2026 Nuffield NZ Farming Scholarship. Apply by 17 August 2025. Read More...

Apply for 2026 Nuffield NZ Farming Scholarship by 17 August 2025. More details...

Understanding our asian customers.

Executive Summary

In the last decade New Zealand (NZ) agricultural exports to Asia have increased 71% to NZ$6 billion, and China is now the largest of these Asian markets. This growth is set to continue as the Asian economies continue to outpace those of the US or Europe. An increasing proportion of Asia’s large population will develop internationally competitive purchasing power, and consumers will be more able to afford the safe, high quality and innovative foods that NZ agriculture is capable of producing. In order to sustain the highest possible returns, NZ agriculture must understand how to delight these customers so they continue to demand NZ products.

This report details two Asian markets; China and India which were chosen as large, diverse and complex markets with growing economic influence.  Importantly they are commonly considered by New Zealanders as representing emerging future market opportunities. Japan was visited as part of the study but is a mature Asian market with which NZ has long-standing trade relationships. As such it has not been detailed in this report. Through analysis and review of relevant literature, market reports, in-market interviews, visits to relevant successful NZ agribusinesses, and a small-scale consumer survey, this report outlines key market advantages, challenges and high level solutions for engaging in China and India to create sustainable and profitable future markets for NZ agriculture.

China is described as NZ agricultures number one market for the next century due to its on-going economic strength, population dynamics and Government policy direction. The NZ China Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and NZ’s reputation for high standards of food safety represent key market advantages for NZ agriculture in China. However, the market challenges in understanding and engaging with Chinese customers include language and cultural barriers, low purchasing power parity (PPP), the existence of many complex, dynamic and diverse submarkets, rapidly changing demographics and consumer preferences, competition, NZ’s lack of capital and scale, and Chinese Government processes.

This report proposes four key solutions to the challenges identified for China:

  • Get closer to the customer with product support strategies and understand NZ’s value proposition
  • Build relationships, commit and take a long term view on China
  • Consider a ‘One World’ or international approach to extend the value chain
  • Get clear on strategy and focus attentions on this key market

India represents a significant potential market for NZ agriculture worthy of development and investment; however it is currently a much smaller market than China. Market advantages identified for NZ agriculture include consumer preference for dairy products and sheep meat, an impending NZ India FTA, and an existing ‘brand NZ’ presence through international cricket. Market challenges outlined include significant agricultural tariffs, low PPP, diverse culture and taste preferences, low beef consumption, lack of significant cold chain and modern retail infrastructure, bureaucracy and consumer demographics. For India, the four key solutions suggested are:

  • Encourage the signing of a NZ India bilateral FTA
  • Understand the consumer and adapt products to suit their preferences
  • Extend the value chain with a ‘One World Approach’
  • Develop a clear strategy and take a long term view.

Understanding Our Asian Customers – David Campbell

Farmer adaption to change with the threat of regulation.

Executive summary

Over the past decade, water quality has become increasingly important to the New Zealand public.  The effect of 150 years of clearing land, developing and intensifying agriculture is taking its toll on the environment.

Agriculture and tourism are among NZ’s largest export earners bringing in $22.3 billion (Statistics New Zealand, 2011) and $22.4 billion NZD respectively in 2008 (Statistics New Zealand, 2011).

New Zealand has built a reputation on the uniqueness and pristine nature of the country. This ‘clean and green’ reputation has been estimated to be worth $80 million dollars per annum to the agriculture and tourism industries. To strengthen New Zealand’s ‘clean and green’ brand may not lead directly to obtaining additional markets but it will help to maintain New Zealand’s current markets that.

Not only is water quality important to attract tourists and for export markets, but it is important to local communities. Rivers and lakes provide not only a source of food and recreation for many New Zealanders, but are a source of national pride. However, increasing nutrient loadings has led to a steady decline in the quality of these waterways and has resulted in an increase in the occurrence of algal blooms and decreased water clarity.

In response to this, the NZ government has made a clear statement that actions need to be taken to address water quality issues. This has been incorporated into the 2011 National Policy Statement on freshwater. As a result, this will require Regional councils to develop a plan to address declining water quality in their regional policy statements. It is therefore inevitable; change is coming!

Farmer Adaption to Change with the Threat of Regulation – Nicola Waugh

Catchment management strategies.

Executive Summary

Irrigation and water storage

Factors outside a farm boundary, play a large role in the farming system.  Irrigation water comes from the runoff from a whole catchment area.  Water also leaves the farm and can have effects on the quality of waterways if nutrient and or sediment goes with it.

Water storage for future irrigation in New Zealand is being increasingly investigated where ground and surface water is under allocation pressure.  This report gives examples of the irrigation schemes visited and the companies that manage the water use.

Irrigation schemes in Australia have considerable infrastructure. Investments to improve efficiency and add new technology have future benefits for irrigation consumers as well as for the environment within the catchment.  Having a value on water, and the ability to trade the right to use this resource makes the economics of upgrading and modernising the infrastructure easier to finance.

