Frequently asked questions

For more information, please see the Targets page.

How does the Reef Water Quality Report Card relate to other reporting programs?

There are a range of monitoring and reporting programs for the Great Barrier Reef including:

• The Reef water quality report card summarises progress towards the Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan land and catchment management targets, water quality targets, and inshore marine and wetland condition objectives. It is produced through the Paddock to Reef Integrated Monitoring, Modelling and Reporting Program (Paddock to Reef program). Modelling is used to evaluate the impacts of changes in land management. See Question 12 for information on how marine water quality scores are assessed.
• Regional report cards build on the science underpinning the Reef Water Quality Report Card, and add in local data from ports, local governments, industry and other partners. They report on annual snapshots of condition based on monitoring data.
• Inshore marine habitat information in the Reef Water Quality Report Card focuses on the health of inshore corals and seagrass meadows collected through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Monitoring Program, a collaboration between the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, James Cook University, and Cape York Water Partnership, and Traditional Owners. Inshore coral data collected since 2005 is in addition to 30 years of data collected from the Long-Term Monitoring Program which surveys an additional 47 mid-shelf and offshore reefs across the Great Barrier Reef region – the longest continuous record of change in Reef communities over such a large geographic area.
• The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019 examines the overall condition of the Reef’s health, pressures, and likely future. This report also considers factors which influence the health of the Reef, but which occur outside the Reef, such as climate change. The Outlook Report and the Reef Water Quality Report Card have different grading scales and operate over different spatial areas and timescales. The Outlook Report provides a summary every five years (the most recent report covers 2014 to 2019, with the next one due to be released mid-2024), whereas the Reef Water Quality Report Card provides a one-to-two year summary of catchment management progress, water quality and inshore marine health and wetland condition. The Outlook report uses a four-point (very good, good, poor, very poor) ‘grade of best fit’ based on a qualitative assessment of available evidence. The Reef Water Quality Report Card is based on quantitative data assessed against a standard five-point grading scale (very good, good, moderate, poor, very poor).
• The Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program is a coordinated and integrated monitoring, modelling and reporting program for the Reef and its adjacent catchment, and helps track the progress towards objectives and goals within the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Reef 2050 Plan).

For more information, please see the Report card explainer (PDF, 9.1MB) .

Have the results been independently reviewed?

The Independent Science Panel reviews and provides scientific advice on key elements of the Paddock to Reef program including the program design and major outputs such as the Reef Water Quality Report Cards. Each report card’s results and methods are reviewed by the Independent Science Panel.

In addition, program components undergo additional peer and external review processes. For example, the modelling program has been reviewed extensively with international independent reviewers stating the modelling approach is best practice and highly innovative. The catchment monitoring program recently underwent a similar independent review involving international reviewers.

Why are confidence ratings used, and how are they determined?

A semi-quantitative, multi-criteria analysis approach is used to measure confidence for each key indicator in the report card. This is needed due to the range and variability of reporting data sets that underpin the results. Having a single, consistent multi-criteria framework enables comparison across reporting themes. The assessment considers the maturity of the methodology, level of validation, representativeness of the data, directness of the indicator and measured error.

The Independent Science Panel reviews the confidence scoring for each report card.

Why is the land management target for agricultural practice adoption not reported?

The land management target for agricultural practice adoption is undergoing a review as part of the five-yearly review of the Reef 2050 WQIP. Progress towards the practice adoption targets for the grazing, sugarcane, banana, horticulture and grains industries will be reported when the new targets have been set. For more information, please see the Reef 2050 WQIP Review page.

Why is the focus on agriculture?

Everyone and all industries need to play their part in improving water quality. While this is important to minimise run-off to the Reef, the largest contribution to nutrient, sediment and pesticide run-off is from broad-scale agriculture as the primary land use in the catchments adjacent to the Reef.

Urban and other land uses, including industrial, contribute approximately 2% to the fine sediments discharged to the Reef. Urban areas contribute approximately 7% of the anthropogenic dissolved inorganic nitrogen load and may be important at local scales.

The Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan addresses land-based sources of water pollution including run-off from urban, industrial and public lands. It also recognises the importance of people in creating change.

