Graphs, maps and tables

Showing results 51 - 60 of 61

Figure 51 LGA assessments of population-driven pressures in their local coastal environment

LGA = local government area

Note: Points are shown only for LGAs that reported experiencing the pressure, out of 34 LGAs nationwide.

Go to data.gov

For more information, go toApproach

Figure 52 LGA assessments of industry-driven pressures in their local coastal environment

LGA = local government area

Note: Points are shown only for LGAs that reported experiencing the pressure, out of 34 LGAs nationwide.

Go to data.gov

For more information, go toApproach

Figure 53 LGA assessments of biological pressures in their local coastal environment

LGA = local government area

Note: Points are shown only for LGAs that reported experiencing the pressure, out of 34 LGAs nationwide.

Go to data.gov

For more information, go toApproach

Table 1 The 7 wellbeing components, examples of relevant assessments in this chapter, and a description of how wellbeing components and assessments are related

Wellbeing component	Relevant assessments		Description
Wellbeing component	Pressures	Environment	Description
Health	Harmful algal blooms Nutrient pollution Contaminants in urban estuaries Extreme weather events	Water quality	Human health is directly impacted by coastal pressures that affect water quality. Extreme weather events affect human health through mortality, injury and suffering during the events, and following the events if systems important to health incur significant damage.
Living standards	Extreme weather events Sea level rise Tourism and recreation	Native vegetation and habitat Fishes in estuaries and bays	Our living standards are at great risk from climate pressures. Sea level rise would make portions of the coast unlivable and destroy billions of dollars’ worth of coastal development and infrastructure. We rely on natural resources from the sea, including fish (as a source of protein), which are dependent on the condition of estuaries and bays. Our ability to enjoy the coast for recreation and the viability of coastal towns and tourism also depend on the state of the coastal environment.
Community and social cohesion, cultural and spiritual fulfilment	Customary fishing	Fishes in estuaries and bays	Our identity as a coastal nation is tied to our ability to gain subsistence from the sea. This is particularly important to the identity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander saltwater people. Some coastal species are of high cultural significance, such as totemic and sacred species.
Security and safety	Extreme weather events Sea level rise Anthropogenic debris	Fishes in estuaries and bays Mangroves Saltmarshes	Extreme weather events and sea level rise impact human safety and infrastructure, but impacts can be buffered by coastal vegetation. The degradation of coastal environments can lead to conflict among resource users if resources are limited.
Freedom, rights and recognition	Sea level rise	None	We need policy and legal settings that ensure fair, equitable and respectful access to coastal resources, especially to traditional resources and places. There is a need for significant and totemic species to be present, for culturally significant places to be intact and accessible, and for increased recognition of Indigenous knowledge.
Connection to Country and nature	Tourism and recreation Anthropogenic debris	All	Our connection to Country and nature relies on access to, and the maintenance of, biodiversity through mechanisms such as protected areas. It can also be strengthened by local stewardship initiatives in which users enter and experience the marine environment. Charismatic animals, such as crocodiles and dugongs, are important for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people’s connection with wildlife.

Note: Almost all aspects of the coastal environment can be linked to each component; only the strongest links have been listed.

For more information, go toOutlook and impacts

Table 2 Coastal change across Australia by major coastal region; net stable coastlines showed no long-term trends of coastal change since 1988, whereas dynamic coastlines include trends of long-term growth or retreat

Coastal change	Continentally (%)	Western Coasts (%)	North-western Coasts (%)	Southern Coasts (%)	Carpentaria Gulf Coasts (%)	North-eastern Coasts (%)	South-eastern Coasts (%)
Net stable (no long-term trend)	77.9	73.7	81.3	77.5	72.6	76.3	76.6
Dynamic	22.1	26.3	18.7	22.6	27.4	23.7	23.4
Retreat	11.1	16.5	10.9	9.0	11.9	11.3	10.6
Growth	11.0	9.8	7.8	13.5	15.5	12.4	12.8

Source: Adapted from Bishop-Taylor et al. (2021)