All the irrigation schemes and farms visited used volume-based measures for water management.  Although getting used to the terminology took some mathematical thinking, it soon became clear that volume-based measures make sense.  It encourages Water Use Efficiency (WUE).  Farmers have capital invested in Water Entitlements and fixed and variable costs are based on the volume of entitlements held and used.

Water allocated for irrigation in New Zealand is often measured on a flow rate basis and application described in depth.  These measures make comparing actual volumes used difficult and therefore do not effectively encourage WUE.  New Zealand has a national policy requiring future metering of the majority of water consents. This will be a good opportunity to look at volume based measures for managing water resources.

Water trading in Australia is based around the rights relating to how water is used rather than the purchasing or selling of the water itself.  It is a fundamental difference to the management of the resource compared to New Zealand’s consent-to-use approach under the 1991 Resource Management Act.  It enables the value associated with its use to be invested in the resource that created that value.  Effectively it is decoupled from the resource of land.  Many irrigated farms have more invested in water assets than they have invested in land.  This makes sense as it is the water that allows them to run their farming systems.

Conversely, New Zealand does not have an active water market or property rights attached to the use of this resource.  Value created by water use in New Zealand is capitalised in land values where farm production is enhanced by water use, and that production is used to value the land.  This could over capitalise land values out of reach for systems that have lower water requirements because the additional water cannot be traded.  If water use is tradable it encourages investment in the resource that created the value.

Max Fehring, an Australian farmer who is an authority on the subject says,

“The two most important aspects of irrigation are yield and security.  Yield provides potential, and security allows potential to be achieved”.  

There are many overseas people with knowledge of water issues.  New Zealand should draw on this when developing future policy direction for this key resource.   

Catchment Management

Catchment management, especially policy and regulation around nutrient use, is part of farming in the European Union (EU). The EU has put pressure on member states to improve the quality of their water resources.  Failing to deliver improvements could lead to fines and tougher regulation in the future.

The EU Nitrates Directive, part of the larger EU Water Framework Directive, focuses on the management of nutrient loading to protect water, both surface and ground, against pollution from agricultural sources. Increasing the amount of nutrients entering a water body can lead to eutrophication which affects the balance of organisms and water quality.

Biodiversity, water and air quality and farm profitability are all benefits from using nutrients more efficiently.  Stakeholders involved in any catchment management plan must take a wider view than their individual situations if desired outcomes are to be achieved at the catchment level.

Benefits of research on nutrient use

Northern Ireland has taken a layered approach to look at nutrient use in agriculture.  A national summary of nutrient use highlights where surpluses may lead to environmental impacts.  Breaking it down into industry usage further identifies target areas.  Research funding can then be applied to investigating possible outcomes that will improve nutrient use on-farm that are both economic and practical.

Farm system research in Northern Ireland has not only demonstrated that nutrient efficiencies are achievable, their research has been implemented at the farm level and has lead to measurable results.

Cattle wintering systems are becoming more intensive in New Zealand.  Some farmers are even deciding to house their cattle over wetter periods.  With these changes happening, it would be beneficial for New Zealand to research the impacts of different wintering systems.  Included in this research should be the effects on soil structure, nutrient cycling of N and P as well as soil loss from erosion. Housing cattle adds cost and infrastructure both to house the livestock and to store the effluent produced.

Policy – The collaborative approach

All examples of successfully implemented catchment plans studied during this scholarship were based on delivering on national standards set by Governments.  From this, state authorities set catchment policy and implement plans with collaboration from stakeholder input.  Policies and plans are different as they relate to specific issues in a given catchment.  Having measurable targets, plans that are workable with inclusive strategy and good working relationships between all stakeholders is important for successful implementation.  Extension services that were well resourced with staff working directly with land and water managers displayed positive relationships.  It was encouraging to be directed to policy officers by farmers who have direct contact with the people employed to manage natural resources at the catchment level.  They were open with their opinions and respected each other’s roles.

The New Zealand Land and Water Forum is an example of the collaborative approach to getting consensus on future governance around land and water resources.  This approach needs to be adopted at lower levels once national policies are established.  Adequately resourcing people to work with farmers and other stakeholders in implementing catchment plans will be required.  Good working relationships are the key to successful outcomes being achieved to benefit all parties.  The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)  of Texas sums this up with their simple but powerful vision – “Helping People Help the Land”.

Catchment Management Strategies – Paul McGill

How do dairy co-operatives grow for farmers’ benefit.

Picture of Desiree Reid

Desiree Reid

2010 Nuffield Scholar

Executive Summary

This Nuffield Report seeks to answer the question “How do Dairy Cooperatives Grow for Farmers’ benefit?”  It is set in the context of New Zealand’s need to increase its earning capability to match Australia.  As New Zealand’s largest company, and second largest industry, Fonterra’s future plays an important role in our economy.  The question is explored from an ownership and governance perspective.  This report is a record of the findings of this study.

