Baie Shark, Australie occidentale
Country
Australia
Inscribed in
1991
Criteria
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "significant concern" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 oct 2025
Significant concern
Current state and trend of VALUES
High Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Most diverse and abundant examples of stromatolites – the oldest form of life on Earth
Criterion
(vii)
One of the superlative natural phenomena present in this property is its stromatolites, which represent the oldest form of life on Earth and are comparable to living fossils (World Heritage Committee, 2013). Analogous structures were the dominant benthic ecosystems on Earth for 3 000 million years. Their significance is due to their role in changing the earth’s atmosphere, by photosynthesis. The hypersaline environments of Shark Bay exclude many competitors, consumers and predators, enabling the survival of complex ecosystems in Hamelin Pool (Jahnert and Collins, 2012).
One of the world’s best examples of a living analogue for the study of the nature and evolution of the earth’s biosphere up until the early Cambrian
Criterion
(viii)
Shark Bay contains, in the hypersaline Hamelin Pool, the most diverse and abundant examples of stromatolites (hard, dome-shaped structures formed by microbial mats) in the world. The stromatolites of Hamelin Pool were the first modern, living examples to be recognised that have a morphological diversity and abundance comparable to those that inhabited Proterozoic seas. As such, they are one of the world’s best examples of a living analogue for the study of the nature and evolution of the Earth’s biosphere up until the early Cambrian (World Heritage Committee, 2013).
Seagrass banks of great geological interest
Criterion
(viii)
The Wooramel Seagrass Bank is also of great geological interest due to the extensive deposit of limestone sands associated with the bank, formed by the precipitation of calcium carbonate from hypersaline waters (World Heritage Committee, 2013).
Outstanding examples of processes of biological and geomorphic evolution taking place in a largely unmodified environment
Criterion
(ix)
Shark Bay provides outstanding examples of processes of biological and geomorphic evolution taking place in a largely unmodified environment. These include the evolution of the Bay’s hydrological system, the hypersaline environment of Hamelin Pool and the biological processes of ongoing speciation, succession and the creation of refugia. One of the exceptional features of Shark Bay is the steep gradient in salinities, creating three biotic zones that have a marked effect on the distribution and abundance of marine organisms. Hypersaline conditions in Hamelin Pool have led to the development of a number of significant geological and biological features including the ‘living fossil’ stromatolites. The unusual features of Shark Bay have also created the Wooramel Seagrass Bank. Covering 103,000 ha, it is the largest structure of its type in the world. Seagrasses are aquatic flowering plants that form meadows in near-shore brackish or marine waters in temperate and tropical regions, producing one of the world’s most productive aquatic ecosystems. Australia has one of the highest diversity of seagrasses globally, with 12 species occurring in the Bay (World Heritage Committee, 2013). P. australis is at the northern extent of its natural geographic range and experiences extremes in temperature and salinity. The polyploid clone spanned at least 180 km, making it the largest known example of a clone in any environment on earth. Whole-genome duplication through polyploidy, combined with clonality, may have provided the mechanism for P. australis to expand into new habitats and adapt to new environments that became increasingly stressful for its diploid progenitor(s). The new polyploid clone probably formed in shallow waters after the inundation of Shark Bay less than 8500 years ago and subsequently expanded via vegetative growth into newly submerged habitats (Edgeloe et al., 2022).
A range for many globally threatened species of terrestrial plants and animals
Criterion
(x)
Shark Bay is a refuge for many globally threatened species of plants and animals. The site is located at the transition zone between two of Western Australia’s main botanical provinces, the arid Eremaean, dominated by Acacia species and the temperate South West, dominated by Eucalyptus species, and thus contains a mixture of two biotas, many at the limit of their southern or northern range. The property contains either the only or major populations of five globally threatened mammals, including the Burrowing Bettong (now classified as Near Threatened), Rufous Hare Wallaby, Banded Hare Wallaby, the Shark Bay Mouse and the Shark Bay Bandicoot. A number of globally threatened plant and reptile species also occur in the terrestrial part of the property (World Heritage Committee, 2013).
Important marine habitats and species
Criterion
(x)
Shark Bay’s sheltered coves and lush seagrass beds are a haven for marine species, including Green Turtle (VU) and Loggerhead Turtle (EN) and the property provides one of Australia’s most important nesting areas for this second species. Shark Bay is one of the world’s most significant and secure strongholds for the protection of Dugong, with a population of around 10,000. Increasing numbers of Humpback Whales and Southern Right Whales use Shark Bay as a migratory staging post, and a famous population of Bottlenose Dolphin lives in the Bay. Large numbers of sharks and rays are readily observed, including the Manta Ray which is now considered globally threatened (World Heritage Committee, 2013). Shark Bay is also an important breeding ground for a variety of fish species.
Important area for migratory birds
Shark Bay is a significant site for migratory birds. There are 40 species of waterbirds that are migratory and resident, 17 of these migratory waterbirds are listed under International agreements. In total there are 83 bird species (terrestrial and waterbirds) found within Shark Bay (Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia). In 2014, an IUCN Consultation called for additional research in this field and in 2024 DBCA advised that in partnership with Birdlife Australia the site participated in the East Asian-Australian Flyway Census carried out in 2022, 2023, 2024. The surveys confirmed that the Shark Bay region provides significant Western Australian feeding grounds for migratory shorebirds using the flyway. Significant counts of critically endangered species such as the Curlew Sandpiper and Eastern Curlew, and the Endangered Red Knot and Great Knot, have been made, along with observations of up to fifteen other migratory bird species (IUCN Consultation, 2024)
Assessment information
Climate change poses the most significant threat to the site’s World Heritage values and it is expected to significantly increase. While this is particularly evident in the marine environment through increasing sea temperatures and ocean acidification, there is less data on the terrestrial impacts. Building resilience for mitigation is an important strategy for the conservation of seagrasses at Shark Bay – through the minimisation of key local threats such as turbidity and nutrient inputs from flooding of poorly managed pastoral leases, release of bitterns from a salt mine, changes in the trophic dynamics of the system through overfishing or targeted fishing, and more local damage to seagrasses from vessel propellers and anchors associated with growth in tourism. The pressure from recreational fishing seems to be increasing. The robustness of the site's geological values and its effective management regime combine to minimize threats to its integrity. For example, although visitation levels are increasing, this threat is currently appropriately managed. Nevertheless, the high threat from several invasive alien species remains and there is a need for comprehensive eradication strategies.
Dams & Water Management/Use, Earth & Sediment Management
(Shark Bay Salt extraction)
Outside site
Shark Bay salt activities can potentially change the salinity regime, abruptly and/or slowly, through bittern drainage and dredging (channel deepening). While salt activity occurs outside the boundaries of the World Heritage site, in the western gulf rather than the eastern gulf where the most significant values occur, marine ecosystems are connected. Furthermore, the mine lease is bordered on all sides by the property. Seagrass (Posidonia australis) meadows growing in close proximity to bittern ponds and within the Shark Bay Salt works footprint can be negatively affected by desalination brine. Hypersaline waters also impede physiological limitation for several fish species (e.g. Tiger sharks which are stenohaline gill-breathers) (IUCN Consultation, 2024). However, the impact on the loss of shallow breeding grounds for marine fauna and how this impacts other species (e.g., seabirds) including commercial fisheries is not known (IUCN Consultation, 2020b).
