we have defined as the top 200 m of the water column off the continental shelf (i.e., in waters >200 m depth). \nAcross Australia’s management bioregions, we analysed the abundance/biomass of a selected group of pelagic trophic levels: Chlorophyll a (representing phytoplankton biomass) from satellite; and Zooplankton biomass from the IMOS Australian Continuous Plankton Recorder (AusCPR) survey.\n\nDATA STREAM(S) USED IN EXPERT ASSESSMENT\nAs our index of phytoplankton biomass, we analysed Chlorophyll a data from the IMOS Satellite Remote Sensing facility. For Zooplankton, we used biomass data from IMOS AusCPR survey. AusCPR data are collected on 5 nautical mile samples and the zooplankton on every 4th sample along a route is washed onto a filter paper, dried and weighed.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n2021 SOE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY [see attached Expert Assessment for full details]\n\n• 2021 •\nAssessment grade: Good\nAssessment trend: Stable\nConfidence grade: Very limited (mainly because higher trophic levels not assessed)\nConfidence trend: Very limited (mainly because higher trophic levels not assessed)\nComparability: N/A\n• 2016 •\nN/A\n• 2011 •\nN/A\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nCHANGES SINCE 2016 SOE ASSESSMENT\nnot previously assessed"}