Partnerships across all sectors at all levels continue to be key to making progress towards the water quality targets. This includes governments working together with agriculture, industry, urban development and construction, conservation, community and natural resource management stakeholders to improve the quality of water flowing from the catchments to the Reef.

An urban stewardship framework has been developed to assess and report on the level of urban water stewardship in Reef catchments to demonstrate the degree to which urban water managers are contributing to improving water quality. It is expected that this new reporting will be incorporated into the regional report cards in future years.

How is marine water quality assessed?

Given the size of the Great Barrier Reef and the dynamic and changing nature of conditions that the Reef experiences (such as weather, water movement and river discharge), it is impossible to rely solely on in-water monitoring data to confidently assess marine water quality over entire zones or regions.

Remote sensing (satellite imagery) helps to overcome this problem. However, issues arise when cloud cover prevents assessment of the marine waters and turbidity hinders independent measures of sediment and nutrients. This happens frequently during the wet season when most of the discharge from rivers occurs.

Marine water quality scores are assessed using the eReefs model which integrates multiple lines of evidence including satellite imagery and is validated against marine monitoring data in specific locations. The eReefs model accounts for weather conditions, water movement, freshwater river discharges and pollutant loads to provide daily estimates of water quality across the Great Barrier Reef and through the water column.

The eReefs model provides an annual snapshot of marine water quality for the reporting year that contributes to the marine condition scores. As this is an annual assessment and is influenced by variations in rainfall, drier years will typically report improved water quality.

Do the marine water quality results reflect the extensive flooding experienced in December 2023 across Far North Queensland?

The extensive flooding experienced across parts of Far North Queensland following the passage of Tropical Cyclone Jasper occurred after the reporting period for the 2021 and 2022 Report Card, which includes data reported up to June 2022. Data from this flood event will be reflected in a future report card.

Why is there no coral data reported in some areas, such as Cape York and Burnett Mary?

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Monitoring Program provides the inshore marine assessment for the Reef Water Quality Report Cards. The program does not assess inshore corals in the Cape York or Burnett Mary regions.

In Cape York the monitoring of inshore corals is not undertaken due to risks associated with crocodiles in inshore northern waters.

The Queensland Government is funding Traditional Owners to undertake marine water quality monitoring at 15 inshore marine sites in the Burnett Mary region, helping to validate the eReefs marine modelling. Coral monitoring is funded by the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Please see Gidarjil case study.

Why is inshore coral condition poor?

Inshore corals remained in an overall ‘poor’ condition in 2022, as they continued to recover from the impacts of prior storms including severe tropical cyclones Debbie and Trevor, and ex-tropical cyclones Owen and Penny between 2017 and 2019, and above-average sea temperatures in 2016, 2017 and 2020.

Coral condition was moderate in the northern regions and poor in the southern regions. Scores for the Wet Tropics have remained stable since 2016 (though sub-region variations exist), while the scores continue to decline in the Burdekin region, likely driven by increases in macroalgae. Marginal improvement in the Mackay Whitsunday region was detected, mostly driven by high densities of juvenile corals at some reefs. Fitzroy region corals are being hindered from recovery at some reefs by high cover of macroalgae and low densities of juvenile corals. Please refer to the Marine Monitoring Program publications for more information on the condition and trend of inshore corals.

Has seagrass condition improved?

In 2022, overall inshore seagrass condition improved to moderate, reversing the Reef-wide decline reported since 2016-2017. The seagrass resilience indicator was in moderate condition. Abundance indicators improved in 2021. There were signs of recovery detected in the Cape York, Wet Tropics, and Burdekin regions, which all improved to moderate condition, driven by improvements in seagrass abundance. The Mackay Whitsunday region seagrass also improved to moderate condition, however seagrass abundance remained in poor condition. The southern regions of Fitzroy and Burnett Mary remained in poor condition overall, with a deterioration in seagrass abundance to very poor.

Seagrass indicators were changed for reporting in 2021, with nutrient status being removed, abundance remaining, and reproductive effort being calculated as part of a new resilience indicator. This change was driven by scientific concern about the Great Barrier Reef’s seagrass meadow resilience, and the need to develop a more representative metric for management purposes. For more detail please see the Report card methods.

Please refer to the Marine Monitoring Program publications for more information on the condition and trend of seagrass and seagrass meadows.