Recreational Activities, Other Human Disturbances
(Increasing human activity)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Impacts from human activities, including coastal recreational use and access, continue to represent a threat to the property's values and attributes, in part due to the increased biosecurity threat of exotic species introductions. Impacts from human activities include trampling of sensitive environments, hardening of shorelines and 4WD traffic over soft sediments. Degraded recreational sites and disused tracks are being identified and prioritised for rehabilitation (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The majority of the estate at Hamelin Pool is controlled by DBCA and Bush Heritage. Areas where stromatolites occur outside of this area is not accessible to the public. The Hamelin Pool boardwalk area is a small subsection of stromatolites for visitor education and experience purposes. Although visitors have access to the site, they are kept back from the microbial mats with a fence barricade, signage and an onsite DBCA presence (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
The Shark Bay WHA has seen an 8% increase in visitation between 2020-21 to 2023-24 which is less than the state-wide change of 12% over that time period. While visitor numbers increased substantially in 2020 following the closure of the Western Australian border due to the Covid-19 pandemic (IUCN Consultation, 2020), most parks within the Shark Bay property have seen no or modest growth of between 0% and 6% in visitation during the period 2020-21 to 2023-24 (IUCN Consultation, 2024). The Hamelin Pool Marine Nature Reserve saw a 7% decrease in visitation over that period. In 2023-24, Shell Beach saw an increase in visitation of 26% over the previous year due to more bus based visitation (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
The Shark Bay WHA has seen an 8% increase in visitation between 2020-21 to 2023-24 which is less than the state-wide change of 12% over that time period. While visitor numbers increased substantially in 2020 following the closure of the Western Australian border due to the Covid-19 pandemic (IUCN Consultation, 2020), most parks within the Shark Bay property have seen no or modest growth of between 0% and 6% in visitation during the period 2020-21 to 2023-24 (IUCN Consultation, 2024). The Hamelin Pool Marine Nature Reserve saw a 7% decrease in visitation over that period. In 2023-24, Shell Beach saw an increase in visitation of 26% over the previous year due to more bus based visitation (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Fire & Fire Management
(Wild fires)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
The extent of the threat of fires is understood and has been mapped for over 30 years (IUCN Consultation, 2024). An increase in hot days and warm spells is predicted through climate change and could make fire more likely. Fire can have a detrimental impact particularly on species highly restricted in their distribution (IUCN Consultation, 2020), most notably on Bernier and Dorre Islands which are home to a number of threatened mammal species. Over the coming period seasonal conditions and fuel loads are more likely to be a determinant of fire extent and severity than climate change (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Introduced plants, animals and marine pests)
Invasive/problematic species
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Felis catus
Rattus rattus
Capra hircus
Vulpes vulpes
Hemidactylus frenatus
Verbesina encelioides
Cenchrus ciliaris
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
The Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions has established a conservation program on the Peron Peninsula to bring threatened native fauna species back from the brink of extinction by controlling introduced predators – the feral fox and cat and also introduced herbivores – mainly sheep and goats. Another programme - the Ecological Restoration Program (ERP), currently being carried out in Dirk Hartog Island National Park has eradicated introduced herbivores and feral cats from the 620 square kilometre island – the largest island in the world to be freed of feral cats. In the absence of cats, a successful fauna translocation programme is now being undertaken (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Verbesina is listed in the Midwest region as having High ecological impact and Rapid invasiveness ratings. ‘High risk alert species’ have been recorded in Shark Bay but are not currently known on Dirk Hartog Island. It is important that any sightings of these species on the island are reported so they can be checked and dealt with promptly. The need for an eradication strategy for all introduced animals and pest plants threatening the values of the property was identified in an IUCN Consultation in 2017 and remains outstanding.
Changes in Physical & Chemical Regimes, Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Habitat shifting/alteration, temperature extremes, storms & flooding)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
The catastrophic 2011 marine heatwave (MHW) destroyed 1,310 km2 of seagrass (25% of the total coverage) (Strydom et al., 2020); harmed endangered species such as turtles and seasnakes; contributed to the temporary closure of the commercial crab and scallop fisheries (Kendrick et al., 2019); and released between 2 million and 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (Arias-Ortiz et al,. 2018). Drought die/off in 2023/24 also caused significant areas of vegetation death throughout the site (IUCN Consultation, 2024). Intense Leeuwin Current flows, an extraordinary La Niña event and multi-decadal trends in the Pacific Ocean, overlapped to drive mean monthly sea surface temperatures up to 2-4°C above normal for a period of four months, causing the extreme MHW (Pearce & Feng 2013). The effects of a MHW of this magnitude has the potential to severely impact Shark Bay’s World Heritage values particularly when compounded by three floodings of the Wooramel River, within three months delivering over 500 gigalitres of floodwater that contained large amounts of sediment into the Eastern Gulf, significantly reducing light availability (Fraser et al., 2014). This combination resulted in the widespread defoliation of the seagrass Amphibolis antarctica which is the most extensive canopy-forming seagrass in Shark Bay (Walker et al., 1988 ). Seagrasses have contributed to the creation of large banks and sills across Shark Bay which in turn have led to a strong salinity gradient, which creates conditions for the presence of one of the most diverse and abundant stromatolite populations in the world. Seagrass loss may impact the long-term stability of these banks and sills . Recovery has been slow with only an increase of 120 km2 of seagrass between 2014 - 2016, with the species P. australis showing greater resistance to the MHW compared to A. antarctica (Strydom et al., 2020). Extent recovered in some areas in 2020, however the composition of change is more sparse meadows (those that are less than 40% cover, compared to dense meadows, which are more than 40% cover – the latter dominated the system before the MHW) (DBCA seagrass long-term monitoring program, unpublished data).
Another marine heatwave affected WA’s waters in the summer of 2024/25, the resilience of Shark Bay’s ecosystems is again being tested. Elevated sea temperatures continue to pose a major threat to the property’s Outstanding Universal Value, with potential long-term consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem health. Between late 2024 and early 2025, Shark Bay experienced prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies, with temperatures exceeding 31.8°C and Degree Heating Weeks (DHW) reaching 29.1 according to the NOAA regional coral watch ocean temperature model. These indicators exceed those recorded during the 2010–2011 marine heatwave, which led to the loss of over 1,000 km² of seagrass meadows and had long-term consequences for the bay’s biodiversity and ecological function. While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later this year. This delay in visible ecological response is consistent with what was observed following the 2010–2011 event, where the scale of damage only became fully apparent over time. Unlike areas such as the Ningaloo Coast, where coral bleaching is highly visible, the unique ecology of Shark Bay means the consequences may manifest more gradually, yet potentially with equal or greater long-term significance (Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, 2025).
No data is currently available on the impact of prolonged drought on the terrestrial values of the SBWHA however it is evident that this is considerable in 2024 / 2025. Vegetation death has been recorded throughout the area at varying intensities however this is at point sites not over the whole area. Interrogation of available satellite data has not proved successful as it has in areas further south and will need further investigation to evaluate the extent of the issue (high threat). The consideration of this as an impact has been very poor to date and eclipsed by the marine heatwave concerns (IUCN Consultation, 2025).
Another marine heatwave affected WA’s waters in the summer of 2024/25, the resilience of Shark Bay’s ecosystems is again being tested. Elevated sea temperatures continue to pose a major threat to the property’s Outstanding Universal Value, with potential long-term consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem health. Between late 2024 and early 2025, Shark Bay experienced prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies, with temperatures exceeding 31.8°C and Degree Heating Weeks (DHW) reaching 29.1 according to the NOAA regional coral watch ocean temperature model. These indicators exceed those recorded during the 2010–2011 marine heatwave, which led to the loss of over 1,000 km² of seagrass meadows and had long-term consequences for the bay’s biodiversity and ecological function. While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later this year. This delay in visible ecological response is consistent with what was observed following the 2010–2011 event, where the scale of damage only became fully apparent over time. Unlike areas such as the Ningaloo Coast, where coral bleaching is highly visible, the unique ecology of Shark Bay means the consequences may manifest more gradually, yet potentially with equal or greater long-term significance (Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, 2025).
No data is currently available on the impact of prolonged drought on the terrestrial values of the SBWHA however it is evident that this is considerable in 2024 / 2025. Vegetation death has been recorded throughout the area at varying intensities however this is at point sites not over the whole area. Interrogation of available satellite data has not proved successful as it has in areas further south and will need further investigation to evaluate the extent of the issue (high threat). The consideration of this as an impact has been very poor to date and eclipsed by the marine heatwave concerns (IUCN Consultation, 2025).