For more information, go toBeaches and shorelines

Table 3 Estimated impacts to coastal infrastructure as a result of 1.1 m sea level rise, from the National Coastal Risk Assessment, 2011

Asset	Amount affected	Replacement value (2008 values)
Residential buildings	187,000–274,000 buildings	$51–72 billion
Commercial buildings	5,800–8,600 buildings	$58–81 billion
Light industrial buildings	3,700–6,200 buildings	$4.2–6.7 billion
Roads and rail	27,000–35,000 kilometres	$51–67 billion

For more information, go toClimate change

Table 4 Initiatives for managing and recognising cultural harvest in sea Country across the nation

Field	Initiatives
Lore and customs	Harvesting customs using traditional practices of seasonal hunting and harvesting areas for specific species Customary lore for deciding customary fishing rights in particular areas
Community plans	Community-based plans for dugong and turtle management Cultural Management Plans^a
Sea Country plan and strategy	Healthy Country plans Land and sea management plans Land and Sea Management Strategy^b Indigenous Protected Areas
Collaborative agreements and plans	Joint management^c Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement^d Traditional Fishing Management Plan^e Local Management Plan^f Cultural Resource Use Agreements^f
Recognition, permits and zones	Traditional Owner Recognition Permit^g Recognition of Aboriginal Fishing via unique code^h Event specific permits for individuals or groups^f Special purpose zone^f
Monitoring and report cards	Indigenous Ranger monitoring of abundances and trends Indigenous-led report cards on species health^b
Indigenous advisory bodies	Indigenous Saltwater Advisory Groupⁱ
Awareness and communication	Culturally appropriate education to help ensure all rights and responsibilities are understood

Notes:

This list is not exhaustive, but gives insight into the diversity of approaches.
In the Northern Territory, there are no instruments that limit the rights of Aboriginals who have traditionally used the resources of an area of land or water in a traditional manner from continuing to use those resources.

For more information, go toPopulation

Table 5 Drivers, issues/state, response and outcomes of nutrient pollution, by state