What is the Paddock to Reef program?

The Paddock to Reef Integrated Monitoring, Modelling and Reporting Program (Paddock to Reef program) provides the framework for evaluating and reporting progress towards the Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan targets and objectives through the Reef Water Quality Report Card.

Monitoring and modelling of water quality occurs across a range of attributes, from paddock-scale through to sub-catchment, catchment, regional and Great Barrier Reef-wide.

The Paddock to Reef program evaluates management practice adoption and effectiveness, catchment condition, pollutant run-off and inshore marine condition. The program areas are inter-linked and integrated through a common assessment and reporting framework. For more information, please visit Paddock to Reef.

Why do we use catchment modelling, not just monitoring?

Monitoring shows pollutant loads leaving catchments vary significantly from year to year, mainly due to differences in annual rainfall and run-off. Therefore, modelling is used to estimate the long-term annual pollutant load reductions due to the adoption of improved land management practices. This removes the impact of factors such as climate variability and allows us to determine the expected benefits of improved land management now rather than monitoring for decades to see a trend.

Research suggests that time lags to see improvements from land management practice change in monitoring data could range from years (for pesticides) up to decades (for nutrients and sediments). This is due to factors such as the high degree of variability in rainfall from year to year. The catchment models use measured changes in land management and well-documented and accepted methods and assumptions. Long-term water quality monitoring data is used to validate and improve the models, continuously improving confidence in the estimates of water quality over time.

How is progress towards the load reductions targets assessed?

Catchment modelling estimates average annual loads of key pollutants for each of the 35 catchments draining to the Great Barrier Reef. The modelling reports on reductions from the anthropogenic baseline load each reporting period based on the adoption of improved land management practices.

Catchment load reduction targets for 2025 are set for the whole of the Great Barrier Reef, the six regions and 35 catchments. Progress towards the targets is reported as the reduction since the last report card, as well as the overall cumulative reduction to date.

Scores are based on the minimum reductions required to achieve the 2025 target (the required reduction divided by the number of years remaining). The scoring assesses each year against the minimum annual progress required to achieve the target. As a result, grades may change year to year, based on how they are tracking towards targets. This may mean results are rated poorly if the required amount of progress is not achieved that year. Overall cumulative progress to targets is represented in the report card to provide context but is not scored.

How is the two-year reporting period translated into a grade?

Over the 2021 and 2022 reporting period there was an overall 0.8% reduction in sediment. This translates to a 0.4% reduction in 2021 and a 0.4% reduction in 2022. Each individual year is scored. A reduction of 0.4% aligns with a D grade and that is why a D grade is shown in the most recent report card.

What industry Best Management Practice (BMP) data is used in the report card?

Practice change programs and projects report data at a farm level, de-identified to protect grower privacy, which is then used in modelling.

Smartcane BMP is the sugarcane industry’s voluntary BMP program for sugarcane growers and is managed and led by Queensland Cane Growers Organisation Ltd (CANEGROWERS) with funding from the Queensland Government. In 2021 and 2022, Smartcane BMP contributed 19,228 hectares of de-identified practice change data to the Reef Water Quality Report Card.

CANEGROWERS has been working with Smartcane BMP accredited businesses since 2019 to contribute anonymous data to the Reef Water Quality Report Card, to indicate industry best practice adoption and progress toward the Reef 2050 WQIP land management and water quality targets.

Industry BMP data was used to help develop the land management practice adoption benchmarks which estimate the existing extent of adoption of key practices.

How is riparian extent measured?

Changes in riparian vegetation extent are assessed every four years. However, updated results in the Reef Water Quality Report Card 2021 and 2022 are based on a three-year reporting period 2018–2021, with a new baseline from 2018. Riparian loss figures reported up to and including the 2013–2017 period are not directly comparable with loss figures reported for the 2018–2021 period but are provided for historical context.

The riparian vegetation reporting relies on woody vegetation clearing data from the Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS). In recent years, SLATS has introduced a revised and enhanced methodology incorporating the latest satellite technology and scientific capabilities. Consequently, results from previous reporting periods cannot be directly compared, due to a change in method. It is not possible to determine whether the difference between previous and current reporting periods is due to the method change or actual change in clearing.

