Strategic Plan target: Australian vineyards and wineries are efficient by global standards.

Target 2 is measured in two ways.

First, by measuring the change in the adoption rate targets for 10 viticultural and oenological practices that have been identified to help improve competitiveness by benchmarking the adoption of 5 viticultural practices and 5 oenological practices in Australia to establish a competitiveness indicator. And secondly, through a benefit–cost analysis of selected R&D projects.

Benchmarking adoption of viticultural practices and oenological practices

2019–20 target: Measure the change in the adoption rate targets for the 10 viticultural and oenological practices that have been identified to help improve competitiveness.

The five key viticultural activities are pest and disease management (including trunk diseases and biosecurity); rootstock use; spray application; vine balance/grape quality measure use; and adaptation to climate change (including delayed pruning, clonal trials).

The five oenological practices are managing: clarification and filtration (including flotation/cross flow); cold stabilisation; wine efficiency (including Lean principles, ABC tool and on energy); fermentation monitoring; and faults and taints (including smoke taint and copper additions).

2019–20 result: During 2017–18, a survey was carried out to set benchmarks for performance. This review found 56 per cent of respondents indicated that they had acted on information promoted by Wine Australia.

A follow-up survey completed in October 2019 by Coutts J&R found that survey respondents were quite aware of Wine Australia activities and information (2018 benchmark: 7.1/10 avg and 2019: 7.2/10 avg.). Wine Australia extension activities were again rated as highly useful (2018: 8.0 avg. and 2019: avg. 8.1) and there was a solid increase in the percentage of respondents indicating an awareness of promoted topics, for example a 28 per cent increase in those aware of adapting to difficult vintages. The percentage of respondents accessing information using online or mobile increased, each by 21 per cent over 2018.

The report found that Wine Australia continued to be viewed as moderately influential on grape growers (2018: 5.9 avg. and 2019: 5.8 avg.) and wine producers (2018: 4.9/10 avg. and 2019: 5.7 avg.) successfully implementing changes.

The report also found most respondents surveyed could recall specific information promoted by Wine Australia in recent years, indicating that material and activities had been well targeted and communicated. More than half of respondents (2018: 56 per cent and 2019: 60 per cent) continued to take action as a result of information promoted by Wine Australia.

Biosecurity and pest and disease management were the areas most mentioned in relation to change, followed by irrigation in dry winters, rootstock selection and smoke taint.

Workshops (79 per cent) and roadshows (63 per cent) were the two most common extension activities respondents had participated in over the past 2 to 3 years. Wine Australia extension activities overall were rated as highly useful.

Benefit–cost analysis of R&D projects

The second component of assessment against Target 2, a benefit– cost analysis of selected R&D investments, was conducted to assess performance in line with the Strategic Plan during 2019–20.

To evaluate the value of Wine Australia’s R&D investments, AgEconPlus was commissioned to undertake an ex-post benefit–cost analysis of three randomly selected projects.

The projects were:

• UA 1503 Epi-breeding – Using the epigenetic memory of stress to prime Australian grapevines for a changing environment
• UA 1502 Using in-canopy misters to mitigate the negative effects of heatwaves on grapevines, and
• CSP 1303 Towards elite mildew resistant selections suitable for industry use.

AgEconPlus’ approach followed the general evaluation guidelines that are now well established within the Australian rural research sector including RDCs, Cooperative Research Centres and some universities.

Projects were randomly selected by an online random number generator until research investment exceeded $440,000 or around 10 per cent of Wine Australia’s total completed RD&E projects for the year.

Each of the three cases analysed involved a description of the projects including objectives, outputs, activities, costs, outcomes and benefits. Benefits were described qualitatively according to their contribution to the triple bottom line of economic, environmental and social benefits. While a range of potential benefits of each program were identified, the analysis focused on the most likely and most significant benefit stream.

Some identified benefits were not quantified mainly due to:

• suspected, weak or uncertain scientific or causal relationship between the research investment and the actual R&D outcomes and associated benefits; and/or
• the magnitude of the value of the benefit was thought to be only minor.

Two of the three investment analyses yielded positive results at the 5 per cent discount rate, with benefit–cost ratios ranging from 2.2 (CSP 1303) to 4.5 (UA 1502). The third project (UA 1503) was close to ‘break-even) with a benefit–cost ratio of 0.98.

AgEconPlus’ summary of the economic, environmental and social benefits of the reviewed projects is presented in Table 6.