The study spanned 15 months of preparation, travel, research and reflection, including six months overseas studying dairy co-operatives and companies around the world.  Dairy businesses researched include Kerry Group Plc, DairyGold Co-operative Society, The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative, Dairy Farmers of Britain, Royal FrieslandCampina, Dairy Farmers of America and Land o’ Lakes, amongst others.  The study is exploratory and the findings should be read in that context.

A co-operative is essentially a large equity partnership.  It is between individuals with businesses in the same sector of the value chain, who wish to invest for mutual advantage up or down the chain.  The collective investment is legally viewed as an extension of an individual’s core business.  Socialism is not a defining characteristic of co-operatives.

The Report discusses that co-operatives are purely a form of business often used where there is inherent market inefficiency.  Dairy is an inherently inefficient market.  The perishable nature of milk means that farmers have severely reduced power to negotiate a price reflective of the level of risk taken compared with downstream players.  Collective ownership corrects the market inefficiency, apportioning more of the consumer dollar to the farmer.

The Report suggests that removing collective farmer ownership of dairy processing assets impedes a co-operative’s ability to correct market inefficiency.  This could consequently reduce income to the farmer and to the processor.  If the experience of the United Kingdom dairy industry was replicated in New Zealand, such a path could potentially reduce the annual net cash income to New Zealand by as much as two billion dollars.  Given that the dairy industry has a velocity of money per annum of six to seven, such a scenario would have serious implications for the national economy.

Four broad themes emerged as a result of the study:

Theme 1: Ownership Provides Purpose

For a co-operative to grow for the farmer, the farmer must own the cooperative.  Business serves capital.  The purposes of public investors and farmer investors are conflicted and will result in lowered returns for farmers.

Theme 2: Purpose Drives Strategy  

For a co-operative to grow it must understand its purpose.  Purpose is the destination.  Strategy is a pathway.  Structure is just a vehicle. The core purpose of a dairy co-operative is to maximise the price of milk.  Farmers should ask their leaders how the strategy maximises their Milk Price.

Sometimes co-operatives are faced with opportunities to grow outside of their core value chain, and access to public investment would be highly beneficial. In these situations the core processing assets should be ring fenced.   It is suggested that these new high growth opportunities outside of the core processing assets for New Zealand milk could be structured to incorporate public investment away from the core.  This could include spinning off the high growth opportunity.

Theme 3: People Create Results  

For a co-operative to grow, farmers must invest in and develop their future governors.  A large pool of future governors should be identified in their 20s, nurtured and developed to provide the future leaders.  It is critical that high quality farmer governors are developed as farmers must dominate the Board by at least 70 percent.

Politics must be rejected in dairy co-operatives, and a meritocracy grown.  Farmers should maintain their understanding of the co-operative, and must exercise their vote.  Executives must understand the purpose of the cooperative, and must be incentivised towards that goal.

Theme 4: Feed Your Golden Goose

For a co-operative to grow for the farmer, the farmer must own and invest in the business.  Investment may be made via purchasing new shares, retentions, and deferring milk payments.  In conjunction with this, farmers must involve themselves and continue to question the performance of the business.

The report is supported by an appendix detailing research on a selection of dairy companies and industries.  The report also includes exploratory research comparing the wealth creation of Kerry Group farmers and DairyGold Cooperative Society farmers over the past 20 years.  The findings are indicative only, and suggest little difference between the wealth amassed by the two groups of farmers.

Keywords for Search: Desiree Reid, Read

A review of the current New Zealand situation and recommendations for the future.

Executive summary

New Zealand Agriculture Education and Training (AE&T) has helped build a country that has been extremely successful – largely based on export of its primary industries, innovation and services to agriculture. Over time a multitude of providers and a plethora of qualifications have developed to meet the demand. There have always been challenges for education and training in agriculture, but it seems that more than ever we are being constrained by funding and other issues such as globalization and urban opinion regarding our primary sectors. This is an ideal time to review and re-design the way AE&T is provided in New Zealand.

While it is encouraging that the overall number of people studying agriculture has increased, the trends are in the opposing direction to which our funders request. Specifically, students in agriculture tend to require skills and knowledge at levels 2-4 and to study part time. The Tertiary Education Commission’s aim is to increase the completion of higher level qualifications and provide more full-time courses rather than funding for short qualifications.

Increasing globalization offers both challenges and opportunities – the growth of developing nations such as India and South America mean that NZ agriculture could easily be squeezed from larger, faster growing countries and our skills and knowledge used by our competitors to enhance their production and export potential. At the same time, there are opportunities for NZ providers to grow internationally and expand our student funding base.

During my research I saw a range of other countries AE&T models, the majority have obvious focus on amalgamations, mergers and joint ventures. When compared to the AE&T models used overseas by other advanced agriculture nations including our main competitors on the export market, NZ appears to be at least a decade behind. The majority of the agriculture organizations I visited, in countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, North America and Australia have amalgamated horizontally, vertically or full integrated across the whole sector. The advantages being sharing governance, marketing and admin services and utilizing training farms and trainers across a wider range of courses. In some cases such as the Irish system AE&T has been fully collaborated with Research and Extension. If these models are common place and successful overseas then this begs the question as to why NZ is still serviced by a range of institutions and organizations, delivering locally designed and developed qualifications and courses while competing against, instead of complimenting, others in the sector?