State	Drivers	Issues/state	Response	Outcomes
New South Wales	Rural and urban catchment land-use intensification, WWTP discharges and modifications to estuary mouths	Pelagic and benthic algal blooms	The NSW MEMS is a comprehensive approach to address the main threats, through refinement of legislation and regulation, improved planning practices (e.g. risk-based assessment of impacts of development on ecological outcomes), industry codes of best practice, on-ground restoration works, research, and comprehensive monitoring programs. The result is improved understanding of the complex interactions between nutrient loads and flow in the Hawkesbury River.	The implementation of the MEMS is on track and outcomes will be assessed after 5 years. Hawkesbury River research is driving revision of allowable nutrient loads to minimise threat of harmful algal blooms.
Queensland	Diffuse loads of nutrients to the Great Barrier Reef Point discharges, principally WWTPs	Impacts on corals and associated ecosystems Pelagic and benthic algal blooms	Reductions in agricultural and urban run-off. The Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan and, more recently, the Reef Protection Regulations were introduced to reduce nutrient, sediment and pesticide loads discharging to the Great Barrier Reef, through improved land management practices. Extensive modelling and monitoring of loads and system responses. Most WWTPs in Queensland have been brought up to best management practice.	Difficult to measure change due to extreme variability in wet seasons from one year to the next. It may take decades before any significant change is apparent. The outcomes from investments in improved management practices to reduce anthropogenic nutrient pollution to the Reef are tracked through the Paddock to Reef Integrated Monitoring Modelling and Reporting Program. Due to interannual variability from climate and the expected lag time before a response can be measured, modelling is used to estimate improvements from the implemented changes in land management practices Improvements in treatment led to nutrient loads from sewage treatment plants being reduced, by over 70% in many waters, with commensurate reductions in impacts on receiving water. Blooms of phytoplankton or macroalgae related to point discharges are now rare, and if they do occur are of limited extent.
South Australia	Nutrient loads from urban and rural run-off, point discharges from industry and WWTPs Climate change – sea surface temperatures Organic loading from finfish aquaculture	Eutrophication and loss of seagrass Changes to benthic habitats	Reductions in nutrient-rich discharges along the Adelaide coast have occurred through government and community initiatives. Sludge discharges to marine waters have been eliminated and substantial reductions in effluent from WWTPs have been achieved. A cooperative regulatory relationship between the Whyalla steelworks and the Environment Protection Authority has improved treatment and assimilation of the nutrient discharges.	In Adelaide coastal waters, ambient nutrient levels have been reduced and seagrass is recovering; there has been almost 800 hectares of seagrass gain in the offshore waters throughout the southern part of the coast. However, the inshore margin is still impacted by sediment discharges. Small-scale physical transplantation has shown some success, with cores expanding to form extensive meadows of Posidonia seagrass. In Spencer Gulf, the overall condition is fair to good, but the condition declines to poor in the north of the gulf. The pressure throughout the gulf is increasing with proposed expansion in sea cage aquaculture, the major nutrient contributor.
Tasmania	Nutrient loads from urban and rural run-off, point discharges from industry and WWTPs Organic loading from finfish aquaculture	Algal blooms and eutrophication Anoxia resulting from oxygen demand driven by benthic decomposition of direct organic loads	Long-term and publicly available nutrient monitoring programs focus on the Tamar estuary in the north, both the Derwent Estuary and Storm Bay in the south, and Macquarie Harbour in the west. More recent monitoring programs are underway in areas potentially subject to increased intensification of marine finfish aquaculture, namely in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, Port Arthur and Oakhampton Bay. Targeted maintenance programs aiming to reduce nutrient discharge from WWTPs throughout the state successfully decreased nutrient loads from some plants. The Environment Protection Authority recently reduced the permitted finfish production load.	Decrease in nutrient loads from WWTPs has been detected in some ambient monitoring programs of the receiving waters. The prognosis is towards gradual nutrient load reduction, at least with respect to municipal wastewater treatment. However, further nutrient reduction requires significant funding and will depend on prioritisation of effort within the relevant regulatory departments and industry responsible. High-intensity monitoring of potential finfish aquaculture impacts is underway throughout the state, but the link between some monitoring results and management decisions is evolving.
Victoria	Catchment land use (including urbanisation of coastal regions), altered flow regimes, and modifications to estuary mouths	Pelagic and benthic algal blooms Low dissolved oxygen	The Victorian IEC framework was developed to address a lack of consistent and systematic measurement of estuarine condition in Victoria. Port Phillip Bay’s plan to manage future challenges to the health and resilience of the bay is currently being implemented. The 3 goals for the bay are improved stewardship, water quality and marine biodiversity. The plan includes audits and remediation of stormwater infrastructure, upgrades of WWTPs, litter reduction, and monitoring and modelling to assess volumes of nitrogen and other pollutants and calculate cumulative annual loads discharging into the bay.	Victoria’s first IEC is due for reporting in 2020–21 and will provide information about the overall environmental condition of Victoria’s estuaries that will guide state policy and regional investment programs.
Western Australia	Nutrient and organic loads from intensification of agriculture and urban development, point discharges from industry and WWTPs High loads Reduced rainfall and riverflow All exacerbated by heavily drained catchments, high water tables and very low nutrient retention in soils	Algal blooms and fish kills from low oxygen	Comprehensive response across most ‘at-risk’ estuaries through the Regional Estuaries Initiative and now Healthy Estuaries WA. Recently announced the Peel Harvey Estuary Protection Plan.	Successes have included engaging the fertiliser and dairy industries in a partnership approach to match fertiliser use to agronomic need and to improve effluent management from dairy farms. More than 500 farmers participated in the past 4 years. The Peel Harvey Estuary Protection Plan is a whole-of-government approach that acknowledges the clear linkage between planning decisions and water quality. Actions will be directed at both reducing nutrients from current practices and minimising nutrient losses from future land-use decisions.

State

Drivers

Issues/state

Response

Outcomes

New South Wales

Rural and urban catchment land-use intensification, WWTP discharges and modifications to estuary mouths

Pelagic and benthic algal blooms

The NSW MEMS is a comprehensive approach to address the main threats, through refinement of legislation and regulation, improved planning practices (e.g. risk-based assessment of impacts of development on ecological outcomes), industry codes of best practice, on-ground restoration works, research, and comprehensive monitoring programs.