The riparian area is defined as any area within 50 metres of a (mapped) stream or riverine wetland, which is comparable with the buffer distance used to define a ‘Category R’ area in Queensland’s vegetation management framework. The Reef Water Quality Report Card considers all woody vegetation within this area, including native vegetation, non-native woody weeds, and horticultural crops. The riparian vegetation reporting is separated into two components: riparian forest and riparian ground cover. Data derived from satellite imagery is used to estimate the amount of riparian forest cover and ground cover. Clearing of riparian woody vegetation is then measured using data from the SLATS for the reporting period.

Vegetation management laws passed by the Queensland Government in 2000 regulate clearing of native vegetation to conserve remnant vegetation, minimise land degradation, maintain ecological processes, prevent the loss of biodiversity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the vegetation management framework, clearing activities may also be regulated under other Queensland Government legislation, Australian Government legislation and local government requirements. Since 2018, clearing of all native vegetation has been regulated within 50 metres of an identified watercourse or drainage feature in all Great Barrier Reef catchments. This was in addition to clearing protections provided by the vegetation management framework for Category B areas (regulated remnant vegetation) and Category C areas (high value regrowth). The majority (approximately 94%) of detected clearing is lawful clearing of regulated vegetation or is re-clearing of areas where vegetation was previously lawfully cleared (Category X areas). For further information please refer to the Vegetation management page.

What does pesticide risk measure?

Pesticide risk, as reported in the Reef Water Quality Report Card, is the estimated average per cent of aquatic species likely to be protected from the adverse impacts of pesticides detected in a waterway. For example, if the pesticide risk is reported as 95%, this means there is a high likelihood that 95% of aquatic species in that ecosystem are not experiencing adverse effects from pesticides. It also means 5% of species in that ecosystem are likely to experience some adverse effects such as reduced growth, reproduction or abundance. As pesticide concentrations increase, the effects on organisms will likely worsen, and as such the reported percentage of species protected decreases.

Pesticide risk is estimated from the concentrations of up to 22 pesticides, individually or as mixtures, based on the pesticides detected in catchments during the wet season (please see Frequently Asked Question 22 for more information). For more detail please see the Report card methods.

How do we measure and report pesticide risk?

The 2021 and 2022 pesticide condition results are calculated using monitoring data. Results from the end-of-catchment monitoring are scaled up to represent the risk at the whole-of-catchment, regional and Great Barrier Reef scales. Pesticide risk can vary as you move up the catchment, particularly as you get closer to the source of pesticides. Pesticide monitoring results are reported through an interactive story map. Please refer to Modelling and monitoring program page.

As the 2021 and 2022 pesticide condition is based on monitoring data, it is important not to view changes from a single year of results as a trend that could be explained by changes in land management. Trends will only be perceptible if the change is observed over several years.

Why is pesticide risk for the entire catchment sometimes different to the risk reported at the monitoring site?

The Pesticide Risk values reported in the Reef Water Quality Report Card and Great Barrier Reef Catchment Loads Monitoring Program (GBRCLMP) Condition Report are both calculated from catchment monitoring data, however sometimes a different value is reported for the same catchment. This is because the Pesticide Risk value reported in the GBRCLMP Condition Report represents the run-off from the land area (and its land use) upstream of the monitoring site located within the catchment. Whereas the Pesticide Risk value reported in the Reef Water Quality Report Card represents the land area (and its land use) of the whole catchment, which is larger than the area upstream of the monitoring site. For example, the figure below shows the land area upstream of the Murray River monitoring site (inside the Monitoring Catchment grey line), which is smaller than the total Murray catchment area (inside black line).

How is wetland extent reported?

Changes in wetland extent were historically reported every four years. However, since 2017 changes in wetland extent have been reported every two years based on updated mapping. Results were updated in Reef Water Quality Report Card 2021 and 2022 to include the 2017-2019 reporting period and are due to be updated again in the next report card.

The results detail the loss of natural and modified wetlands for all reporting periods as a percentage of change in the wetland extent in relation to the start of the reporting period.

Each version of the underpinning data contains a data series of wetland extent at different points in time. This enables us to integrate data improvements (e.g., using satellite imagery to refine wetland extent, capturing smaller wetlands, etc.) across all time periods and avoid confusing these data improvements with the trends in actual on-ground wetland change. This means each report card will feature updated wetland extent information for all time periods.