Fishing, Harvesting & Controlling Aquatic Species
(Recreational fishing)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
There is an increasing pressure from recreational fishing, particularly on the pink snapper (Jones, 2021) and blue swimmer crabs (Tweedley et al. 2023). Commercial net/recreational fishing charters occur in the WHA and Marine Park. Commercial operators north of the property, trawl for scallops and prawns in the Marine Park. These fisheries regulated operations, include seasonal closures and quotas. There are indications that fishing pressure has increased since 2020, however further data are needed to support this claim (IUCN Consultation, 2024; Prendergast and Lewis, 2023; State Party of Australia, 2023). The majority of recreational fishers consider that both the abundance of crabs and bream and their size had decreased and that the number of fishers targeting them had increased in Western Australia (Tweedley et al. 2023). Furthermore, there is evidence that fishers consider the existing fisheries management in Shark Bay to be ineffective and that catch limits are not necessarily adhered to (Tweedley et al. 2023). Closures to increase snapper stocks have been very successful in allowing populations to re-establish (MPRA, 2010). Pink snapper increased under the fishing ban, but it has been widely reported that other species have declined (such as black snapper) (IUCN Consultation, 2014). There are current fears that new management rules to protect fish stocks in nearby areas (aimed at West Coat Demersal Scalefish Fishery) could increase pressure in the Shark Bay area as no measures have been put in place to stop the transfer of recreational fishing pressure (Prendergast and Lewis, 2023). The concern had been raised by the Shark Bay Shire president to WA fisheries Minister in 2022, along with concern that the current number of fisheries officers are not sufficient to prevent excessive fishing. It is important to understand the synergies between fishing and other events like marine heatwaves. The effect of the 2011 Marine Heat Wave decimated commercial fisheries for blue swimmer crab, scallops and some fish species causing collapse of fisheries and multi-year closures but these fisheries have recovered since 2013-14 (Caputi et al., 2019). A Science Plan for Shark Bay (Gathaagudu) developed from comprehensive stakeholder engagement (WAMSI, 2023) found five gaps in fishing research, namely: 1. What is the survivorship of released fishes?, 2. What are the spatial and temporal patterns of species caught by recreational fishers?, 3. Are the current management structures in Shark Bay (e.g. compliance) adequately resourced to ensure recreational fishers adhere to recreational fishing regulations?, 4. How will the diversity, abundance and range of species in Shark Bay (primarily of conservation and fisheries significance) change as a result of climate change?, and 5. How do environmental factors (particularly those affected by climate change) and other impacts (e.g. fishing pressure) affect the abundance and diversity of fished and non-fished species?
Mining & Quarrying
(Legacy mine site land degradation)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
The Shark Bay Gypsum JV mine open pit near Useless Loop and upon mine site closure did not rehabilitate open pit mine sites. Among the project sites site left un-rehabilitated are Biddy Giddy, Brown Inlet East & West, Useless Loop Gypsum and Useless Loop U2 (Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, n.d.)
Potential threats are mainly beyond the scope of site-level management actions, including pollution, and those associated with climate change and animal diseases. Shark Bay is predicted to experience recurrent severe heat stress events causing coral bleaching and impacts to seagrass meadows and climate change may exacerbate other potential threats including from invasive alien species and fire risk. The impacts of the potential threat of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1 strain) to wild animals is unknown but could be significant. Although petroleum exploration permits exist, the likelihood of petroleum exploration impacting the site is low, due to regulations in place and the area being classed as not very prospective.
Oil & Gas exploration/development
(Existing petroleum exploration permits)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
Exploration permits exist but the area is classed as “not very prospective” (Fourqurean et al., 2012). The likelihood of petroleum exploration impacting the values of the site is very low. Additionally, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) regulates activity and where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation in any proposal or activity.
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution
(Pollution)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
A range of potential pollution sources exist which could impact on World Heritage values. Most areas are under management and the site has extensive anti-pollution regulations. Potential pollution sources include land – littering, agricultural pollution, groundwater pollution – seepage of nutrients and chemicals, dust – mining and agricultural practices, marine pollution – sea dumping, bilge and ballast water, fuel, oil and chemical spills, hydrocarbon pollution, sewage, dredging and discharge of bitterns, atmospheric pollution - vehicle, industrial emissions, carbon dioxide levels or bushfires, as well as noise pollution (Fraser et al., 2014).
Fire & Fire Management
(Fire risks)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
The extent of the threat of fires is understood and has been mapped for over 30 years (IUCN Consultation, 2024). An increase in hot days and warm spells is predicted through climate change and fire risk is likely to increase. Fire can have a detrimental impact particularly on species highly restricted in their distribution, particularly populations which only survive on islands, where they could be severely affected or totally destroyed by a single large fire, especially from lightning strikes (Cowell, 2013; IUCN Consultation, 2020). Over the coming period seasonal conditions and fuel loads are more likely to be a determinant of fire extent and severity than climate change. Fire risks are forecast to increase. Further knowledge of fire ecology and the requirements of species and communities is needed (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Bushfire in rangelands depends highly on fuel availability, which in turn depends mainly on rainfall. Increased fire weather risk is expected in the future, due to higher temperatures and lower rainfall, but there is low confidence in the magnitude of fire weather projections (National Environmental Science Programme, 2018). Appropriate management of fire remains a high priority for the property.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Introduction of invasive species)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
Potential introduction of new invasive species will remain a risk and therefore requires constant monitoring and active management (Fourqurean et al., 2012). Verbesina is a potential threat which is subject to a control program within DBCA tenure, however it remains uncontrolled in other areas within the property (IUCN Consultation, 2024). The need for an eradication strategy for all introduced animals and pest plants threatening the values of the property was identified in an IUCN Consultation in 2017 and remains outstanding.
Pathogens
(Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI))
Inside site
, Not applicable
Outside site
The impact of the potential threat of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI, H5N1 strain) is unknown but could be significant based on impacts seen in other parts of the world (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
The Shark Bay World Heritage Property Strategic Plan 2008-2020 was prepared to develop a partnership between governments and the community (World Heritage Committee, 2013), however no update is available to date. The composition of the membership of the Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee (SBWHAC) ensures a good relationship with representatives of the local, indigenous and regional people. On 4 December 2018, following a 20-year long legal process, the Malgana Aboriginal people were formally recognised by the Federal Court of Australia as having rights to approximately 28 800 square kilometres of land and waters in the World Heritage Area around Shark Bay (National Native Title Tribunal, 2018). The Malgana have representatives on the SBWHAC. In 2024, Malgana Aboriginal Corporation and Western Australian Government signed an Indigenous Land Use Agreement that proposes the Malgana Conservation Estate which will be jointly managed by Malgana Traditional Owners and DBCA. It will comprise 183,000 hectares of new conservation areas including Yaringa and Pimbee nature reserves, Edel Land National Park and the Malgana portion of Nanga National Park. Joint management arrangements will also be extended over existing national parks including Dirk Hartog Island and Francois Peron, and conservation parks at Monkey Mia and Shell Beach (National Native Title Tribunal, 2024).
Legal framework
The relevant Western Australian legislation includes the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 which provides for the use, protection, and management of certain State lands and waters. The Australian Government Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important heritage places, including World Heritage sites. In Western Australia environmental impact assessments under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) are the main method of considering the environmental impacts of major developments which may affect World Heritage values (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
Current measures via State and Commonwealth Government legislation, referrals under the EPBC Act 1999 and accredited West Australian assessment and approvals processes via the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) are mostly adequate to safeguard the World Heritage values. Shark Bay WHP Strategic Plan, Terrestrial Reserves and Proposed Reserve Additions Management Plan, Conservation and Land Management Act (Conservation Commission of WA) and Ministerial approved management plans protect the WH values (State Party of Australia, 2023).
Current measures via State and Commonwealth Government legislation, referrals under the EPBC Act 1999 and accredited West Australian assessment and approvals processes via the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) are mostly adequate to safeguard the World Heritage values. Shark Bay WHP Strategic Plan, Terrestrial Reserves and Proposed Reserve Additions Management Plan, Conservation and Land Management Act (Conservation Commission of WA) and Ministerial approved management plans protect the WH values (State Party of Australia, 2023).
