Issue No 11, January 1999.

NOTICE: Hard copies of the Australian New Crops Newsletter are available from the publisher, Dr Rob Fletcher. Details of availability are included in the Advice on Publications Available.

23.3 Bushfood industry database

Harvey Anderssen
Aquatech Pty Ltd
42 Jaeger Circuit
Bruce ACT 2617
Telephone: 02 6251 3368
Facsimile: 02 6251 3060
Email: aquatech@aquatech.com.au

This consultation has explored the bushfood industry's requirements for a database.

The purpose of the database is to address information deficiencies that hinder the growth of the industry. These information deficiencies were identified in previous RIRDC studies.

The study team aimed to consult with the main industry players, and a selection of other stakeholders. The stakeholder selection sought to include at least one representative from each of the diverse groups that form the industry.

The framework for the consultation was based on a nine point questionnaire. However, the detail of the discussion depended on the particular role played by the organisation, and its particular interest in the industry.

Organisations differ in the benefits they may derive from an Australian Bushfood Industry Database, and their willingness and ability to contribute to one.

The grower/harvester members (i.e. the bushfood suppliers) require that the database supply their need for critical information.

A successful database will increase returns to supplier members using the database.

These members appear willing to contribute to on-going running costs, although the initial establishment costs may have to be met by government.

Some of the larger industry players may need to assess how a bushfood industry database would impinge on their operations. They have established their own information chains, and are not pressing for a bushfood industry database.

For them, the impact of bushfood industry database is uncertain. In fact, the potential risks (an inappropriate form could damage not only the emerging bushfood market but also their business) could outweigh any benefits.

However, if the database took the form of an appropriately designed, interactive, dynamic internet site, then we expect these players would see two way hyperlinks as mutually beneficial.

A wide range of service providers exchange information with the bushfood industry. These organisations include RIRDC, Departments of Agriculture, various universities, CSIRO, Plant Breeder Rights at the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy, botanical gardens and various native nurseries, as well as Australian native seed suppliers, food processors and the support organisations for the traditional land owners.

Many of these organisations have adopted computer networking technologies for both internal and external information exchange, and are increasingly moving towards web-based strategies.

For example, the fastest way to get information on Plant Breeder Rights is to visit the web site, and possibly lodge an application for any service/information required.

These service organisations would certainly support a bushfood industry database with hyperlinks.

These would enable fast two-way provision of information. However, they generally have a large range of clients to support, and so would not generally provide special support services to the bushfood industry.

Within each of the above groups, there is a further diversity of interest in the database. There is also a limited ability to use newer database technologies (for example, many growers/harvesters do not have ready access to internet technologies).

The consultation was structured to explore the needs of these different groups.

All members of the bushfood industry agreed that information deficiencies are hindering industry growth - growers were uncertain not only on the availability of new types of bushfoods and what they might offer, but also on the risks of further investment in the dozen or so bushfoods that have been commercialised at present.

Despite this need for information, many suppliers felt that the deficiencies in information could not be easily meet by a database.

For example, some bushfood growers/harvesters want price information - they would not want to increase investment without it. However, while there are many bushfood suppliers, there are few buyers. Buyers do not publicise prices, partly because of competitive pressures. Therefore many in the industry doubt whether useful price information can be obtained for the database.

Other useful commercial information is similarly tightly held.

Grower groups or associations could pool price information to get averages while preserving confidentiality, but this requires cohesion and trust between all growers of the same food, and this is not always present.

Nevertheless, the study team believes that grower and harvester organisations may be able to assist by collecting and pooling information, perhaps only on production, and making it available in summary form to members, possibly on a subscription or user-pays basis.

Another problem was that practical 'how to' know-how on commercial practices for bushfoods was limited - and those with such information are unwilling to share it without some form of recompense. If such information were distributed in a publicly available database, it would immediately be freely available to all.

In consequence, those with the know-how, especially for newer bushfood varieties, may be unwilling to contribute it to the bushfood industry database.

A requirement for some form of recompense for hard-earned know-how favours the directory ('yellow pages') form of database over the encyclopaedia form. The 'yellow pages' listings would allow information providers and information seekers to find each other, and hopefully agree on conditions for information exchange.

Importantly, a bushfood industry database could contain both encyclopaedia and yellow pages types of information - the directory information would complement the publication of useful fact sheets containing publicly-available information for new growers.

Who would benefit?

The consultation suggested that all organisations and individuals with an interest in bushfoods could benefit from a bushfood industry database.

These include potential users, including the consumers, tourists, potential growers, restaurants interested in enhancing their menus, wholesalers, and exporters.

However, of the beneficiaries, only the grower/supplier groups would consider any financial contributions to support the on-going costs of the database.

Many of the larger bodies have their own private sources of supply, and can, if desired supplement these with publicly available directories (i.e. Telecom's yellow pages - available on CD-ROM for computer users, or other sources, such as the Australian Bushfood magazine or the Land newspaper).

