Coral Reef report exaggerates scientific doomsday scenarios

Update 25/3/2010 see outcome below
ABC HEADLINE: "Coral protector: reefs keep our coasts nice" ABC Environment Online posted 10 February 2010


ABC REPORTED: ABC environment reporter John Pickrell provided a summary of the economic and other benefits of coral reefs. The report included statements from Ove Hoegh-Guldberg a veteran marine biologist and director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland; Ilsa Kuffner, a biologist at the US Geological Survey in St Petersburg, Florida; and Ronny Jumeau, the ambassador of the Republic of the Seychelles to the United Nations. 
The article included the following claim:
-In 2007 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that an increase in sea level of just 18 to 59 centimetres, likely by 2100, would be enough to wipe the Maldives off the map.

And reffered to a study by Researchers: -A study by researchers at the University of Chapel Hill in North Carolina, US, published in the journal PLoS One in 2007, compared 6,000 other studies and showed that reefs in the Asia-Pacific region are declining at a remarkable rate. It estimated that between 1997 and 2003 corals were being lost at a rate of 3,168 km2 a year.


THE COMPLAINT:
The article contains factual errors:ABC editorial policy 5.2.2 (c)
1. IPCC AR4 report does not state that "an increase in sea level of just 18 to 59 centimetres, likely by 2100, would be enough to wipe the Maldives off the map." This is an inference of the journalist or comes from another document.
This statement is contradicted by the following statement from IPCC AR4 WGII Chapter 16-Page 698:

For instance:

"For instance, chronic island erosion resulting from increased water depth across reefs with global warming and sea-level rise is envisaged for some islands in the Pacific (Dickinson, 1999), while Kench et al. (2005) present data and a model which suggest that uninhabited islands of the Maldives are morphologically resilient rather than fragile systems, and are expected to persist under current scenarios of future climate change and sea-level rise."

Alternate Views: The report failed to included alternate views as per ABC editorial policy 5.2.2 sections (d) and (e)

1. The report fails to acknowledge the following IPCC statement: "A large number of non-climate-change stresses and disturbances, mainly driven by human activities, can impact coral reefs (Nyström et al., 2000; Hughes et al., 2003). It has been suggested that the ‘coral reef crisis’ is almost certainly the result of complex and synergistic interactions among global-scale climatic stresses and local-scale, human-imposed stresses" (Buddemeier et al., 2004) (Box 16.2- IPCC AR4 Chapter 16).
This conflicts the with statement in the report by Kuffner "The main factors driving the decline of reefs are pollution and excessively warm water in the summer, which causes mass die-offs or bleaching."


The report failed to include alternate interpretations of sea level rise that might affect the Maldives such as:Mörner, A., M. Tooley and G. Possnert, 2004: New perspectives for the future of the Maldives. Global Planet. Change, 40, 177-182. This is mentioned in IPCC AR4 WGII Chapter 16 page 694.

The study by Bruno and Selig ["researchers at the University of Chapel Hill in North Carolina, US, published in the journal PLoS One in 2007"...Link HERE  (Article should have properly identified the source and it was implied that  Ilsa Kuffner had a role in the article, she did not.-ABC ED POL 5.6)] included un-peer reviewed data and results are questionable. (Similar to IPCC use of non-peer reviewed studies to claim Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.) The article should have pointed out that this study is yet to be confirmed by assessments from independent scientists.

OUTCOME: Received 25/2/2010- Thank you for your email regarding the ABC Environment feature article 'Coral protector: reefs keep our coast nice'. I am sorry for the delay in responding to you.

Your concerns about this article have been investigated by Audience & Consumer Affairs. I should first explain that the article is categorised as topical and factual content and not news and current affairs content. Accordingly, section 5.2 of the ABC's Editorial Policies (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm), to which you refer, is not applicable to the article. Rather, it is subject to section 7 of the Editorial Policies. The relevant provisions relating to accuracy and alternative perspectives are sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2, which state as follows:

"7.4.1 The ABC is committed to impartiality: where topical and factual content deals with a matter of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe.
7.4.2 Factual content requires accuracy.
(a) Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that factual content is accurate and in context."

On review, Audience & Consumer Affairs acknowledges that the statement "In 2007 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that an increase in sea level of just 18 to 59 centimetres, likely by 2100, would be enough to wipe the Maldives off the map" did not adhere to the editorial requirement for accuracy as although the IPCC did warn of a sea level increase of 18 to 59 centimetres by 2100, it did not suggest that this would wipe the Maldives off the map. The article has been amended to separate the reference to the IPCC from the reference to the Maldives.

I note your reference to an IPCC statement about non-climate-change stresses and disturbances impacting upon coral reefs, and your view that the article's failure to acknowledge this statement amounted to an absence of alternate views. Audience & Consumer Affairs considers that the article's coverage of the threats to coral reefs did not deal with matters of contention or public debate, and there was therefore no editorial requirement for a diversity of perspectives to be demonstrated across ABC Online.

Notwithstanding this, as you note, the article stated, "The main factors driving the decline of reefs are pollution and excessively warm water in the summer, which causes mass die-offs or bleaching", acknowledging a key non-climate-change stress on coral reefs driven by human activities: pollution. Audience & Consumer Affairs does not agree with your suggestion that this statement was inconsistent with the IPCC statement. It is also relevant to note that the range of threats to coral reefs, including those driven by human activities, have been widely canvassed on ABC Online.

I note your view that the article should have included alternate interpretations of sea level rise which might affect the Maldives. Audience & Consumer Affairs does not believe there was any editorial requirement to do so. The article was not primarily about the impact of predicted sea level rise on the Maldives, and therefore did not seek to explore different interpretations of this rise.

Finally, I note your comments about the article's reference to the 2007 study 'Regional Decline of Coral Cover in the Indo-Pacific: Timing, Extent, and Subregional Comparisons' by John F. Bruno and Elizabeth R. Selig. While you assert that the article "should have properly identified the source", Audience & Consumer Affairs considers that the description of the study as "A study by researchers at the University of Chapel Hill in North Carolina, US, published in the journal PLoS One in 2007" properly identified it.

It is not the case that the article implied that Ilsa Kuffner was involved in the Bruno and Selig study; the article referred to Dr Kuffner as "a biologist at the US Geological Survey in St Petersburg, Florida", and described the 2007 study as having been conducted "by researchers at the University of Chapel Hill in North Carolina, US". Audience & Consumer Affairs does not believe readers would reasonably have concluded that Dr Kuffner was involved in the study. It is unclear why you consider section 5.6 of the Editorial Policies to be relevant to this issue.

In relation to your criticism of the Bruno and Selig study, it is important to recognise that there is no editorial standard restricting ABC journalists from referring to scientific papers which cite material that is not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, there was no requirement for the article to point out that the study - which was peer-reviewed prior to publication in PLoS One - "is yet to be confirmed by assessments from independent scientists", as you suggest.

Please be assured, your comments have been noted and conveyed to relevant staff in ABC Innovation, the division responsible for the ABC Environment portal. Thank you for bringing your concerns about the article to our attention.

Yours sincerely
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

COMMENT: ABC Editorial policy Facts/sources/Alternate views