Governance arrangements
The property has an effective governance arrangement through a new Indigenous Land Use Agreement which establishes joint management over a large portion of the property, the Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, membership of the Australian World Heritage Advisory Committee and interagency arrangements between the Australian and West Australian governments. Additionally, the engagement of an Executive Officer to coordinate the governance arrangement is appropriate. However, according to the most recent periodic report, more regular engagement between State Government and Australian Government agencies responsible for management of WH property, plus World Heritage advisory committees is necessary (State Party of Australia, 2023)
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
Regional/local planning recognises World Heritage Area status and management (IUCN Consultation, 2020a). Integration at the Australian Government level is via the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Australian World Heritage Advisory Committee (AWHAC).
Boundaries
Since inscription, Francois Peron National Park (53,145 hectares), Shell Beach Conservation Park (403 hectares), Monkey Mia Reserve (446 hectares), Monkey Mia Conservation Park (5 hectares), Zuytdorp Nature Reserve (additional 65,058 hectares), Nanga pastoral lease (176,464 hectares), part Tamala pastoral lease (56,260 hectares), South Peron (49,481 hectares), part Carrarang pastoral lease (19,445 hectares), Bernier, Dorre and Koks Islands Nature Reserves (9,781 hectares) and Dirk Hartog Island National Park (62,664 hectares) have been added to the conservation estate. With the designation of the Shark Bay Marine Park (748,735 hectares) in 1990, incorporating the Hamelin Pool Marine Nature Reserve (132,000 hectares), the total formal conservation area of the World Heritage property is approximately 1.24 million hectares. In addition, the coastal portion of the Yaringa pastoral lease (19,415 hectares), part of Nerren Nerren pastoral lease (104,293 hectares) and part of Murchison House pastoral lease (37,673 hectares) have been added as a buffer (World Heritage Committee, 2013). The Shark Bay Marine Park (Commonwealth waters) is now under active management and provides for a buffer on the north-western boundary (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Relevant landowners are aware that World Heritage property buffer zones are in place to enhance protection of the World Heritage values. However, it is unlikely the buffer zones and their purpose is known by the local community of Shark Bay (State Party of Australia, 2023).
Overlapping international designations
N/A
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
No recent Decisions have been taken by the World Heritage Committee on this site.
Climate action
CSIRO et al. (2022) list a number of climate change risks, namely higher seawater temperatures, increased frequency and severity of marine heatwaves, sea level rise, more frequent severe droughts, ocean acidification and more intense storms and cyclone activity. Extensive research and planning have been conducted across the property to identify and commence climate actions (e.g. researching the impact of marine heatwaves on seagrass to develop strategies to deal with the impact of climate change and extreme weather events, and to highlight the importance of seagrass beyond its importance to the marine ecosystem) nonetheless the risks remain high and additional climate actions will need to be prioritised, including for the terrestrial environment. The Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee has organised Climate Change vulnerability workshops and is currently compiling a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy/Action Plan (State Party of Australia, 2023), which will be essential to prioritise management measures and enhance site-level and regional coordination.
Management plan and overall management system
The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) is the lead Western Australian Government agency responsible for the management of the property. The Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee is in place and provides advice to the State and Commonwealth Governments with regard to the management of the property, research priorities and scientific basis of management principles and practices (IUCN Consultation, 2017). The Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee replaced the two previous Scientific Advisory and Community Consultative Committees with a committee consisting of community, scientific and Indigenous representatives (World Heritage Committee, 2013). Several plans are in place, including Shark Bay Terrestrial Reserves and Proposed Reserve Additions (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2012), the Shark Bay Marine Reserves Management Plan 1996-2006, Shire of Shark Bay Town Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Shark Bay World Heritage Property Strategic Plan 2008-2020, which provides direction for the management of resources across the Property (DEC, 2012). However, the plan needs to be updated. Shark Bay has attracted international and domestic teams of scientists for nearly four decades and advisory committees have not taken full advantage of and supported this resource (IUCN Consultation, 2020b). Commercial operators should also be included in planning so that all stakeholders are knowledgeable and preferably in agreement. A review of the outdated Strategic Plan could provide opportunities to address these gaps. A joint management plan will be developed by Malgana and DBCA in accordance with the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (CALM Act). The plan will set out long-term management objectives and strategies to protect the cultural, natural, visitor use, community and economic values of the Malgana Conservation Estate. It will replace the Shark Bay Terrestrial Reserves and Proposed Reserve Additions Management Plan 2012.
Law enforcement
Enforcement of the relevant legislation is considered effective although there are some deficiencies related to capacity and funding, especially regarding capacity limitations in the marine areas (State Party of Australia, 2023; IUCN Consultation, 2025).
Sustainable finance
The Australian Government currently provides a budget of AUD $140,000 per annum for five years from July 2023 for employment of a Project/Executive Officer and the conduct of the World Heritage Advisory Committee. All other funding for the site is via Western Australian Government agencies, or Non Government Organisations (IUCN Consultation, 2024). Although the State Government funds the local Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Parks and Wildlife Service to conduct ongoing programs which also contribute to maintaining the World Heritage values, no funds are available for specific World Heritage projects (State Party of Australia, 2023). Although, World Heritage specific project funding is available through Australian Government grant funding on a competitive basis and not guaranteed.
Staff capacity, training and development
Staff training and development is conducted by the Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions when required (IUCN Consultation, 2020a). Staff training and development have improved in recent years. There are authorised wildlife officers in Shark Bay with other staff trained in wildlife management. As such, DBCA staff can respond to compliance and enforcement matters under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (IUCN Consultation, 2020b).
Education and interpretation programmes
Acceptable levels of interpretive materials are found in visitor nodes across the property with interpretation materials updated to reflect recent research findings (IUCN Consultation, 2020a). Publicly available information is enhanced by the DBCA managed website Shark Bay World Heritage (https://www.sharkbay.org/). Occasional engagement with local primary school children occurs, but there is no formal awareness program in place for young people (State Party of Australia, 2023). There could be much stronger education and interpretation for visitors given the global conservation significance of Shark Bay and its importance for science and the wealth of scientific knowledge and published materials (IUCN Consultation, 2020b).
Tourism and visitation management
The Shark Bay Terrestrial Reserves and Proposed Reserve Additions Management Plan 2012 and the Shark Bay World Heritage Property Strategic Plan 2008-2020 both address visitor access issues with the objective of providing a range of access types and tourism opportunities that do not adversely impact on key values of the property (Dept. of Environment and Conservation, 2008, 2012). However, as the Strategic Plan is now outdated, a review is urgently needed. To develop and implement programs for tour operators and guides and provide them with current information is also a Plan action, as is an annual audit of tourism promotion materials to ensure accuracy and appropriate behaviour within the Property by visitors (State Party of Australia, 2023). As visitation increases so to does the impact on fish stocks and sustainable recreational fishing managed through bag limits (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 2023).
Most visitors come to Shark Bay to see the Monkey Mia dolphins and the local economy depends on this (Stoeckl et al., 2005). Yet, there are limited educational opportunities at Monkey Mia for tourists, despite the fact that most of what is known about wild dolphins comes from research in Shark Bay. The Shark Bay World Heritage Discovery & Visitor Centre at Denham provides displays on the history of the area, including material on the World Heritage property. Data suggest around a 10% increase in visitation every 5 years. Visitation numbers remained steady throughout Covid period between 2019-2021 with an initial drop but a quick recovery due to local travellers. Research by Smith et al (2006) found only 33% of visitors had Monkey Mia as the main purpose of their visit to Shark Bay.
Most visitors come to Shark Bay to see the Monkey Mia dolphins and the local economy depends on this (Stoeckl et al., 2005). Yet, there are limited educational opportunities at Monkey Mia for tourists, despite the fact that most of what is known about wild dolphins comes from research in Shark Bay. The Shark Bay World Heritage Discovery & Visitor Centre at Denham provides displays on the history of the area, including material on the World Heritage property. Data suggest around a 10% increase in visitation every 5 years. Visitation numbers remained steady throughout Covid period between 2019-2021 with an initial drop but a quick recovery due to local travellers. Research by Smith et al (2006) found only 33% of visitors had Monkey Mia as the main purpose of their visit to Shark Bay.