Database technology: new versus old

Advances in (computer-based) information technology has transformed the storage and transmission of information. This transformation continues. The people interviewed thought that within the next decade, the Australian bushfood industry would almost certainly have its own web site, and almost all its information exchange would be digitally based.

Nevertheless, despite the growing use of computers by Australians, significant numbers of bushfood suppliers remain reliant on traditional means of information exchange and storage.

As a group, the traditional landowners are the least skilled in the computer technologies, although there are significant exceptions.

Low levels of computer skills among some grower associations require that the database information be available in printed form.

A combination of email, fax, telnet, possibly voice mail, and post can be appended to a computer database engine that drives an internet site.

Information stored on CD-ROM can be distributed cheaply.

Users requiring database information in print form said they preferred loose-leafed fact sheets so that their information can be cheaply and easily kept up to date.

We assume that the on-going running cost of any database would be ultimately financed by the industry after an establishment period.

Our consultation suggests that the main source of industry funding would be the growers/collectors (existing and potential).

These are the most dependent on database information and would benefit most from it.

Amongst suppliers, them was a consensus towards a subscription form of levy. Whether this would be enforced is a matter that would have to be further considered by the grower associations and harvester co-operatives.

If one of the objectives of a site were to promote bushfoods, then at least the home page would be publicly accessible.

If subscriptions were outstanding, a grower's right to advertise on and otherwise use the site could be restricted.

Those parts of the site that contain information for growers, for example, prices, could be restricted to paid-up members by use of password.

The alternative of user payment before downloading information sheets received limited support.

The potential for the site to earn advertising revenue appears very limited, as many of the more significant players have, or are developing, their own web sites.

Many organisations currently charge between $50 and $100 a year for membership. This level of contribution should be sufficient to support on-going database costs.

Ultimately the responsibility for database information services would fall to a peak industry body (PIB) representing the interests of all members. Thus, one option is for ANBIC (or a successor) to perform the organisation and management tasks associated with the database.

Our consultation suggests that this young and growing industry has not yet achieved the maturity to speak with one voice. There is still much 'jockeying for position'. This suggests a phased transition towards a peak body is an option worth considering.

A phased transition would see individual associations and co-operatives given assistance towards setting up their own database/web sites. The resultant web sites could be much less ambitious than an industry web site, but would nevertheless represent a significant step towards a national web site.

Ownership and management of the database by grower associations could have significant cost advantages.

Learning and build-up of computing and networking technologies would be distributed through the industry.

This would be preferable to having it concentrated within a single office. Moreover there may be ways to keep costs of multiple sites low.

For example, the different associations and co-operatives could use common elements in the database structure and data processing that the web page builds on. Some commonality in design could also reduce costs.

Ultimately these individual web sites could link, not only to one another, but also to a national web site.

The consultation showed the multifaceted nature of the industry and revealed its many dimensions for growth. The dozen or so bushfoods that appear to have an established market position may expand their market share.

Industry growth may also take place through market acceptance of a expanding range of yet unrecognised bushfoods.

On the growing side, growth may take place either through new large-scale plantations or through an increase in the number of small producers. In arid regions, growth may come from improved wild harvesting.

This wide range of growth opportunities makes it more difficult for a young industry to present a united front to government in identifying where market failure is hampering its growth prospects.

It probably also means that the industry as a whole is unlikely to support a single central database that covers all regions and bushfoods.

There are essentially two models for database management and organisation:

• a single central responsible organisation, perhaps with links to regional or product specific support groups, or
• specialist bodies serving growers/harvesters with common problems, perhaps with links to a central body.

Grower support will ultimately determine which is the better option. In turn, grower support will be determined by the nature of the collective problems they face.

At issue is:

• whether bushfood suppliers face common problems, and if so, would collective solutions benefit all growers? or,
• whether their problems depend mainly on what they grow/collect, their production methods, their climatic/ecological zone, etc.

An industry database(s) would assist industry growth, and, if appropriately designed and implemented, would receive industry support.

The database(s) should have a web site as its (their) public face, but must incorporate the distribution of fact sheets to update database information maintained in loose-leafed folders.

The study team believes that the industry, at this time, favours the distributed database option over the centralised option, and expects that a government initiative that assists supplier associations and or co-operatives to set up their own databases will receive broad support.

These databases should preferably be sufficiently common in design to allow controlled cross-exchange of information between each other.

The supplier associations could also adopt a common approach in obtaining links to and from support organisations (such as the RIRDC-supported University of Queensland New Crops site, the Department of Agriculture networks, Plant Breeder Rights, CSIRO, and relevant commercial organisations).

Contact: Dr Rob Fletcher, School of Land and Food, The University of Queensland Gatton College, 4345; Telephone: 07 5460 1311 or 07 5460 1301; Facsimile: 07 5460 1112; International facsimile: 61 7 5460 1112; Email: r.fletcher@mailbox.uq.edu.au

[New Crops Home Page] [New Crops Program] [Australian New Crops Newsletter] [New Crops Publications] [Order Form] [People] [Crop Profiles] [Other Resources]

originally created by: GK; latest update 6 June 1999 by: RF