Melbourne
EMMA GYURIS has adopted a novel technique in her study of seabirds on
Australia鈥檚 Great Barrier Reef. She is pretending to be a tourist. The
uninhabited Rocky Island in the northern part of the reef is home to the bridled
tern, and Gyuris and her colleagues are hoping to assess the impact of humans on
the birds鈥� reproduction and behaviour.
Seabird numbers on the Great Barrier Reef have been falling for at least a
decade. Researchers estimate that some species are now declining at rates of
more than 10 per cent a year. Conservationists blame the numbers of tourists
visiting the reef, up from 900 000 in 1985 to 1.7 million last year.
Advertisement
The tourist industry says there is no evidence that it is at fault, claiming
that the fishing industry is depleting the birds鈥� food. As Helene Marsh, head of
the School of Tropical and Environmental Studies and Geography at James Cook
University in Townsville, points out: 鈥淣o one really knows what is going
辞苍.鈥�
Gyuris, also at James Cook, is trying to find out. To discover whether
tourists are having an impact, her team is disturbing some of the bridled terns鈥�
rookeries and leaving other nest areas alone. Unlike some of the birds on the
reef, the bridled tern is not endangered, but Gyuris鈥檚 work is controversial
because it is interfering in a pristine area that is rarely visited by
humans.
It is a common dilemma for scientists working in sensitive ecosystems, and
especially important in Australia, which contains more natural World Heritage
areas from UNESCO鈥檚 list than any other country. Some scientists say that to
gain the knowledge needed to protect a species or its environment, a little
disturbance is often necessary. Many conservationists disagree.
To reassure environmentalists and help scientists, Marsh has proposed a set
of guidelines. Drawn up with the help of biologists, environmental managers and
conservationists, they will radically alter the ground rules governing research
in protected and environmentally sensitive areas across Australia. The
guidelines are about to go out for public comment, and after that they will be
presented to the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC).
The council is made up of the environment and conservation ministers of all
Australia鈥檚 states and territories and their counterparts in the national
governments of both countries. Marsh and others would like the guidelines to be
enshrined in law. 鈥淚n that way they will be harder to ignore,鈥� says Carolyn
Mountford, chair of the working group that drew them up. Mountford is not a
wildlife biologist but a medical researcher. This is no accident: she was chosen
to chair the working group precisely because her expertise is far removed from
environmental research.
The group believes its proposal could have global significance. 鈥淎ustralia,
like other countries, has ethical guidelines covering medical research and
laboratory research involving animals,鈥� says Mountford. 鈥淏ut what happens in the
field in sensitive areas has largely been ignored鈥攁nd as far as we can
gather that applies overseas as well.鈥�
The guidelines apply not only to marine sites but to terrestrial projects,
such as the relocation of species and work in rainforest canopies. But the
driving force has been a series of controversial research projects over the past
two years on the Great Barrier Reef. In one case, 20 researchers from James Cook
University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the national research
organisation, the CSIRO, called for the opening up of previously protected reefs
to study the impact of line fishing. After a heated public debate, the research
was given the go-ahead this year.
Another controversial study on the reef has already been abandoned. Paul
Marshall, a postgraduate student in Marsh鈥檚 department, wanted to drop anchors
on pristine reefs to find out precisely what damage they do. Anchor damage is
recognised as a major problem. 鈥淏ut at the moment it is difficult to sort out
anchor damage from natural damage because we don鈥檛 have a starting point,鈥� says
Marshall.
Such arguments have not satisfied environmentalists. 鈥淭oo often the
scientists look at problems in isolation,鈥� says Jeremy Tager from the North
Queensland Conservation Council in Townsville. 鈥淎 much broader ecological
perspective is needed. They need to think about what impact their particular
project has on the rest of the environment.鈥� 快猫短视频s say that in the grand
scheme of things, the work they do has a minimal impact. The arguments spurred
Marsh into action. 鈥淲e were putting all our research at risk because some of it
was seen as unacceptable,鈥� she says. 鈥溈烀ǘ淌悠祍 were starting to say, we鈥檒l go
to work somewhere else.鈥�
She suggested that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA),
which issues permits for research on the reef, should establish its own ethical
rules. She also approached the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering
Council, a government advisory body, which called for public submissions, set up
the working party and chose Mountford as its chair.
The proposed guidelines oblige researchers not to work in sensitive areas if
alternatives are available. 鈥淩esearch aims that can be accomplished without
potential morbidity or mortality to endangered or threatened species are
preferable in almost all circumstances, even if the alternatives are costlier
and more time-consuming,鈥� they say.
Before work begins, researchers will have to answer a series of questions,
such as whether the research and its outcomes are compatible with the
鈥渕anagement objectives鈥� of the area. If the answers are not satisfactory, the
authorities may withhold the permit needed. All parties are asked, where
appropriate, to involve Aborigines in the planning of projects.
The guidelines also tackle the complaint that plants and animals collected
for a particular research project are then left to deteriorate in laboratories
and museums. In future, any specimens collected should be made available to
other researchers, so that they do not have to gather further specimens
unnecessarily.
At a conference on the guidelines in Canberra last month, some scientists
protested that they were being unfairly singled out. 鈥淚f this conference
recommends the draconian and anthropocentric criteria, guidelines and processes
that seem to be emerging, it might like to consider recommending the same
procedures for all exploitative activities in protected areas,鈥� said Jamie
Kirkpatrick, president of the Ecological Society of Australia. 鈥淎n ethical
appraisal of the fishing industry on the reef . . . would be far more rewarding
for nature than an ethical bureaucratisation of natural science.鈥�
Marsh strongly disagrees. 鈥淚f done properly, I see the clarification as
liberating,鈥� she says. 鈥淲ho wants to spend years designing an experiment, then
be told they can鈥檛 do it?鈥� Marshall is also in favour. Since his run-in with
conservationists over the anchor study he has canvassed other postgraduate
students, and found that they are 鈥渧ery concerned about behaving ethically as
蝉肠颈别苍迟颈蝉迟蝉鈥�.
The conservationists are happy too. 鈥淲e need a consistent national approach,鈥�
says Mark Horstman of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Australia鈥檚 main
environmental lobby group. But agreeing guidelines is only the beginning, he
points out. Making them work will bring a new set of problems.