Sustainable use
For the most part, acceptable levels of usage are in place (Suosaari et al., 2016) - mostly in relation to tourism activities. This continues to be the case and the sustainable use benefits from the remoteness of the site. However, recently concerns over commercial fishing pressures have been raised and according to Tweedley et al. (2023), there are some deficiencies in management that need to be addressed, especially as the fishing pressure has been increasing (State Party of Australia, 2023).
Monitoring
Some effective monitoring of Shark Bay is in place for the marine reserves (Suosaari et al., 2016). Dugong abundance and populations surveys are conducted every five years as well as and various dolphin research projects. Coral, fish, seagrass, mangroves, loggerhead turtles and sea water temperature are routinely monitored by DBCA (IUCN Consultation 2024). The loggerhead turtle monitoring program on Dirk Hartog Island has been running for over 30 years. A systemic monitoring program is identified as a gap in A Science Plan for Shark Bay (Gathaagudu) developed from comprehensive stakeholder engagement (Shaw and Sutton, 2023). The science plan’s development provides a foundation for the development of a systematic monitoring program, beyond the existing programs already conducted by DBCA.
For the terrestrial environment the Shark Bay Terrestrial Reserves and Proposed Reserve Additions management plan highlights monitoring priorities. The focus for monitoring is outlined in the plan’s performance assessment process. The protection of key values within the planning area are associated with key performance indicators (KPI) with a performance measure, target and reporting requirement, which guides monitoring within the planning area.
For the terrestrial environment the Shark Bay Terrestrial Reserves and Proposed Reserve Additions management plan highlights monitoring priorities. The focus for monitoring is outlined in the plan’s performance assessment process. The protection of key values within the planning area are associated with key performance indicators (KPI) with a performance measure, target and reporting requirement, which guides monitoring within the planning area.
Research
High levels of research have been taking place in Shark Bay, with the profile of Shark Bay substantially raised by international research, however there is a strong focus on the marine environment and less efforts are invested in the terrestrial environment. In addition to a dedicated community of Australian scientists, there have been long-term research projects underway even before Shark Bay achieved World Heritage status. There are over 800 scientific papers published (Western Australian Marine Science Institution database). New scientific articles continue to be published on stromatolites and microbial communities (e.g., Babilonia et al., 2018; Collins and Jahnert, 2014; Suosaari et al., 2016; White et al., 2018; Reid et al., 2024; Vitek et al., 2023); on seagrasses (e.g., Nowicki et al., 2017; Kendrick et al., 2019; Strydom et al., 2020, Sinclair et al., 2020); and climate change (e.g., Arias-Ortiz et al., 2018; Mueller et al., 2018; NESP, 2018; Rahayu et al., 2023; Losciale et al., 2024). Nevertheless, further research efforts in particular for the terrestrial environment are necessary, especially to better understand the impacts of climate change.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
With the exception of the impacts of climate change (e.g., extreme heat wave events in the marine environment, associated biodiversity loss, increasing ocean acidification, rising sea levels, and flooding), the site is not subject to significant threats originating from outside its boundaries – due in large part to its inaccessibility and the appropriateness of its boundaries. However, there is potential for impact from riverine inputs from increasingly intense storms and there is no coordinated management of surrounding pastoral leases to address sediment and nutrient inputs from riverine flooding.
The Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee (SBWHAC) has identified the vulnerability of the site in response to future climate change as being a significant issue (NESP, 2018; Fraser et al., 2019). In a 2018 assessment led by the SBWHAC, the Shark Bay World Heritage Area was awarded a 'HIGH' Climate-change Vulnerability Index (CVI) score on account of potential climate stressors, including extreme marine heat events, storm intensity and frequency, and air temperature change (NESP, 2018). Additionally, CSIRO et al (2022) found Shark Bay is at risk of higher seawater temperatures, increased frequency and severity of marine heatwaves, sea level rise, more frequent severe droughts, ocean acidification and more intense storms and cyclone activity. Furthermore, there is no legal framework in the buffer zone for maintaining the OUV including conditions of Authenticity and/or Integrity of the World Heritage property (State Party of Australia, 2023).
The Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee (SBWHAC) has identified the vulnerability of the site in response to future climate change as being a significant issue (NESP, 2018; Fraser et al., 2019). In a 2018 assessment led by the SBWHAC, the Shark Bay World Heritage Area was awarded a 'HIGH' Climate-change Vulnerability Index (CVI) score on account of potential climate stressors, including extreme marine heat events, storm intensity and frequency, and air temperature change (NESP, 2018). Additionally, CSIRO et al (2022) found Shark Bay is at risk of higher seawater temperatures, increased frequency and severity of marine heatwaves, sea level rise, more frequent severe droughts, ocean acidification and more intense storms and cyclone activity. Furthermore, there is no legal framework in the buffer zone for maintaining the OUV including conditions of Authenticity and/or Integrity of the World Heritage property (State Party of Australia, 2023).
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
Due to its remoteness and the size of the property the site is not subject to significant internal threats. The intergovernmental co-ordination across the property, which is coordinated by the Executive Officer is a significant contributor to the overall management effectiveness of the site. The most present day-to-day management threats, tourism and recreation pressures are appropriately governed. The threat of climate change is actively managed within the property’s management system, although updated to the Strategic Plan and additional research on potential climate change impacts, especially in the terrestrial component would be desirable. Sound legal and governance frameworks oversight the property's management.
The protection and management of the site is mostly effective. Management is supported by the Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee and is based on a number of management and strategic plans. Key issues and threats within control appear to be adequately addressed; however, efforts in some areas need to be increased, for example with regards to invasive species eradication programmes. Climate change is recognised as a significant major potential threat to the site, and is the focus of recent and ongoing work by the Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, although further research is needed in the terrestrial environment. It has been noted that despite Shark Bay being declared as being in the highest category of vulnerability to future climate change, relatively little media attention and research funding has been directed to this World Heritage site. Researchers from the University of Western Australia, James Cook University and the University of New South Wales have stated that "safeguarding Shark Bay from climate change requires a coordinated research and management effort from government, local industry, academic institutions, not-for-profits and local Indigenous groups – before any irreversible ecosystem tipping points are reached". A Science Plan for Shark Bay (Gathaagudu) developed with comprehensive stakeholder engagement enhances the pathway to building resilience to climate change. Other key areas in need of improvement include the updating of the Strategic Plan and the increase in staff capacity and enforcement to address increasing fishing pressure. While the Shark Bay World Heritage Property Strategic Plan 2008–2020 and the Shark Bay Marine Reserves Management Plan 1996–2006 remain the current guiding documents, they are both well beyond their original time frames. In the absence of updated strategies, they continue to serve as the primary frameworks for management, yet there is an increasing need for a review to ensure alignment with contemporary conservation priorities, including addressing the impacts of climate change, invasive species, salt mining, tourism and recreational fishing.
Most diverse and abundant examples of stromatolites – the oldest form of life on Earth
Low Concern
Trend
Stable
These structures are in a good state and largely free of damage. Stromatolites are largely stable geological structures, with many more subtidal habitats than were listed in the nomination document (World Heritage Committee, 2013). Sediment flows in 2011 were of concern (La Niña event) with increased sediment runoff due to extreme rainfall and overgrazing in the surrounding catchments (MPRA, 2010). Concerns about ocean acidification are largely beyond the scope of management, but Shark Bay will represent a stable natural laboratory for comparative purposes, strengthening its significance (MPRA, 2010).
One of the world’s best examples of a living analogue for the study of the nature and evolution of the earth’s biosphere up until the early Cambrian
Low Concern
Trend
Stable
Stromatolites continue to be in a good state and largely free of damage. Stromatolites are largely stable geological structures, with many more subtidal habitats than were listed in the nomination document (Cowell, 2013). Sediment flows in 2011 (MPRA, 2010) were of concern (La Niña events) with increased sediment runoff due to overgrazing in the surrounding catchments. Concerns about ocean acidification are largely beyond the scope of management, but Shark Bay will represent a stable natural laboratory for comparative purposes, strengthening its significance (MPRA, 2010).
