There was some controversy earlier this year around the Government's awarding of a $443 million grant to a relatively small organisation, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, to manage the health of the world's largest coral reef system.
This was apparently the largest government donation to a private foundation in Australian history, and thus it is perhaps unsurprising that the Labor party has threatened to claw back the unspent funds if they win government next year.
In response to this, the Chief Scientist of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, Peter Mumby, penned a piece on the ABC earlier in the month in which he defended the organisation, and provided some details as to how the organisation was planning to go about spending the funds:
...The $443.3m provided to the GBR Foundation is intended to pursue a range of aims:
improving the quality of freshwater reaching the reef ($201m)
reducing the impact of crown-of-thorns starfish ($58m)
engaging traditional owners and the broader community in reef conservation ($22.3m)
improving monitoring of reef health ($40m)
supporting scientific research into reef restoration, with a specific focus on tackling challenges created by climate change ($100m).
Note that first bullet point: it is interesting that the Foundation plans to allocate nearly half of the funds received on protecting the quality of water reaching the reef, and I wonder if there is any real reason as to why this company couldn't have a hand in this.
According to the Queensland Government, declining marine water quality, influenced by terrestrial runoff, is recognised as one of the most significant threats to the health of the Great Barrier Reef, as detailed in the extract below:
Nutrient losses are associated with algal blooms, micro-organisms species shifts and coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) outbreaks across the reef. The current scientific consensus is that nitrogen inputs have a higher correlation with COTS outbreaks than other nutrients such as phosphorus; however all nutrient inputs can contribute to the issue.
Early last month, Mickem posted about an interesting article from a local US new site about some filtration technology in use by farmers there involving Phoslock; I've pasted the relevant extract from the article below for convenience-
...Colin Little, agricultural program co-ordinator with the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Area (LTVCA), said his organization, local farmers and the Kent Federation of Agriculture have teamed up to test the unique phosphorous filtration system.
It features two holding tanks, a catch basin, and two automated and programmable water testing stations. After a heavy rain, the runoff flows into the first holding tank, where it is filtered through mulch and Phoslock – a patented phosphorous-locking technology. It goes into the second tank and through the same filtering process, before slowly draining into the catch basin. From there it is discharged into the municipal drain.
The water emanating from the filtration system at a media event July 26 looked quite clear in colour.
Little said the filter is designed to help achieve the goal of 40-per-cent phosphorous reduction as outlined in the Lake Erie Action Plan, a joint initiative of the Ontario and federal governments.
The pilot-project systems can test the quality of the water coming directly off the field, as well as the water heading out of the catch basin and into the drain.
“Sites across the municipality can send samples to the lab to examine the varying concentration levels after a heavy rain,” Little said.
At the time of the media event, Little said they were just beginning to receive the results, adding it was too early to make use of the numbers.
But Roesch said the preliminary figures indicate the filter is working better than expected, as it has pulled more phosphorous out of the water than what was anticipated. An added bonus is that the filter appears to also remove some of the nitrogen from the runoff as well.
So, this filtration technology involving phoslock being used in the US not only reduces phosphorous output by as much as 40%, it also reduces the level of nitrogen in the runoff.
The relevance of this is that run-off from Queensland farms is the major cause of the excess phosphorous and nitrogen that has such an adverse impact on the Great Barrier Reef.
Given this, surely the filtration technology described above could be also used by Queensland farmers operating near the Great Barrier Reef to prevent the discharge of excess nutrients?. We know that this company now has expertise not only in binding excessive phosphorous, but also nitrogen, via the application of modified zeolites, as is described on the Phoslock website.
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation have stated that they are willing to spend 200 million dollars to improve the quality of water reaching the reef, and the organisation would surely be under pressure to spend the funds, given Labor has pledged to get the money back if they win power next year.
It would seem that this company has got the technology and know-how to help with the nutrient run-off problems from farms that have had such a deleterious impact on the health of the reef.
It sounds as if the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has got more money than it knows what to do with, and is under pressure to distribute the funds to boot. Surely it would be a reasonable assumption that PET would have a pretty good chance of receiving a decent parcel of funds if they were to submit a funding application to this organisation?.
(20min delay)