Scale, efficiency and effectiveness have been created, whereas in New Zealand we bombard funders, politicians, students and other stakeholders with a range of different brands, courses and outcomes. Most providers in New Zealand are specialists in AE&T therefore they need to have some protection to ensure there is a committed and viable AE&T sector to service what is still the backbone of this country. If New Zealand is going to maintain an effective and economic education and training industry then we need to develop a collective vision and generate a larger, stronger, unified organization that will be able to take on the challenges and respond to the opportunities.

This must be led from the top down, funders, governance and stakeholders need to place pressure on organizations to simplify organizational structures, simplify and rationalize courses and qualification and amalgamate providers. It is likely that bulk funding of agriculture will be required to ensure the conviction of change, to allow a collaborative team to distribute funding for agriculture across providers and ensure a minimum level of collaboration is achieve, and promote unification of qualifications and providers. While some work will be required from the ground up, especially in regard to reducing the number and range of qualifications and courses, ultimately it will be the vision and leadership that will drive change and ensure that New Zealand AE&T is structured and positioned in a way to achieve our goals of being an effective and efficient industry for our nation and potentially a significant global provider for Agricultural Education and Training.

A review of the current New Zealand situation and recommendations for the future – Ian Knowles 

Supply chain relationships and value chain design.

James Parsons

Executive Summary

In an incredible intellectual journey of a lifetime, I traveled 5 continents over nearly half a year, seeking to understand supply chain dynamics and how to design the ultimate value chain.  My subsequent and informed belief is we are in one of the most exciting times in global agriculture, quite simply because it is changing at an ever increasing speed.  New Zealand pastoral farming is in an incredibly strong position, and has a tremendous window of opportunity for its meat and wool producers.  The divided price taking farmers of today can be part of tomorrow’s global super cooperatives; setting the price for our pasture produced products.  The opportunity to create and embrace a new industry transformation is incredibly exciting.  However it is also our only viable option.

The greatest barrier to a New Zealand meat and wool industry transformation is the fierce culture of independence, poor communication and mistrust endemic in the industry.  To get a bunch of farmers to agree upon something is like herding cats.  This behaviour is not because industry members are morally deficient, but rather symptomatic of the complex and dysfunctional supply chain structures they are in.  In essence the system is flawed and the system determines the culture.  Human nature is completely geared to finding the easiest option; mankind will always work the system to get the maximum benefit for self.  Rather than making a value judgement and focusing on the counter productive behaviour, the focus instead must be on the system.  The system must always be the point of intervention.  By redesigning the system in such a way that ‘the right incentives are put in the right places,’ then naturally the right behaviour and culture result.  Leaders redesign systems, managers just work within their parameters.  Subsequently visionary and innovative leadership is required to engineer a necessary culture shift and industry transformation.

A closer look at New Zealand’s commodity supply chains shows they are incredibly long, complex, and highly dysfunctional. They are built on an archaic system of buy-low sell- high up and down the chain.  Each chain partner’s profits are highly dependent on their buy-price and sell-price.  This in turn is a disincentive to communicate, which in turn breeds mistrust and second guessing.  Weak and dysfunctional relationships are the result.  Auctions exacerbate this problem even more through keeping the buyer and seller apart.  The seller has no knowledge of who the buyer will be and therefore can’t tailor their production to the specific needs of this next member in the chain.

Auctions also become a haven for opportunistic trading.  While auctions provide a transparent means of gauging supply and demand – therefore price; commoditisation of the product is the result.  Incentives for producers differentiating their product and adding value don’t exist, because communication with the next chain partner is not facilitated.  A long term relationship between chain partners is like a marriage, built on communication and trust; expanding this analogy an auction is like a public forum for one-night-stands between buyers and sellers.  The relationship is very temporal with no guarantee of repeat business.  The ‘Sunday night auction’ where farmers ring around meat companies, is a less public version of the same thing.  In these complex commodity supply chains potential value is destroyed rather than created.  The philosophy of the traditional supply chain is: ‘Let’s compete for our individual slice of the pie’.

Components of the chain (individual chain partners) tend to be very efficient at a component level.  New Zealand producers and also processors are world leaders in terms of efficiency, regarding their own component in the chain.  Much of this can be attributed to our industry’s last transformation, sparked by deregulation in the 80’s.  Importers, secondary processors and retailers also are very efficient as individual components.  But at a chain level, the chains efficiency is very poor.  The parts of the sum might look good but the sum of the parts is dismal.  In the same way that tactics should follow strategy, component efficiency should come secondary to chain efficiency.  A new industry transformation is long overdue.  Without doubt, when it happens, it will result in a radical overhaul of our supply chains.