Seagrass banks of great geological interest
Critical
Trend
Deteriorating
The La Niña event in 2011 raised temperatures and increased sediment run-off resulting in a reduction in seagrass leaf density and cover (McCluskey, 2008), especially at the mouth of the Wooramel delta. Risks of increasing frequency of such events with changes in global climate are projected for the future. The 2011 marine heatwave destroyed 1,310 square kilometres of seagrass (29% of the total coverage) (Arias-Ortiz, 2018, Strydom et al., 2020). As a result, "many areas previously covered with large, temperate seagrasses are now bare, or have been colonised by small, tropical seagrasses, which do not provide the same habitat for animals" (Fraser et al., 2019; Kendrick et al., 2019). Recovery has been slow with only an increase of 120 km2 of seagrass between 2014 - 2016, with the species P. australis showing greater resistance to the MHW compared to A. antarctica (Strydom et al., 2020). Extent recovered in some areas in 2020, however the composition of change is more sparse meadows (those that are less than 40% cover, compared to dense meadows, which are more than 40% cover – the latter dominated the system before the MHW) (DBCA seagrass long-term monitoring program, unpublished data). Freycinet Basin was particularly unaffected by the marine heatwave and therefore remains important for resilience against future climate impacts (Strydom et al., 2020).
Between late 2024 and early 2025, Shark Bay experienced prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies, with temperatures exceeding 31.8°C and Degree Heating Weeks (DHW) reaching 29.1 according to the NOAA regional coral watch ocean temperature model. These indicators exceed those recorded during the 2010–2011 marine heatwave, which led to the loss of over 1,000 km² of seagrass meadows and had long-term consequences for the bay’s biodiversity and ecological function.
While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later this year. This delay in visible ecological response is consistent with what was observed following the 2010–2011 event, where the scale of damage only became fully apparent over time. Unlike areas such as the Ningaloo Coast, where coral bleaching is highly visible, the unique ecology of Shark Bay means the consequences may manifest more gradually, yet potentially with equal or greater long-term significance (Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, 2025).
Between late 2024 and early 2025, Shark Bay experienced prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies, with temperatures exceeding 31.8°C and Degree Heating Weeks (DHW) reaching 29.1 according to the NOAA regional coral watch ocean temperature model. These indicators exceed those recorded during the 2010–2011 marine heatwave, which led to the loss of over 1,000 km² of seagrass meadows and had long-term consequences for the bay’s biodiversity and ecological function.
While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later this year. This delay in visible ecological response is consistent with what was observed following the 2010–2011 event, where the scale of damage only became fully apparent over time. Unlike areas such as the Ningaloo Coast, where coral bleaching is highly visible, the unique ecology of Shark Bay means the consequences may manifest more gradually, yet potentially with equal or greater long-term significance (Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, 2025).
Outstanding examples of processes of biological and geomorphic evolution taking place in a largely unmodified environment
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The site’s internationally and nationally important biodiversity values, which are more sensitive to anthropogenic impacts, are affected mainly by low threats (Fourqurean et al., 2012). The exception may be the seagrass banks which suffered a large scale dieback and defoliation during the summer of 2010/11 as a result of a marine heatwave event. Furthermore, the coral communities of Bernier, Dorre and South Passage were also significantly impacted by this event. Coral was formally the dominant habitat on nearshore waters on the western side of Bernier and Dorre. Methods to restore the meadows are being explored (IUCN Consultation, 2017) and have resulted in an indigenous NESP program where Malgana indigenous rangers are initiating a seagrass restoration program (Sinclair et al., 2020). The dieback was estimated to be very significant in several regions of Shark Bay. This reduction in habitat quality resulted in impact on the entire ecosystem, including a decline in the health status of largely herbivorous green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the 2 years following the heat wave (Thomson et al., 2014) and losses in seasnake and dolphin populations (Kendrick et al., 2019). Two years after the event, leaf biomass showed some recovery, however below ground mass decreased (NESP, 2018). By 2016 some seagrass meadow recovery was observed (Strydom et al., 2020), along with increases in shoot density in the seagrass Posidonia australis but not Amphibolis antarctica (Kendrick et al., 2019). After seven years, only part of the ecosystem showed good signs of recovery (Nowicki et al., 2017). Recovery has been slow with only an increase of 120 km2 of seagrass between 2014 - 2016, with the species P. australis showing greater resistance to the MHW compared to A. antarctica (Strydom et al., 2020). Extent recovered in some areas in 2020, however the composition of change is more sparse meadows (those that are less than 40% cover, compared to dense meadows, which are more than 40% cover – the latter dominated the system before the MHW) (DBCA seagrass long-term monitoring program, unpublished data).
Between late 2024 and early 2025, Shark Bay experienced prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies. While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later this year (Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, 2025).
Between late 2024 and early 2025, Shark Bay experienced prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies. While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later this year (Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, 2025).
A range for many globally threatened species of terrestrial plants and animals
Low Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The isolation of fauna habitats on islands and peninsulas increase the likelihood of survival of species, such as the Banded Hare Wallaby, Rufous Hare Wallaby, Shark Bay Bandicoot, and the Bilby as well as the Shark Bay Mouse, and the Bernier Island subspecies of Ash-grey mouse (Fraser et al., 2014). Reserves are in generally good to excellent condition (Fraser et al., 2014, Jahnert et al., 2012) and populations are likely to be improving due to Dirk Hartog Island reintroductions (IUCN Consultation, 2024). However, drought die off in 2023/24 caused significant areas of death of vegetation throughout the SBWHA. Severity varies and is being mapped by remote sensing including on ground verification (IUCN Consultation, 2024). The extent of drought die off of terrestrial vegetation indicates the trend is not stable at least in the short term. Further monitoring is required to confirm this.
Important marine habitats and species
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
At this time there is a distinct difference in the conservation status of species between the marine and terrestrial environments. Marine species (e.g., seagrasses, dugongs, and turtles) are all under Western Australian legislation for the protection of wildlife, as well as Marine Park status (Suosaari et al., 2016), diminishing the risks to World Heritage values. Populations of these species were impacted by the 2011 marine heatwave that destroyed 25% of the region's seagrass coverage, which "in turn harmed endangered species such as turtles, and contributed to the temporary closure of the commercial crab and scallop fisheries" (Fraser et al., 2019). Recovery of seagrass has been slow (Strydom et al., 2020). Extent recovered in some areas in 2020, however the composition of change is more sparse meadows (those that are less than 40% cover, compared to dense meadows, which are more than 40% cover – the latter dominated the system before the MHW) (DBCA seagrass long-term monitoring program, unpublished data). While a much lower proportion of cover, coral communities have also been impacted with some of the areas e.g. Bernier, Dorre and parts of south passage experiencing >90% coral bleaching and subsequent mortality during the same event.
Between late 2024 and early 2025, Shark Bay experienced prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies, with temperatures exceeding 31.8°C and Degree Heating Weeks (DHW) reaching 29.1 according to the NOAA regional coral watch ocean temperature model. These indicators exceed those recorded during the 2010–2011 marine heatwave, which led to the loss of over 1,000 km² of seagrass meadows and had long-term consequences for the bay’s biodiversity and ecological function.
While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later this year. This delay in visible ecological response is consistent with what was observed following the 2010–2011 event, where the scale of damage only became fully apparent over time. Unlike areas such as the Ningaloo Coast, where coral bleaching is highly visible, the unique ecology of Shark Bay means the consequences may manifest more gradually, yet potentially with equal or greater long-term significance (Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, 2025).
Between late 2024 and early 2025, Shark Bay experienced prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies, with temperatures exceeding 31.8°C and Degree Heating Weeks (DHW) reaching 29.1 according to the NOAA regional coral watch ocean temperature model. These indicators exceed those recorded during the 2010–2011 marine heatwave, which led to the loss of over 1,000 km² of seagrass meadows and had long-term consequences for the bay’s biodiversity and ecological function.