How is wetland condition reported?

This is the fourth wetland condition report since 2016. Overall, there has been little change in wetland condition across the Great Barrier Reef catchment since last reported in 2020.

The Great Barrier Reef Wetland Monitoring Program, within the Paddock to Reef program, tracks trends in pressures on wetlands and the state of wetland environmental values.

The methods for assessing wetland condition have been updated since last reported. For this reason, the 2022 scores cannot be directly compared with scores published in previous report cards. Wetlands are monitored annually with the data contributing to report cards every two years. The Wetland Condition Report 2022 contains information on the program’s design, data collection and analysis methods, and detailed results including scores and trends.

Wetland condition is reported at a regional scale for the first time in the Reef Water Quality Report Card 2021 and 2022 with new monitoring sites incorporated into the program. This has occurred in the Wet Tropics, Burdekin, Fitzroy and Burnett Mary natural resource management (NRM) regions, but not yet in Mackay Whitsunday or Cape York regions.

The number of wetlands in the Mackay Whitsunday NRM region is small, which constrains the ability to increase its sample size. Cape York is logistically challenging to sample, which constrains the ability to increase its sample size. However, data from wetlands in the Mackay Whitsunday and Cape York NRM regions do contribute to reporting at the Great Barrier Reef catchment-wide scale, along with data from wetlands in the other four NRM regions.

What are the standout results from land management projects?

Sugarcane

Key programs contributing to improved water quality from sugarcane lands include the Queensland Government’s Smartcane BMP program which reported 19,228 hectares of sugarcane management practice improvements; the Australian Government’s Reef Trust Partnership Reef Alliance Project Phase 2 which reported 13,062 hectares of sugarcane management practice improvements; the Australian Government’s Reef Trust: Project Catalyst project which reported 39,941 hectares of sugarcane management practice improvements; and the Australian Government’s Reef Trust Reverse Tender Program which reported 9,309 hectares of sugarcane land with reduced nitrogen application rates.

Grazing

Key programs that contributed to reductions in sediment from grazing lands include the Queensland Government’s Grazing Resilience and Sustainable Solutions program which reported 1,316,960 hectares engaged in improved grazing management; the Australian Government’s Reef Trust: Project Pioneer which reported 285,744 hectares engaged in improved grazing management; the Australian Government’s Regional Land Partnership Program which reported 249,656 hectares engaged in improved grazing management; and the Queensland Government’s Grazing Extension Program which reported 228,757 hectares engaged in improved grazing management.

Pesticides

A key program that contributed to reducing pesticide risk is the Australian Government’s Reef Trust Partnership Project Bluewater, which reported 11,967 hectares engaged in improved farm pesticide management practices.

What is social monitoring?

Social monitoring through practice change projects funded by the Australian and Queensland governments started in mid-2019 as part of the Paddock to Reef program. Social monitoring provides insights into why (or why not) farmers are making land management decisions.

This data not only informs the design of Reef investment programs, it is also part of the reporting on the progress towards the Reef 2050 WQIP Human Dimensions target: Active engagement of communities and land managers in programs to improve water quality outcomes is increased.

Participating farmers can choose to answer social monitoring questions both at the start of their practice change journey (‘before’) and at the end of their practice change journey (‘after’). The Reef Water Quality Report Card 2021 and 2022 includes social monitoring records reported ‘before’ and ‘after’ practice change. The quantity of data varies across Reef regions and industries. In some areas and industries, it is below 50 records (i.e., below the threshold). Data were aggregated for the sugarcane and grazing industries for the Great Barrier Reef wide region and not presented on a catchment-by-catchment basis. Whilst data were collected for the banana and horticulture industries, there was insufficient data to be reported for this period. Data collection and reporting will continue to improve over time.

The Reef Water Quality Report Card 2021 and 2022 outlines two infographics (grazing and sugarcane) showcasing motivations (before engagement in the project), barriers, attitudes and their confidence in new practices (after engagement in the project). There is also an infographic for the opinions of Reef catchment residents on the values of local waterways and management of the Great Barrier Reef catchment.

Learn more about the social monitoring results.