By contrast with the traditional supply chain, the value chain concept is a completely different system.  It creates a collaborative culture through incentivising communication, trust and interdependence rather than independence.  The value chain typically is short with few chain partners.  It is focused on a certain market or customer, and the sharing of ideas between chain partners facilitates co-innovation and product differentiation.  In complete contrast with the traditional supply chain, the value chain philosophy is: ‘How can we collectively grow the pie rather than compete for our individual slice’.  It is focused on chain efficiency first and component efficiency second.  While a superior concept to the traditional supply chain model it is not easy to construct.  The ideal value chain shares power and profits fairly amongst the chain partners.  This requires chain partners to possess the same values and philosophy; achieving this is easier said than done.  Particularly if one of the chain partners is a retailer used to being the price-maker in the chain; taking the biggest margin, because they can.  Subsequently many of the value chains held up as being fantastic models to follow are, while a lot more efficient, still retail-led.  Producers in these chains might receive a premium now to hook them in, but profits and power aren’t shared equitably.  As these retail-led value chains become common place, any premium previously on offer will have disappeared, as producers will have very few alternatives.

New Zealand’s meat and wool industry must pursue the value chain approach with all speed.  But producers must enter them with enough collective strength to ensure they aren’t squeezed on price as they are today.  Instead of being retail-led value chains they must be producer-led chains.  Chains that have a firm consumer focus with producer owned niche brands.

All over the globe there is a battle going on, regarding who controls the power over their respective supply chains.  The increase in consolidation and growth of multinational companies is happening at an alarming rate.  Consolidation is synonymous with power; if one chain partner consolidates unless it is matched by the others there is an automatic shift in power.  Retailers have been leading the charge on consolidation, yet it has not been matched by New Zealand meat and wool producers and the co-operatives they own.  As more power has shifted to the retailers, it is no surprise they have squeezed producers on price.  In just four years, from 2003, New Zealand farmers’ share of the UK retail price of lamb shrunk 20%.  Contributing to the 2007-08’s lowest ever sheep and beef farm profit in 50 years, $19,400; worse than the deregulation years of the 80’s.

Capitalism dictates that whoever controls the power over the chain sets the price, keeping everybody else on subsistence margins – in order of consolidation.  The huge efficiency gains New Zealand sheep and beef farmers have made since the last industry transformation of the 80’s, have not translated into greater long term profits.  Instead these efficiency gains (at component level) have been passed on as cheaper products for the benefit of others further along the chain; no one more so than the retailers.  When you compare British lamb with New Zealand lamb on the retail shelf, despite it retailing cut for cut at nearly the same price, the farmgate prices are vastly different.  In 2007 British farmers received 45% of the retail price for lamb compared with New Zealand farmers receiving only 20%.  If British sheep farmers were as efficient as New Zealand producers they would only receive a 20% margin also.  But the retailers can’t squeeze them anymore or their producer suppliers will go out of business.  New Zealand producers have been very poor at protecting and banking the extra margin they have created.  This has been due to weak, fragmented selling of meat and wool as an absolute commodity by New Zealand companies.  This is not a value judgement on these companies but rather symptomatic of the flaws in the system.

It is an absolute myth that lower costs of production are New Zealand’s competitive advantage.  It could be… but because we are weak sellers, we pass on rather than bank the margin all our innovation and hard work has created.   Could this be another definition of madness?

New Zealand’s meat industry is at serious risk of a large emerging multinational red meat processor entering the New Zealand procurement market.  Due to the current infighting and fragmented structure there is a power vacuum waiting to be filled.  The question is will it be a New Zealand producer owned co-operative that will fill it or some third party?  One thing is guaranteed, power vacuum’s get filled eventually.

While the co-operative model has its failings no one has come up with a better model to serve producers interests through fair product prices.  The mandate of private and public companies is to make profits for their shareholders, not pay high prices to producers.  Co-operatives therefore set a benchmark in prices that competing public and private companies must match.  Healthy competition creates efficiencies, unhealthy competition destroys value.  Internal fighting at procurement and then again in the market place by New Zealand’s meat and wool companies is unhealthy competition.  The globe is a very big market place with more competition than required to keep a consolidated farmer-owned co-operative efficient.  Size is not synonymous with inefficiency – Wal-Mart the world’s biggest retailer is the most efficient retailer on the planet.  It also has a phenomenal low cost culture.

A weakness of the traditional co-operative is its socialist system.  The requirement to treat all shareholders evenly makes it difficult to connect producers with the consequences of their choices.  Until producers get rewarded significantly for adding value and penalised severely for destroying it producers won’t change their behaviour.  The system encourages a focus on production and cost efficiency, essentially a commodity culture.  This suits the cost efficient producers (Cost Efficiency), but it doesn’t cater for the other two types of businesses.  It fails to facilitate producers to innovate new products (Product Leadership); and producers wanting to cater for the every whim and fancy of the consumer (Customer Intimacy).  In the market place there is room for all three, as consumers fall into these three categories as well.

The traditional co-operative needs to adapt its structure to assist the establishment of multiple value chains.  Each of these value chains would include a producer group with a cost efficiency, product leadership or customer intimacy focus and philosophy. They would tailor their production to satisfy a specific consumer group, with the same philosophy and subsequent buying behaviour.  Their differentiated production would be supported by their own consumer brand.  Each value chain would be an independent silo, but with each connected with the same consolidated co-operative there would be enough rigour and discipline to ensure a co-ordinated rather than fragmented approach in the market place.