While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later this year. This delay in visible ecological response is consistent with what was observed following the 2010–2011 event, where the scale of damage only became fully apparent over time. Unlike areas such as the Ningaloo Coast, where coral bleaching is highly visible, the unique ecology of Shark Bay means the consequences may manifest more gradually, yet potentially with equal or greater long-term significance (Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee, 2025).
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Deteriorating
The site provides exceptional living examples of the earliest life forms on Earth in living stromatolites and microbialites, in a carbonate landscape and its hypersaline environments. These structures are in a good state and largely free of damage, however are becoming increasingly threatened by climate change as stromatolite growth is vulnerable to rising sea level and extreme climate events. Geographical isolation has provided areas where environmental circumstances have enabled species to survive after extinction in surrounding areas. The largest seagrass banks in the world also provide habitats for charismatic megafauna, especially dugongs, dolphins, turtles and sharks, as well as diverse genotypes in fish populations, sustainably managed. However, the seagrasses suffered a large scale dieback and defoliation during the summer of 2010/11 as a result of a marine heatwave event. For example, approximately 60,000ha of the Wooramel seagrass bed remained in 2016, whereas it was 81,000 ha just before the 2010/11 heatwave and 103,000 ha at the time of inscription in 1991. This might result in cascade effects on the entire ecosystem. Recovery of seagrass has been slow. Extent recovered in some areas in 2020, however the composition of change is more sparse meadows (those that are less than 40% cover, compared to dense meadows, which are more than 40% cover). Furthermore, the recent and prolonged and extreme sea surface temperature anomalies are of high concern. While early signs of stress are already emerging in key marine habitats—including coral communities—the full extent of the impact may not be evident until later in 2025. The unique ecology of Shark Bay means the consequences may manifest more gradually, yet potentially with high long-term significance. On land, the site includes transition zones in the flora, and examples of speciation, as well as high numbers of endemic species. The isolation of fauna habitats on islands and peninsulas increase the likelihood of survival of marsupial and other species and overall the values of the site associated with its terrestrial areas are generally considered in good to excellent condition. Nevertheless, the drought in 2023/2024 has caused vegetation death throughout the property. Overall, the status of the values is assessed as of high concern due to the recent marine heatwave, drought impacts and a deteriorating trend for many values, particularly in the marine environment. Potential impacts of climate change on the site's values are of concern, and the site's vulnerability to future climate change has been identified as being a significant issue.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
Low Concern
Stable
There are 40 species of waterbirds that are migratory and resident, 17 of these migratory waterbirds are listed under International agreements. In total there are 83 bird species (terrestrial and waterbirds) found within Shark Bay (Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia). In 2014, an IUCN Consultation called for additional research in this field and in 2024 DBCA advised that in partnership with Birdlife Australia the site participated in the East Asian-Australian Flyway Census carried out in 2022, 2023, 2024. The surveys confirmed that the Shark Bay region provides significant Western Australian feeding grounds for migratory shorebirds using the flyway. Significant counts of critically endangered species such as the Curlew Sandpiper and Eastern Curlew, and the Endangered Red Knot and Great Knot, have been made, along with observations of up to fifteen other migratory bird species (IUCN consultation, 2024).
Additional information
Carbon sequestration
The blue carbon stored as soil carbon under Shark Bay’s seagrass meadows is recognised on a global scale as a carbon hot spot (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
The seagrass banks suffered a large scale dieback and defoliation during the summer of 2010/11 as a result of a marine heatwave event. The dieback was estimated to be very significant in several regions of Shark Bay. Two years after the event, leaf biomass showed some recovery, however below ground mass decreased (NESP, 2018). Longer-term recovery has been minimal (Strydom et al., 2020). Extent recovered in some areas in 2020, however the composition of change is more sparse meadows (those that are less than 40% cover, compared to dense meadows, which are more than 40% cover – the latter dominated the system before the MHW) (DBCA seagrass long-term monitoring program, unpublished data).
Importance for research
The site is an important area for research, both marine and terrestrial, as well as archaeological, but the wealth of research and its findings can be better communicated locally, nationally and internationally (IUCN Consultation, 2020b).
The Western Australian Marine Science Institution has compiled a Shark Bay Marine Science Plan and a research database that remains unfunded.
Sacred natural sites or landscapes
Sacred Aboriginal Heritage Sites are located within the World Heritage site.
Fishing areas and conservation of fish stocks
The World Heritage site is contributing to maintaining fish productivity by providing breeding, spawning and feeding areas.
There is evidence of some fisheries (scallop) having been impacted by the 2010/2011 heatwave (Mueller et al., 2018). Also Blue Swimmer crab fishery collapsed immediately after the 2011 extreme Marine Heat Wave (Caputi et al. 2019).
Outdoor recreation and tourism
Due to Shark Bay’s unique natural assets and pristine environment, it is increasingly becoming an important tourism destination.
Tourism-related income
The Shark Bay WHA has seen an 8% increase in visitation between 2020-21 to 2023-24 which is less than the statewide change of 12% over that time period. While visitor numbers increased substantially in 2020 following the closure of the Western Australian border due to the Covid-19 pandemic (IUCN Consultation, 2020), most parks within the Shark Bay property have seen nil or modest growth of between 0% and 6% in visitation during the period 2020-21 to 2023-24 (source: DBCA).The Hamelin Pool Marine Nature Reserve saw a 7% decrease in visitation over that period (source: DBCA). In 2023-24, Shell Beach saw an increase in visitation of 26% over the previous year due to more bus based visitation (source: DBCA).
The Shark Bay World Heritage site provides a wide range of ecological functions and ecosystem services benefits. Benefits include: wildlife protection and carbon sequestration, fishing and conservation of fish stocks, outdoor recreation and tourism, employment, scientific research, and protection of cultural heritage values. Breeding conservation programs that are bringing back native species that have gone extinct on the mainland of Australia are a key benefit, further the conservation program are valued lessons for other conservation programs.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Parks and Wildlife Service | Plant and animal research. Dirk Hartog Island Ecological Restoration Project – eradication of feral animals and pastoral herbivores and reintroduction of native mammals. |
www.dbca.wa.gov.au
|
| 2 | Research organisations, e.g. UWA, CSIRO, WAMSI, Curtin University, Florida International University | Ecosystem processes Shark research. Bottlenose dolphin research projects. Tiger Shark, turtle and dugong research. Seagrass ecology and restoration. Seagrass genetics and adaptation to extreme environments. Stromatolite research. |
https://www.seagrassresearch.net/ https://mikeheithaus.com/research/shark-bay-ecosystem-research-
|
| 3 | George Town University | The Shark Bay Dolphin Research Project was initiated in 1984 and represents the most comprehensive study of wild dolphins worldwide. The team has published hundreds of papers and several books focusing on >1800 dolphins studied over the years from birth to death. Dolphin behavior, genetics, ecology, social structure, reproduction, life histories and human impacts on the dolphins have been studied. As most visitors come to Shark Bay to see the Monkey Mia dolphins, this research has provided critical conservation messages to the public and supported DBCA efforts to manage the provisioned dolphins. Over 2 dozen wildlife documentaries have focused on the dolphin research and aired in >80 countries. |
https://dolphins.georgetown.domains/category/section/our-people
|
| 4 | Australian Wildlife Conservancy | Mammal re-introductions |
https://www.australianwildlife.org/shark-bay-translocations-a-boost-for-threatened-mammals-at-faure-island-and-mt-gibson/
|
| 5 | Western Australian Marine Science Institution (WAMSI) | A Science Plan for Shark Bay (Gathaagudu) developed from comprehensive stakeholder engagement |
https://wamsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/WAMSI-Shark-Bay-Science-Plan_AP.pdf
|
| 6 | Monkey Mia Yacht Charters | A team collects seagrass seedlings, replanting them in snaggers and depositing them on the sea floor to help restore underwater meadows. |
https://www.sharkbayseagrassrestoration.com.au/en-au
|
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Arias-Ortiz, A., Serrano, O., Masqué, P., Lavery, P. S., Mueller, U., Kendrick, G. A., ... & Mateo, M. A. (2018). A marine heatwave drives massive losses from the world’s largest seagrass carbon stocks. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 338–346.