The result is improved understanding of the complex interactions between nutrient loads and flow in the Hawkesbury River.

The implementation of the MEMS is on track and outcomes will be assessed after 5 years.

Hawkesbury River research is driving revision of allowable nutrient loads to minimise threat of harmful algal blooms.

Queensland

Diffuse loads of nutrients to the Great Barrier Reef

Point discharges, principally WWTPs

Impacts on corals and associated ecosystems

Pelagic and benthic algal blooms

Reductions in agricultural and urban run-off. The Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan and, more recently, the Reef Protection Regulations were introduced to reduce nutrient, sediment and pesticide loads discharging to the Great Barrier Reef, through improved land management practices.

Extensive modelling and monitoring of loads and system responses. Most WWTPs in Queensland have been brought up to best management practice.

Difficult to measure change due to extreme variability in wet seasons from one year to the next. It may take decades before any significant change is apparent.

The outcomes from investments in improved management practices to reduce anthropogenic nutrient pollution to the Reef are tracked through the Paddock to Reef Integrated Monitoring Modelling and Reporting Program. Due to interannual variability from climate and the expected lag time before a response can be measured, modelling is used to estimate improvements from the implemented changes in land management practices

Improvements in treatment led to nutrient loads from sewage treatment plants being reduced, by over 70% in many waters, with commensurate reductions in impacts on receiving water.

Blooms of phytoplankton or macroalgae related to point discharges are now rare, and if they do occur are of limited extent.

South Australia

Nutrient loads from urban and rural run-off, point discharges from industry and WWTPs

Climate change – sea surface temperatures

Organic loading from finfish aquaculture

Eutrophication and loss of seagrass

Changes to benthic habitats

Reductions in nutrient-rich discharges along the Adelaide coast have occurred through government and community initiatives. Sludge discharges to marine waters have been eliminated and substantial reductions in effluent from WWTPs have been achieved.

A cooperative regulatory relationship between the Whyalla steelworks and the Environment Protection Authority has improved treatment and assimilation of the nutrient discharges.

In Adelaide coastal waters, ambient nutrient levels have been reduced and seagrass is recovering; there has been almost 800 hectares of seagrass gain in the offshore waters throughout the southern part of the coast. However, the inshore margin is still impacted by sediment discharges. Small-scale physical transplantation has shown some success, with cores expanding to form extensive meadows of Posidonia seagrass.

In Spencer Gulf, the overall condition is fair to good, but the condition declines to poor in the north of the gulf. The pressure throughout the gulf is increasing with proposed expansion in sea cage aquaculture, the major nutrient contributor.

Tasmania

Nutrient loads from urban and rural run-off, point discharges from industry and WWTPs

Organic loading from finfish aquaculture

Algal blooms and eutrophication

Anoxia resulting from oxygen demand driven by benthic decomposition of direct organic loads

Long-term and publicly available nutrient monitoring programs focus on the Tamar estuary in the north, both the Derwent Estuary and Storm Bay in the south, and Macquarie Harbour in the west. More recent monitoring programs are underway in areas potentially subject to increased intensification of marine finfish aquaculture, namely in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, Port Arthur and Oakhampton Bay. Targeted maintenance programs aiming to reduce nutrient discharge from WWTPs throughout the state successfully decreased nutrient loads from some plants.

The Environment Protection Authority recently reduced the permitted finfish production load.

Decrease in nutrient loads from WWTPs has been detected in some ambient monitoring programs of the receiving waters. The prognosis is towards gradual nutrient load reduction, at least with respect to municipal wastewater treatment. However, further nutrient reduction requires significant funding and will depend on prioritisation of effort within the relevant regulatory departments and industry responsible.

High-intensity monitoring of potential finfish aquaculture impacts is underway throughout the state, but the link between some monitoring results and management decisions is evolving.