There has been much talk in the New Zealand industry of spreading meat production evenly across 52 weeks of the year.  While there are certainly opportunities to improve supply management, this strategy is very dangerous as it is walking away from New Zealand’s very unique points of difference, being:

The most efficient pasture based producers in the world, and an incredibly low carbon footprint to our production.

The far smarter strategy is to instead leverage our points of difference and develop counter seasonal supply arrangements with northern hemisphere producers.  Through a co-ordinated value chain approach, markets can be supplied 52 weeks of the year with seasonal product, possessing a low carbon footprint.  The understandable desire for meat companies to spread their overheads across 52 weeks, rather than processing seasonal product is very much to do with component efficiency.  It isn’t complimentary to a strategic whole-chain view.  A 52 week domestic procurement strategy would improve component efficiency at the expense of chain efficiency.

Most multinational food companies today pursue a strategy of global sourcing.  A consolidated farmer-owned meat-company through having an external rather than internal focus would naturally begin sourcing product globally as Fonterra does.  This would speed up the formation of counter seasonal value chains, where New Zealand producers work in tandem with Northern Hemisphere producers.

The New Zealand primary industry is the most innovative in the world.  Yet when you examine many of our innovations they fall into the category of: ‘irresponsible’.  The reason being they increase the costs of producing a product, but the premium attached to the innovation has a shelf life.  The niche products of today are the commodities of tomorrow.  Retailers and others in the supply chain frequently entice producers with a premium to differentiate their production.  As producers take up the premium by implementing new standards of quality assurance or animal welfare, etc, costs associated with differentiating their product increase also.  Because they are ahead of the curve, the innovators and early adopters always profit out of embracing these premiums.  But as the early and late majority follow suit, the once differentiated product becomes commoditised and the premium vanishes.  While the innovators have moved onto the next slice of cheese, the rest of the industry is left with the higher costs.  As an industry we need to stop embracing these irresponsible innovations.  Instead the focus needs to be on responsible innovations that firstly: differentiate products and increase price without increasing costs.  And secondly: innovations which decrease costs while maintaining price.  Our industry’s fragmented nature means there is little rigour and discipline as to which innovations are taken up.  An attitude prevails of: ‘if I don’t do it someone else will’.

As we are now well into the ‘information age’, there are new tools available to exercise control over the supply chain that previously didn’t exist.  Information systems are possibly the biggest opportunity and threat New Zealand meat and wool producers have.  Some of the most cutting edge supply chains on the globe, led by Dell computers, Toyota, Wal-Mart, etc, have information systems at their core.  Instead of relying solely on the very fickle and old-fashioned human communication, in these chains communication is very automated.  And because these information systems are so integral to the chains functionality they can’t be circumnavigated.

When you look at New Zealand’s meat and wool industries, information systems spanning the supply chain are conspicuous by their absence.  Information systems spanning a chain communicate knowledge relating to supply and demand, taking away second guessing between chain partners.  Information technology is a core tool when building demand-driven supply chains.  By contrast New Zealand’s existing supply chains are very much production-driven or production-push.  Right now retailers are waking up to this incredible opportunity.  In some cases they are already capturing information over the supply chain, including producer’s costs of production.  This strategy affords them control over the supply chain without using the costly vertically integrated model.  New Zealand’s incredible ability to innovate needs to be focused on this opportunity, ensuring we seize the opportunity first.

Research and development (R&D) and marketing must be at value chain level rather than industry level.  The current generic shotgun approach must stop.  When you have a well constructed value chain, with a product that has some natural points of difference, the next step is to accelerate that chains performance.  Just as nitrogen fertiliser accelerates the performance of healthily growing grass, so does focused R&D and marketing accelerate a healthy chains performance.  Many of our industries chains are not healthy due to their poor design.  Just as a farmer does not apply nitrogen to grass mid winter in a 150mm rain storm, neither should we randomly allocate our R&D and marketing spend without resolving  the many chain leakages.

It is important to ensure the full benefits from R&D and marketing are captured not leached away.  The value chain tends to be very functional with few leakages.  Producer groups in value chains are the innovative clusters that will raise the bar for the New Zealand’s primary industries.

Subsequently it is an ideal environment for R&D and marketing accelerators.  It is important that the industry markets and champions a handful of high end consumer brands for a small percentage of its production.  This way the whole industry benefits, as most consumers subconsciously trade down to lesser brands of a similar New Zealand product.  Even though they can’t afford the best, they aspire to experience it.  Icebreaker is a great example; it has lifted the perception of all merino clothing, not just its own branded items, subsequently all merino clothing has benefited.