|
| 2 |
CSIRO, Managers of World Heritage Properties in Australia, and Indigenous Reference Group. (2022) The implications of climate change for World Heritage properties in Australia: assessment of impacts and vulnerabilities. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra. CC BY 4.0. Available at: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/imp…
|
| 3 |
Caputi, N., Kangas, M. I., Chandrapavan, A., Hart, A., Feng, M., Marin, M., & de Lestang, S. (2019). Factors affecting the recovery of invertebrate stocks from the 2011 Western Australian extreme marine heatwave. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 484. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00484
|
| 4 |
Cowell, C. (2013). Shark Bay World Heritage Threats and Risks Analysis. Denham, Western Australia: Department of Parks and Wildlife.
|
| 5 |
Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (n.d.). Minedex - Shark Bay Gypsum (J01094). Projects. Available at: https://minedex.dmirs.wa.gov.au/Web/projects/details/0286b9…
|
| 6 |
Department of Primary Industries and Reginal Development (2023). Shark Bay pink snapper. Government of Western Australia. Available at: https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/fishing-and-aquaculture/recreati…
|
| 7 |
Edgeloe, J. M., Severn-Ellis, A. A., Bayer, P. E., Mehravi, S., Breed, M. F., Krauss, S. L., ... & Sinclair, E. A. (2022). Extensive polyploid clonality was a successful strategy for seagrass to expand into a newly submerged environment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289(1976), 20220538.
|
| 8 |
Fourqurean, J. W., Duarte, C. M., Kennedy, H., Marba`, N., Holmer, M., Mateo, M. A., Apostolaki, E. T., Kendrick, G. A., Krause-Jensen, D., McGlathery, K. J., & Serrano, O. (2012). Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. Nature Geoscience, 5, 505–509.
|
| 9 |
Fourqurean, W., Kendrick, G. A., Jackson, G., Hallac, D., & Friedman, D. (2012). Science for the management of subtropical embayments: examples from Shark Bay and Florida Bay. Marine and Freshwater Research, 63(11), 941-1199.
|
| 10 |
Fraser, M. W., Kendrick, G. A., Statton, J., Hovey, R. K., Zavala‐Perez, A., & Walker, D. I. (2014). Extreme climate events lower resilience of foundation seagrass at edge of biogeographical range. Journal of Ecology, 102(6), 1528-1536.
|
| 11 |
Fraser, M., Sequeira, A., Burns, B.P., Walker, D., Day, J.C. and Heron, S. (2019). Shark Bay: A World Heritage Site at catastrophic risk. UNSW Sydney. Published online 8 February 2019. Available at: https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/02/shark-bay--a-…
|
| 12 |
IUCN Consultation (2024). Confidential consultation on the 2020 IUCN World Heritage Outlook site assessment for Shark Bay, Western Australia World Heritage site.
|
| 13 |
Jahnert, R. J., & Collins, L. B. (2012). Characteristics, distribution and morphogenesis of subtidal microbial systems in Shark Bay, Australia. Marine Geology, 303, 115-136.
|
| 14 |
Kendrick, G.A., Nowicki, R., Olsen, Y.S., Strydom, S., Fraser, M.W., Sinclair, E.A., Statton, J., Hovey, R.K., Thomson, J.A., Burkholder, D., McMahon, K., Kilminster, K., Hetzel, Y., Fourqurean, J.W., Heithaus, M., Orth, R.J. (2019). A systematic review of how multiple stressors from an extreme event drove ecosystem-wide loss of resilience in an iconic seagrass community. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 455. doi 10.3389/fmars.2019.00455
|
| 15 |
MPRA (2010). Report on Ten-year Audit and Review Shark Bay Marine Reserves Management Plan 1996-2006. [online] Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. Available at: https://www.conservation.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/4.3… [Accessed 1 December 2020].
|
| 16 |
NESP Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub. (2018). Climate change and the Shark Bay World Heritage Area: foundations for a climate change adaptation strategy and action plan, Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub Report No. 7, NESP Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub, Australia.
|
| 17 |
National Native Title Tribunal (2024). WI2024/008 - Malgana Aboriginal Corporation Conservation Estate ILUA. Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreement Details. Available at: https://www.nntt.gov.au/searchRegApps/NativeTitleRegisters/…
|
| 18 |
Nowicki, R. J., Thomson, J. A., Burkholder, D. A., Fourqurean, J. W., & Heithaus, M. R. (2017). Predicting seagrass recovery times and their implications following an extreme climate event. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 567, 79-93.
|
| 19 |
Prendergast, J., Lewis, C. (2023). Shark Bay locals fear influx of fishers to World Heritage site will harm fish stocks. ABC News. Published online 13 May 2023. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-13/fears-for-fish-in-sh…
|
| 20 |
Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee (2025). Urgent concerns regarding marine heatwave impacts on Shark Bay World Heritage Area. Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee. The Chair c/o Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.
|
| 21 |
Sinclair, E., Kendrick, G. and Kendrick, A. (2020). Wetlands Australia 32: Working together to assist seagrass recovery at Shark Bay. [online] Available at: <http://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/w…; [Accessed 10 June 2020].
|
| 22 |
Smith, A., Newsome, D., Lee, D., and Stoeckl, N. (2006) The role of wildlife icons as major tourist attractions : case studies : Monkey Mia dolphins and Hervey Bay whale watching. CRC for Sustainable Tourism
|
| 23 |
State Party of Australia (2023). Periodic Reporting Cycle 3, Section II: Shark Bay, Western Australia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/578/documents/
|
| 24 |
Stoeckl, N., Smith, A., Newsome, D., & Lee, D. (2005). Regional economic dependence on iconic wildlife tourism: Case studies of Monkey Mia and Hervey Bay. Journal of Tourism Studies, 16, 69–81.
|
| 25 |
Strydom, S., Murray, K., Wilson, S., Huntley, B., Rule, M., Heithaus, M. Bessey, C., Kendrick, G.A., Burkholder, D., Holmes, T., Fraser, M.W., Zdunic, K. (2020). Too hot to handle: unprecedented seagrass death driven by marine heatwave in a World Heritage Area. Global Change Biology, 26, 3525–3538. <https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15065>; [Accessed 10 June 2020].
|
| 26 |
Suosaari, E. P., Pamela Reid, R., Abreu Araujo, T. A., Playford, P. E., Holley, D. K., Mcnamara, K. J., & Eberli, G. P. (2016). Environmental pressures influencing living stromatolites in Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay, Western Australia. Palaios, 31, 483–496.
|
| 27 |
Suosaari, E. P., Reid, R. P., Playford, P. E., Foster, J. S., Stolz, J. F., Casaburi, G., Hagan, P. D., Chirayath, V., Macintyre, I. G., Planavsky, N. J. & Eberli, G. P. (2016). New multi-scale perspectives on the stromatolites of Shark Bay, Western Australia. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–13. DOI: 10.1038/srep2055
|
| 28 |
Thomson, J. A., Burkholder, D. A., Heithaus, M. R., Fourqueran, J. W., Fraser, M. W., Statton, J., & Kendrick, G. A. (2014). Extreme temperatures, foundation species, and abrupt ecosystem change: An example from an iconic seagrass ecosystem. Global Change Biology, 21(4), 1463–1474. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12694
|
| 29 |
Tweedley, J. R., Obregón, C., Beukes, S. J., Loneragan, N. R., & Hughes, M. (2023). Selecting from the fisheries managers’ tool-box: Recreational fishers’ views of stock enhancement and other management options. Fishes, 8(9), 460.
|
| 30 |
Walker, D. I., Kendrick, G. A., & Mccomb, A. J. (1988). The distribution of seagrass species in Shark Bay, Western Australia, with notes on their ecology. Aquatic Botany, 30, 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304- 3770(88)90063-0
|
| 31 |
World Heritage Committee. (2013). Decision : 37 COM 8E Shark Bay, Western Australia. Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value. In: Decisions Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th Session (Phnom Penh, 2013). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/578/documents/ [Accessed 1 December 2020].
|