Queensland’s forests near the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are disappearing fast. Most of it comes from land cleared for beef production. Over the last 40 years, Queensland has been responsible for about half of Australia’s forest loss, with the reef’s catchment areas taking a big hit, as Pickering and Guglyuvatyy (2019) well state.
Why does this matter? When forests are cleared, sediment washes into rivers and eventually the reef, smothering coral and hurting seagrass. Less sunlight means less life. Tourism and fishing pay the price too. Deloitte Access Economics (2017) clearly shows that in 2015–16, the reef brought in $6.4 billion and supported over 64,000 jobs. This highlights the significant economic dependence on a healthy reef ecosystem.
The problem is that the people clearing land do not pay for the damage they cause, economists call this negative externalities. Forests also act like public goods, where everyone benefits but no one pays. This creates a free-rider problem, and combined with weak enforcement, deforestation keeps happening.
Fortunately, there are ways to use economic tools to encourage better land management and protect the Reef.
What’s Happening in Queensland
Queensland has two main market-based programs:
-
-
The Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) which are tradeable units, each representing one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent that has been stored, avoided, or reduced through approved projects. Among the eligible projects that could have a positive impact on the Reef if developed in the right areas are reforestation, afforestation, and sustainable agricultural practices, though there are many other project types as well that contribute to reducing emissions and protecting the ecosystem.
ACCUs can be sold to the government through carbon abatement contracts, or in the voluntary market to businesses seeking to offset their emissions. While ACCUs help reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, they don’t always guarantee that buyers address local environmental damage directly. Emissions may be offset elsewhere, so the system focuses on net reductions rather than fully internalizing every negative impact at the source.
-
Reef Credits : Reef Credits are tradeable units representing quantifiable reductions in nutrients, sediment, or pesticides entering GBR catchments. Landholders generate credits through improved land management practices, such as riparian vegetation planting or soil conservation techniques. These credits can be sold to government, private industry, or philanthropic investors interested in supporting water quality improvements. Unlike ACCUs, Reef Credits target the Reef specifically, but the system remains voluntary and lacks a legal compliance requirement. Buyers are not obligated to remediate their own pollution, limiting the ability to fully internalize local negative externalities.
-
Economic Tools Working Elsewhere
-
-
Forest Carbon Tax with Rewards (US Model) :Talberth and Carlson (2024) propose taxing industrial logging based on emissions while rewarding landholders for carbon sequestration and sustainable forestry. This applies the “polluter pays” principle and encourages long-term forest stewardship. Revenue could fund afforestation, extended harvest rotations, and sustainable management. Challenges include administrative complexity and potential impacts on small operators, but the approach effectively links economic activity with environmental goals.
-
Environmental Taxes with Feebates : Hayde (2021) highlights a system where harmful practices are taxed, and sustainable actions receive financial rewards. This encourages industries to adopt eco-friendly methods without heavy government spending. Challenges include enforcing standards and avoiding disproportionate burdens on smaller operators, but rigorous application can significantly reduce deforestation.
-
Cap-and-Trade Systems :Cap-and-trade programs, like the US Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), set emission limits and allow trading of permits (Chan & Morrow, 2019). Companies with lower reduction costs can sell permits to others, promoting efficient emissions cuts. While cost-effective, risks include emissions “leakage” and concentrated pollution, requiring strong regulatory oversight.
-
Pigouvian Taxes and Payments for Environmental Services (PES) : This approach combines taxes on environmental harm with payments to landholders for conservation (Tobón Orozco, Molina, & Vargas Cano, 2017). Pigouvian taxes internalize costs like sediment runoff and carbon emissions, while PES rewards sustainable practices. Success relies on accurate ecosystem assessments and robust management, but it balances deterrents and incentives to protect the environment.
Together, these tools offer a flexible and market-based approach to reducing deforestation, encouraging sustainable land use, and supporting both ecosystems and the communities that rely on them.
-
The bottom line is that economic tools like ACCUs and Reef Credits should be reinforced alongside global approaches such as carbon taxes, feebates, cap-and-trade, and Payments for Environmental Services. Together, they show that it’s possible to align financial incentives with environmental protection, make landholders more accountable, reduce runoff, and safeguard the GBR while promoting sustainable land use.
The Reef is not just coral and fish. it is livelihoods, tourism, and a global treasure. Protecting it means connecting the economy with the environment in ways that make sense for everyone.
References
Australian and Queensland Governments. (2018). Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017-2022. https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/46115/reef-2050-water-quality-improvement-plan-2017-22.pdf
Attílio, L. A., Faria, J. R., & Oliveira, A. R. (2024). Fiscal policy and deforestation. Sustainable Futures, 8, 100305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100305
Brodie, J., Waterhouse, J., Schaffelke, B., Kroon, F., Thorburn, P., Rolfe, J., Johnson, J., Fabricius, K., Lewis, S., Devlin, M., & Warne, M. (2017). Scientific consensus statement 2017: Land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition. State of Queensland. https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/45979/scientific-consensus-statement-2017-summary-chapters.pdf
Chan, N. W., & Morrow, J. W. (2019). Unintended consequences of cap-and-trade? Evidence from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Energy Economics, 80, 411-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.01.007
Deloitte Access Economics. (2017). At what price? The economic, social and icon value of the Great Barrier Reef. https://barrierreef.org/uploads/deloitte-au-economics-great-barrier-reef-230617.pdf
Fredj, K., Martín-Herrán, G., & Zaccour, G. (2004). Slowing deforestation pace through subsidies: A differential game. Automatica, 40(2), 301-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2003.10.020
Gonçalves da Silva, J., de Almeida, R. B., & Carvalho, L. V. (2023). An economic analysis of a zero-deforestation policy in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 203, 107613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107613
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2014). Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014. https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/2855
Hayde, E. K. (2021). Taxing deforestation. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/824541636144143368/Taxing-Deforestation
López Ramón, R., & Toman, M. A. (2006). Conservation of tropical forests: Addressing market failure. In R. López & M. A. Toman (Eds.), Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability: New Policy Options (pp. 412–452). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199298009.003.0014
Pickering, C., & Guglyuvatyy, E. (2019). Deforestation and its impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. Southern Cross University, School of Law and Justice. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26895888
Sandler, T. (1993). Tropical deforestation: Market failure and policy interventions. In J. Weiss (Ed.), Environmental management and economic development (pp. 13-27). Manchester University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146589
Talberth, J., & Carlson, E. (2024). Forest carbon tax and reward: Regulating greenhouse gas emissions from industrial logging and deforestation in the US. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04523-7
Tobón Orozco, D., Molina, C., & Vargas Cano, J. H. (2017). Pigouvian taxes and payments for environmental services within an economic framework constrained by water body resilience. Water Resources and Economics, 19, 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2017.09.001
Wilderness Society. (2019). Drivers of deforestation and land clearing in Queensland. https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/The_Drivers_of_Deforestation_Land-clearing_Qld_Report.pdf