CHARACTERISTICS OF A FUTURE INDUSTRY

• A range of critical uncertainties will influence the future of the bioplastics industry. Despite current hype, algae-based bioplastics remain niche products within the larger but still niche bioplastics industry, which still faces significant uncertainties due factors including: volatility of oil prices, relative lack of political demand-side support, adequate end of life infrastructure, and technological innovation (Wydra et al 2021). According to Wydra et al (2021), key factors of influence for success include: higher oil prices, technological progress, strong circular economy principles and strict climate protection policy.
  
  
• Achieving adequate scale is crucial, both in terms of biomass supply and bioplastic demand. A viable algae-based bioplastics industry is contingent on significant volume of wastewater that is amenable to the growth of macroalgae, and policy instruments that impact the demand side of the equation.
  
  
• Gathering attention for bioplastics has been challenging. Until recently the most prominent focus in the algae bioeconomy has been (micro) algal production for biofuels. Projects undertaken in Christchurch (NIWA 2009) and Cleveland Bay (JUC 2016) provide examples. The history of biofuels as a socio-technological pathway for the future bioeconomy has created somewhat of a distraction from the possibilities and maturity of bioplastics. Over the last decade the algae biofuel industry in regional Australia has to some extent dropped out of the bioeconomy conversation. This may have a range of influences on the perceptions and investment in bioplastics as discussed in ‘Section 5: Further Considerations’, with the potential to have both positive and negative consequences.
  
  
• Macroalgae is still a relatively small area of focus, but interest is growing. While macroalgae grows more slowly than microalgae, its size and shape make for easier and far more cost-effective biomass harvesting. In addition to creating products, there is interest in the opportunities that macroalgae might offer in wastewater treatment systems. PacificBio in QLD is using macroalgae and High-Rate Algal Ponds (HRAPs) for various uses (bioremediation, agal production for feed, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals). Entrepreneurial Universities Algae Project in New Zealand, hosted by the University of Waikato conducts “applied research and development in marine and freshwater macroalgal biotechnologies” and lists a focus on “the development of innovative macroalgal bioproducts”, including bioplastics, though at this stage their published research on bioplastics is limited. PhycoHealth in Shoalhaven farms offshore seaweed for food and health products. Sea Forest in Tasmania is cultivating algae to serve as a supplement to livestock feed. If macroalgae can be shown to be a relatively economical and effective wastewater treatment option that also generates carbon fixing biomass used in high-value, durable and reusable bioplastic products then the long and as yet unfulfilled promises of algae biotechnology in the circular bioeconomy might be fulfilled.
  
  
• An emerging algae sector carries aspirations for social change. The Seaweed Manifesto (Safe Seaweed Coalition 2020) is an example of the broad hopes being imagined from the sector. As a relatively new industry, these hopes include quantitative and qualitative socio-ecological outcomes such as quantitative greenhouse gas reduction at the global scale, plus regenerative engagements with local habitats, the creation of socio-economic opportunities for poor communities, supporting nutrition and health outcomes, and poverty reduction. Prominent seaweed advocates, such as GreenWave in the US, argue for conscientious design of the sector’s growth, including systemic rules that favour small-holder producers rather than traditional industrial models with the aim to maximise social and environmental benefits as the sector grows.
  
  
• Aligning goals for wastewater treatment and product creation is an opportunity and a challenge. There is a vision for High-Rate Algal Ponds HRAPs as low-cost, low-tech wastewater treatment solutions for regional, remote, and agricultural sectors. South Australian (LGA SA 2020; LGA SA et al. 2020) and Queensland (DESQ 2018) governments, and work by Flinders University (Fallowfield 2019) provided resources to support and outline the opportunity, however, pursuit of these opportunities to date has mainly focused on the use of microalgae not macroalgae.
  
  
• Policy and regulatory settings set by state governments regarding nutrient targets and wastewater contamination will have an influence on the appetite of local councils to use algae as a treatment option, particularly if algae can be proven to remediate emerging contaminants (ECs) of concern such as PFAS.
  
  
• Due to limitations they face in meeting shifting nutrient targets, councils with older, smaller wastewater treatment technology may present the best opportunities for macroalgae test sites in this sector.  
  