A common human failing is to look at the past and expect the future to be the same.  This is the same as driving along in a car at 100km an hour, with 90% of your focus on the rear-view mirror.  The principle here is that ‘whatever you focus on enlarges’.  Focusing on the past means you will keep getting the past.  This rear-view mirror effect is endemic in our red meat and wool industries, with sweeping comments like: “that has all been tried before and it didn’t work.”  As an industry we need to have 90% of our focus on the windscreen of the future, with 10% of our focus on the rearview of the past. This way we can proactively anticipate the twists and cross roads of the future while not repeating the mistakes of history.  My challenge to members of New Zealand’s meat and wool industries is this: if you hear yourself, or others say: “that has been tried before and didn’t work.”  Challenge this destructive rear-view mirror mindset.

It is time to stop judging our future by our past.  The New Zealand meat and wool industries have tremendous opportunities in the 21st century marketplace through collectively leveraging our points of difference.  Let’s make it happen!

Keywords for Search: James Parsons, Parsins

Family business continuance: A global perspective.

Executive Summary

The term ‘succession’ is usually used in the narrowest sense of asset transfer between generations with little attention paid to management succession in the case of a (family) farm business or succession of board members at a board and governance level.

With agriculture contributing approximately 15% of GDP, New Zealand’s aging agricultural population is of concern, not only in terms of food production but in agricultural leadership as well.  The majority of agricultural leaders are derived from a practical-farmer base which has an estimated average of 65 years. These farmers have developed skills through their active involvement in Federated Farmers and other industry organisations.

Traditionally, New Zealand has had a relatively self-replacing dairy industry through sharemilking which allowed new entrants the opportunity to build up a herd of cows and develop crucial business skills before purchasing their first farm. Whilst this has allowed a readymarket of first farm buyers, most dairy farmers still aim to pass the family farm on to family members.

The sheep and beef industry has a more traditional approach to succession, with family members taking over the family farm or the property sold and assets divided equally between the family.

Changes to the entry cost of farming (increase in land value; introduction of Fair Value Shares[1] etc) relative to income has altered the perception of farming as a ‘easy’ option for those who saw themselves as academically-challenged to that of a business with increasing regulations and decreasing profit-margins.

The opportunity to work with Sydney-based accounting firm Grant Thornton Pty to assist in the development and implementation of family farm succession programs coupled with my personal situation of being ‘the farmer in the family’ with four non-farming siblings has impressed upon me  that succession is not the primary domain of lawyers, accountants and/or financial planners.

Family are complex beasts consisting of individuals linked through a common lineage, sometimes with little more in common than the blood that binds them. It is these individuals that form the heart and soul of a family-farm, ensuring it’s ultimate success or failure, yet it is these same people that are forgotten about in a traditional succession planning model, which is developed around tax-effective mechanisms for reallocation of assets when the matriarch and or patriarch are deceased.

Aims

Business Continuance and Succession Planning –the primary aim is to provide a readable document that highlights the issues and provides some commentary and suggestions as to how these might be handled. It is very much intended that the primary beneficiaries of this report are family farmers and their advisers.

To create a heightened awareness and understanding of the gaps that currently exists in our collective knowledge base around the continuation of family farming businesses via transfer of knowledge, skills and experiences from one generation to the next.

On a personal front, I would like to develop pragmatic models and tools for achieving efficient, harmonious and successful transitions between generations of agricultural and farming leaders; family farm businesses and individual family members.

Smooth and timely leadership succession is vitally important to the financial success and longevity of any business whether it be the family farm, corporate farm enterprises, Maori Trust farms or multi-million dollar co-operatives such as Fonterra, Ravensdown Fertiliser Coop, Ballance Fertiliser Co-op etc The Alliance Group Co-op is a particularly good example of a poor process for succession of their Chair as shareholders vented their spleen over the industry politics surrounding this decision.

Continuation of family farm businesses is vital for the continuation of agriculture and food production locally, nationally and globally and for industries to recognise the importance of this for their own survival.

Method

The approach I have taken was to study those who have managed this aspect of the succession process well and who have developed models for success and/or best practise guidelines for family farm businesses.

The countries I visited during my scholarship were:

UK, Belgium (Brussels), France – Contemporary Scholars Conference

Australia, Philippines, Hong Kong, China, US, Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland – Global Focus Program

Canada, Australia, US, Northern Ireland, England[2], Wales, Scotland, India – Study Specific

The countries chosen specifically for the purposes of my study were based on a desk-top research of those individuals, organisations and conferences/seminars that I deemed to be of relevance. In many instances, as a result of my visit I was referred on to other experts in a form of an intellectual snow-ball waltz.

A semi-structured interview and/or active participation in conferences and seminars were used to gather information.

Family Business Continuance: A Global Perspective – Mandi McLeod

Animal welfare, environmental, & ethical issues affecting the value of NZ’s pastoral products.

Executive Summary

By introducing myself from the outset, I hope to help you understand where I’m coming from … my perspective, my personal bias, my motivation, my interests, i.e. an insight into why I may see the world differently from you.

I am the current owner operator of our intergenerational family beef farm, which I hope will provide a solid base for our family for many generations to come.

In 2006 we were the winners of the inaugural Northland Ballance Farm Environment Award, and from 2007 to 2009 we were the Far North, Meat and Wool NZ monitor farmers.

