Appendix B CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and ... · c. Discussion suggested that project management needed to be much tighter from start to finish. Initially CNRM experienced

Appendix B

CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and

Workshop

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop: Agenda and Introduction.

Appendix B

CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop

Project 043713: “Research to foster investor attraction for establishment of commercial aquaculture parks aligned to major saline groundwater interception schemes in South Australia”

Friday 23 May 2008, 9.45 am – 3.30 pm

South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre 2 Hamra Avenue, West Beach, Adelaide

1. Agenda 09.45 Tea and coffee available 10.00 Welcome and Introduction (Mr Ian Nightingale, Executive Director, PIRSA

Aquaculture and Mr Steven Clarke, Principal Scientist, SARDI Aquaculture)

10.10 Inland Saline Aquaculture—A National Perspective (Professor Mehdi Doroudi, Chief Scientist, SARDI Aquatic Sciences)

10.25 R & D and proof of Concept Aquaculture Production: Investigation of the use of saline groundwater from a salinity interception scheme in the Riverland, South Australia (Mr Wayne Hutchinson, Subprogram Leader, Propagation & Systems, SARDI Aquaculture)

11.25 Morning tea 11.45 The policy and regulatory framework relating to resource access and

allocation (Mr Ian Nightingale, Executive Director, PIRSA Aquaculture) 12.00 Site Optimisation using Geographic Information Systems (Mr Neil

Sandercock, PIRSA Spatial Systems) 12.15 SIS Farmed Finfish – Results of Market Research (Dr Erica Riebe,

Marketing, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of Adelaide) 12.35 Economy and Sensitivity Analysis for Salt Interception Schemes for

Aquaculture (Mr Julian Morrison, Econsearch Pty Ltd) 12.55 Lunch (50 minutes) 1.45 Workshop objectives 1.55 Break-out groups on specific designated topics 2.30 Presentations by break-out group leader 3.15 Concluding remarks 3.30 Close

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop: Agenda and Introduction.

2. Welcome and Introduction The Centre for Natural Resource Management (CNRM) and the South Australian Research Development Institute (SARDI) convened a Project Information Session and Workshop on Friday May 23rd 2008 at the South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre, West Beach, Adelaide to discuss and review Project No. 043713, entitled “Research to foster investor attraction for establishment of commercial aquaculture parks aligned to major saline groundwater interception schemes in South Australia”. Present were about 40 of the 70 persons invited to attend. These were primarily from Adelaide University; CNRM (the Board and technical working group); Department of Land Water, Biodiversity and Conservation (DLWBC); Flinders University, Murray-Darling Basin Authority; Murray-Darling Natural Resource Management Board; PIRSA Aquaculture; SARDI; SA Water; and interested aquaculture industry representatives. The Waikerie Inland Saline Aquaculture Centre (WISAC) was established in 2004 for South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) scientists to demonstrate the potential for future commercial investment in aquaculture using waste water from the inland saline interception schemes. This was done by first gathering information on the water quality of different salt interception scheme waters around Waikerie, by demonstrating the survival of a number of finfish species on a small-scale and then for the preferred species, finfish performance in large semi-intensive growout tanks. These trials identified a range of issues and research was undertaken to overcome these as well as optimise the performance of the culture system in use. To complete the project data was also collected on the quality of the discharge water and finfish produced, as well as gaining basic information on consumer acceptance and market price. A number of associated projects on site selection, marketing, and economics were also undertaken by PIRSA Aquaculture using funding from the Department of Water, Land, Biodiversity and Conservation (DWLBC). CNRM Project No. 043713 contributed to each of these projects, as well as to the development of appropriate policy and licensing mechanisms by PIRSA Aquaculture to facilitate the commercialisation of inland salt interception scheme based finfish farming. The purpose of the Project Information Session and Workshop was to disseminate the relevant technical information gained from this project, to obtain feedback on the technical work undertaken and the outcomes achieved, and to discuss potential future directions for the use of salt interception scheme waters for aquaculture related activities on a commercial scale.

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop: Workshop discussion and outcomes

3. Workshop Discussion and Outcomes Only a relatively small group of people stayed to participate in the Workshop, with the major groups represented being researchers (primarily SARDI), project managers (primarily CNRM) and a few interested South Australian aquaculture industry participants. Key topics of discussion, coordinated with CNRM prior to the Workshop, were two fold: those relating to the processes associated with the project so CNRM could learn from the experience, and those relating to future research directions. 1. The Project Management Process

a. Discussion suggested that the CNRM project application needed to better state outcomes, include a more comprehensive description of the methodology to be used, include a risk assessment section, and where involving dissimilar disciplines better define critical terms used within an application (e.g. research and development vs proof-of-concept vs pilot scale commercialisation). Such detail was considered likely to prevent future misalignment between the project managers and researchers. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) application was suggested by SARDI and others in attendance as an example of a comprehensive application.

b. Discussion suggested a need for CNRM to ensure project applications are

reviewed against relevant federal and state strategic research and development plans as part of the approval process. Again, it was highlighted that FRDC has a comprehensive system of collating such relevant information for aquatic projects.

c. Discussion suggested that project management needed to be much tighter from

start to finish. Initially CNRM experienced a significant range of problems (e.g. loss of project information, an absence of essential project management systems enabling efficient completion of contracts and milestones, and staff with sufficient interest to personally review project activity). These aspects were subsequently addressed, however, by this time SARDI was also experiencing significant problems (e.g. governance issues with the purchase of infrastructure from overseas, and timeliness associated with completion of infrastructure, milestones and reporting).