Victoria

Catchment land use (including urbanisation of coastal regions), altered flow regimes, and modifications to estuary mouths

Pelagic and benthic algal blooms

Low dissolved oxygen

The Victorian IEC framework was developed to address a lack of consistent and systematic measurement of estuarine condition in Victoria.

Port Phillip Bay’s plan to manage future challenges to the health and resilience of the bay is currently being implemented. The 3 goals for the bay are improved stewardship, water quality and marine biodiversity. The plan includes audits and remediation of stormwater infrastructure, upgrades of WWTPs, litter reduction, and monitoring and modelling to assess volumes of nitrogen and other pollutants and calculate cumulative annual loads discharging into the bay.

Victoria’s first IEC is due for reporting in 2020–21 and will provide information about the overall environmental condition of Victoria’s estuaries that will guide state policy and regional investment programs.

Western Australia

Nutrient and organic loads from intensification of agriculture and urban development, point discharges from industry and WWTPs

High loads

Reduced rainfall and riverflow

All exacerbated by heavily drained catchments, high water tables and very low nutrient retention in soils

Algal blooms and fish kills from low oxygen

Comprehensive response across most ‘at-risk’ estuaries through the Regional Estuaries Initiative and now Healthy Estuaries WA.

Recently announced the Peel Harvey Estuary Protection Plan.

Successes have included engaging the fertiliser and dairy industries in a partnership approach to match fertiliser use to agronomic need and to improve effluent management from dairy farms. More than 500 farmers participated in the past 4 years.

The Peel Harvey Estuary Protection Plan is a whole-of-government approach that acknowledges the clear linkage between planning decisions and water quality. Actions will be directed at both reducing nutrients from current practices and minimising nutrient losses from future land-use decisions.

IEC = Index of Estuary Condition; MEMS = Marine Estate Management Strategy; NSW = New South Wales; WA = Western Australia; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

Note: Contributors include Andrew Moss (Department of Environment and Science, Queensland); Greg Woodward (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria); Sam Whitehead (Derwent Estuary Program, Tasmania); Sam Gaylard (Environment Protection Authority, South Australia); Malcolm Robb (Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Western Australia).

For more information, go toIndustry

Table 6 Area of coastal waters, area and percentage of waters in MPAs (all levels), and area and percentage of MPAs that are fully protected (IUCN I–III), by state and territory

State or territory	Area of coastal waters (hectares)	Area in MPAs (hectares)	Percentage of area in MPAs	Area in FPAs (hectares)	Percentage of MPAs that are fully protected
NSW	880,200	348,849	39.6	66,243	19.0
NT	7,183,900	290,645	4.0	0	0.0
Qld	12,199,400	8,438,428	69.2	1,701,871	20.2
SA	6,003,200	2,703,184	45.0	610,469	22.6^a
Tas	2,235,700	145,127	6.5	126,048	86.9
Vic	1,021,300	121,242	11.9	53,055	43.8
WA	11,574,000	4,754,145	41.1	1,247,430	26.2

FPA = fully protected area; IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature; MPA = marine protected area; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia

The percentage fully protected in SA is approximate due to overlaps between zone classifications.

Source: Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database

For more information, go toCoastal governance and policy

Table 7 Percentage and area of partially protected and fully protected areas within marine protected areas, and changes from 2016 to 2020

Area	Australian marine area protected, 2016 (%)			Australian marine area protected, 2020 (%)			Change, 2016 to 2020 (percentage points)
Area	PPA	FPA	Total (MPA)	PPA	FPA	Total (MPA)	PPA	FPA	Total MPA
Commonwealth	23.12	14.14	37.26	26.55	9.00	35.55	3.43	−5.14	−1.71
State	26.70	9.61	36.31	32.20	9.57	41.77	5.50	−0.04	5.46
Australia overall	23.29	13.93	37.22	28.03	9.44	37.47	4.74	−4.49	0.25
Area (km²)	2,081,834	1,245,062	3,326,896	2,505,579	843,749	3,349,328	423,745	−401,313	22,432

FPA = fully protected area; km² = square kilometres; MPA = marine protected area; PPA = partially protected area

Source: Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database

For more information, go toCoastal governance and policy