• Digital and distributed manufacturing, touted as the fourth industrial revolution, is a mega-trend with which the bioplastics industry is likely to converge. These new manufacturing technologies and materials have the potential to enable circular economies for more sustainable industrial systems and socio-economic outcomes. Okwudire & Madhyastha (2021) illustrate an example of this future while Beckmann et al. (2016) and the Manufacturing USA (2021) program offer examples of prominent research-industry programs that aim to enable it.
  

• There are a variety of algae biotech and material projects and research hubs, however most algal farming projects have been focused on biofuels, and most material projects seem ‘quiet’ on their systems for sourcing as they’re focused on the deeper materials technology.
  
  
• Recycling and agribusiness are positioned as growth areas in Australia’s Modern Manufacturing Strategy, which forms part of Australia’s National Innovation System. The research-industry settings could have deeper sociological ambitions about by whom, where and how Australia’s future manufacturing sector grows.
  
  
• Small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) looking to work with new manufacturing technologies, such as additive manufacturing (AM), have the potential to benefit from working with design research units in universities that can share in accommodating the levels of risk and high costs associated with research and development (Walden et al 2018).
  

• Perception and community engagement is crucial in the regions: the right kind of technology can have the wrong kind of advocate and the result is a significant setback for technology innovation and uptake.
  
  
• NSW State Govt is seen as the primary facilitator of innovation in the regions, but all levels of government offer opportunities and challenges: local governments vary in culture and capability but are often risk-averse, preoccupied with providing services, and can have arduous procurement processes; the federal government is seen as being unpredictable and hard to read regarding intent around responsible production and consumption, in some cases they do nonetheless offer important funding opportunities; NSW State Govt supports sustainable innovation but research needs to speak directly to funding criteria and objectives.
  
  
• A range of organisational models should be considered based on the objectives of the circular hub, including hybrids: cooperatives, private enterprise and not-for-profit. Cooperatives and Mutual Enterprises (CMEs) have a history of creating organisational models that can enable better outcomes from economic growth for regional and rural communities (BCCM & Mutuo 2020). Examples include the network of cooperatives in the Northern Rivers, Bega Cheese (which has a long history as a cooperative despite being an ASX listed company and continues to play a key role in community oriented initiatives). Clean Cowra and Loambio have hybrid for-profit and non-for-profit elements.
  
  
• Industrial symbiosis projects with multiple interfaces between different parties exchanging materials and services for a competitive advantage provide a further model to support long-term innovation in sustainable production (Li et al 2021; Wreford et al 2019). Wreford (2019) refers to the example of Industrial Symbiosis Kawerau (ISK) an Incorporated Society whose members “are organisations located, operating and employing in Kawerau who are invested in the future of the district.” ISK facilitates opportunities and offers knowledge-sharing and support services across the themes of industry, environment and workforce.
  
  
• Partnering with businesses and organisations in the agricultural sector, as opposed to government, comes with its own risks: industry priorities can change and leave researchers with stranded assets. Broadly, however, government and private industry needs to be understood as a composite entity of shared influence if sustainability targets are to be met at a meaningful scale within an accelerated timeframe.  
  
  
• Advancement in the economy and industry drawing on Australia’s natural resource base for a new vision of prosperity ought to feature governance models with meaningful representation from and outcomes for traditional owners. The cultural heritage of Australia for indigenous people is shaped by a highly-developed connection to connection plants, animals and places. In a sense they are the custodians of the oldest surviving bioeconomy on the planet. In the New Zealand context, Te Momo (2007) has noted essential research needs to be done finding a common understanding across different language and cultural groups to initiate meaningful dialogue regarding the social, cultural and spiritual dimensions of biotechnology. Wreford et al (2019) refers to the South African Indigenous Knowledge-Based Technologies Innovation Unit and the place of indigenous knowledge as a “cross-cutting pillar within the South African Bioeconomy Strategy.” In the Australian context, recent Queensland government law reforms and codes of practice for biodiscovery offer a model intended to support collaborative relationships across custodians of indigenous knowledge, scientists, business, consumers and government officials (Jefferson et al 2020). These examples point to different levels of engagement based on different knowledges, technologies, locations and communities. In each case, however, engagement, representation and the sharing of benefits with indigenous custodians is a focus. In the context of the algae industry, training opportunities for indigenous Australians in emerging knowledges and practices for the future bioeconomy, organisational models that deliver benefits to communities and represent the voice of local indigenous communities are all crucial.