d. Discussion suggested that a project Steering Committee should be initiated where

possible to facilitate outcomes. The SA aquaculture industry representatives in attendance suggested that such involvement could have provided a more commercial focus and overcome some of the system issues that arose. It was however noted by the project team that a Steering Committee did exist, which was initiated and managed by PIRSA Aquaculture and included representation by the local council, the only known potential commercial aquaculture company at the time (not a member of the SA Inland Aquaculture Association which in fact did not have any members actively involved in the type of aquaculture being investigated), SARDI and PIRSA Aquaculture.


e. Discussion suggested that there needed to be improved recognition that proof-of-concept/demonstration scale activity was only one step in the process from research and development to commercialisation. Considerable additional funds generally need to be invested to take a concept from proof-of-concept to commercialisation and the establishment of a significant industry. CNRM’s investment in proof-of-concept scale research and development activities and the SA Government “case management” of the broader project topic were both commended as steps in the right direction, which are only rarely seen. In particular, the case management approach was seen as beneficial in addressing a wide range of factors critical for commercialisation (e.g. policy, regulation, licensing and resource allocation), that are generally beyond the scope of any research and development project.

f. The scale of research and development was discussed, with many in attendance

querying whether clear definitions exist for such terms as small scale, large scale, proof-of-concept, demonstration, and pilot commercial scale research and development. It was agreed that in general these terms are used very loosely and that without further definition considerable uncertainty results from their use. Regardless of this, there was general consensus that an orderly approach to research and development did need to proceed through a series of scaling up phases and that larger scale research and development (i.e. proof-of concept or demonstration scale) was a highly desirable as it provided improved confidence to investors, as well as frequently identifying new issues resulting from up-scaling.

g. Some of the SA aquaculture industry representatives present queried the

systematic experimental approach to research used (e.g. attempting to understand the physiological basis for salinity tolerance by small scale controlled experimentation considered unrepresentative of farming systems). On the other hand, some university research representatives present queried the “shotgun” approach used for studying the potential for halophytes to address fish farm waste water issues and often preferred by industry. Further discussion revealed that industry often wanted a clear demonstration of a simple treatment effect before being prepared to invest further into research and development, even though such an approach often lacked a satisfactory level of certainty in the outcome and if unsuccessful, generally provided no basis for making further decisions about how to address the issue being researched. Alternatively, the systematic experimental approach preferred by researchers generally meant starting at the small scale where variables could be controlled and then scaling-up to more “real-world” scenarios.


2. Future Project Directions

a. Discussions highlighted that more research was required to enhance mulloway performance. While this species can easily and cost effectively produced from hatcheries, can be cultured at high density and grew well in the salt interception scheme water, there is a need to further enhance productivity to increase profitability. A range of matters were discussed including, better understanding mulloway behaviour (they are not like most other species aquacultured that aggressively feed at the water surface), developing specific feeds designed for the species and culture system in use (to increase growth rates and reduce wastes thereby enhancing food conversion ratios and reducing operating costs), and domesticating then selectively breeding stock (based on other finfish species where these have been used production improvements of 10-15% per generation should be possible).

b. Discussion on the merit of culturing other finfish species in salt interceptions

waters was limited. The positive preliminary results with yellowtail kingfish were unexpected and because of this species rapid growth rate and existing market, further research was recommended. Snapper on the other hand was considered to be too slow growing and from this and other studies susceptible to potassium deficiencies in salt interception waters, which even if addressed using supplementation, added to operating costs.

c. The relative merits of alternative culture systems were also discussed. The

consensus was that it was unfortunate that the project had not been able to compare a semi-intensive with an intensive recirculation system (the latter was not eventually constructed because of procurement delays). Based on the results obtained wit the semi-intensive system, an intensive recirculation systems was felt to offer the greatest opportunity for the future, especially if a the capital cost of such a system could be contained. The key advantages of an intensive, recirculation system were seen as improved temperature control whilst enabling dissolved carbon dioxide to be degassed, a necessity when using the salt interception water available at the WISAC. With respect to the development of a new industry, use of intensive recirculation systems also means that the salt interception scheme water available could be used to produce a much greater total tonnage of finfish.

d. Discussion also centred on the management of fish farm wastes. The halophyte

research in the project had very limited success although information collected overseas and from the literature suggest this is an area worth pursuing. The lack of detailed information found on the local species means, however, that this project will need to be comprehensive and collect a range of information on the biology and physiology of the relevant species. Industry participants questioned to a degree the merit of developing such a novel biological system, when mechanical waste treatment systems are readily available.

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop: Presentation by Professor Mehdi Doroudi, Chief Scientist, SARDI Aquatic Sciences

261


262


263


264


265


266


267


268


269

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop

270

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop: Presentation by Mr Wayne Hutchinson, Research Scientist, SARDI Aquatic Sciences

271


272


273


274


275


276


277


278


279


280


281


282


283


284


285


286


287


288

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop: Presentation by Mr Neil Sandercock, Spatial Information Services, Primary Industries and Resources

of South Australia

289


of South Australia

290


of South Australia

291


of South Australia

292


of South Australia

293


of South Australia

294


of South Australia

295


of South Australia

296


of South Australia

297


of South Australia

298


of South Australia

299


300

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop: Presentation by Ms Erica Riebe, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia

301


302


303


304


305


306

Appendix B – CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and Workshop: Presentation by Mr Julian Morrison, Econsearch Pty Ltd

307


308


309


310


311


312


313


314


315


316


317


318


319


320


321


322

Documents

Appendix B CNRM and SARDI Project Information Session and ... · c. Discussion suggested that project management needed to be much tighter from start to finish. Initially CNRM experienced