Our beef farm, like most NZ pastoral businesses, is committed to profitable and repeatable means of producing high quality animal protein products from resident pastures grown in conditions (soils, climates, locations, etc) unsuitable for growing crops for direct human consumption.

NZ pastoral farmers have made great productivity gains since subsidies were abruptly removed 25 years ago, to the point that many now feel they are pushing the boundaries of environmentally sustainable profitability. With a productivity glass ceiling reached, our products need to become more valuable in order to compensate for rising costs, and to enable us to lift production to satisfy the demand of the growing world population.

I sought the travel opportunity which a Nuffield NZ Farming Scholarship offers, to understand better the multitude of factors affecting the value of NZ pastoral products, to see how other farmers are responding to similar challenges, and to bring home ideas which may assist in sustaining greater profitability for NZ pastoral farmers.

It was my privilege to visit England, Wales, Brussels, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, USA, Hong Kong, Korea, China and Australia during 5 consecutive months of travel during 2009.

In an effort to give this report a focus, it primarily regards the rise of animal welfare, environmental and ethical issues on the global stage, and in particular, in our UK lamb and US beef markets. I will digress towards the end of the report and touch on other observations which may impact on the long term viability of farmers like myself.

Having always considered myself an optimist, my Nuffield experience was quite sobering. The cost of food will continue to rise, but I see no end in sight to the rising compliance costs of farming, or to the costs of accessing the global marketplace.

In the year ended 30 September 2009, the pastoral farming sector produced 42% of the FOB value of NZ’s total merchandise exports (data provided in email from Meat & Wool NZ Agricultural Analyst).

Animal welfare, environmental, & ethical issues affecting the value of NZ’s pastoral products. – Alec Jack

Indigenous peoples and how they have adapted to modern farming practices.

Executive Summary

I initially chose my topic as I believed that Maori farming is going through a renaissance and that we as a people are realising the potential of our immense land assets. Looking at New Zealand on a global scale I asked myself the question; how are other Indigenous peoples with bigger land area’s farming their land?

As a farmer and a Maori who has been involved in farming all my life I have a passion for both farming and the farming of Maori land.

As a Maori, educated through the system to tertiary level, with work experience through NZ and overseas and now employed by a Maori Incorporation, I thought I was in a good position to look further into this.

I had to first of all define ‘Indigenous’ to myself. This in itself was an exercise, so I had to break it down further to narrow down my research.

Through my Nuffield travels I was fortunate enough to travel to England, France, Belgium, Scotland, Australia, Philippines, Hong Kong, China, USA, Canada, Ireland, Ecuador, Argentina and Uruguay.

My initial research showed that there was a very noticeable gap between Indigenous peoples who had adapted and were benefiting from using their assets, both land and water, and those that were not. I decided to research the later and find out why.

Indigenous peoples and how they have adapted to modern farming practices – Gregg Pardoe

Bio-Fuels: Food or Fuel?

Executive Summary

Food shortages and security concerns after the Second World War drove many countries to encourage agricultural production through various forms of subsidisation and protectionist measures.  These subsidies survived long after their intended usefulness ended, causing a huge over-supply of agricultural commodity products throughout much of the developed Western world.  As the mountains of product grew many countries responded by reinforcing protectionist measures to support their primary industries and shield their own markets from foreign traders.  Under the relentless pressure from over-supply, commodity prices consistently kept falling in real terms and agriculturalists typically responded by increasing production even further to become more efficient in order to maintain the standard of living they had become used to.

As we enter the twenty-first century new forces are emerging which will shape the path that agriculture takes in the near future and it will be to the advantage of those involved in the industry to have some understanding of those pressures and how they might affect the future direction of agriculture.

Agriculture is being used to shoulder some of the world’s increasing energy needs, especially in the transport industry.  Bio-fuels easily utilise existing infrastructure and therefore becomes a natural alternative to fossil fuels.  Developed countries have increasing concerns surrounding national security for both food and fuel.  The prospect of remaining dependent on the Middle East for ever-decreasing amounts of oil is not attractive to most Western countries and in particular America.  Although bio-fuels are unlikely to replace fossil fuels they do play a strategic part in reducing dependency on a volatile source of supply.

Commodities flow around the world more readily than ever before with improved transportation, communication and financial services enabling this to happen.  Trade barriers have come under intense pressure as countries have sought to trade their surplus agricultural products on the world market.  It might be expected that under such pressure these barriers would have been lowered much more quickly than has been the case.  One reason for the slow dismantling of trade barriers is best explained by the comment made by Darci Vetter, Director for Agricultural Affairs in Washington DC when she said:

“America gives nothing away at the negotiating table without getting something in return”.

The complicated process of finding suitable trade-offs when giving trade concessions is clearly a difficult task that is often responsible for the stalling of trade negotiations.  While in many circumstances politicians have a willingness to lower these barriers, they will not do so without some perceived trade concessions being made in another area.

Bio Fuels: Food or Fuel? – Steven Sterne