Climate Change has become one of the crucial issues of the early 21st Century. Pressures are increasing on agribusinesses to reduce carbon emissions. This drive for change is coming from an international level, not just nationally. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established in 1988 by the United Nations, has played a huge part in turning our attention to the concerns surrounding climate change. More recently in May 2008, the European Union adopted a report calling for carbon foot-printing labels on all goods and services. Recently UK supermarkets have adopted programmes which offer incentives to their growers if they join and achieve good scores in whole farm carbon footprint assessment.
New Zealand has a unique emissions profile with the agriculture sector the largest source of emissions, very unlike that of other developed countries. They make up almost half of our total emissions and have been rising at close to 1% per year since 1990. No matter what happens with the Kyoto Protocol or our national Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), New Zealand needs to prepare for a world where cost will be associated with greenhouse gases (GHGs). The current global credit crunch may have an impact on the timeframe but it is likely only to delay the inevitable – GHGs will be a cost to New Zealand’s agriculture.
The aim of this study was to analyse some of the different factors that could have a substantial impact on a New Zealand farmer’s ability to undertake GHG mitigation strategies on-farm.
To gain an understanding of on-farm carbon footprints I narrowed my focus to include
Carbon management models and their influence on N2O and CO2 levels
Biochar and what role it might play in New Zealand
Irrigation efficiency and what changes we can make
Precision agriculture – its role in minimising our carbon footprint
As you drive around the New Zealand countryside it is not uncommon to hear farmers talk about a widening gap between rural and urban people. They say, that the lack of non-farmer understanding of ‘all things rural’ has let to unrealistic consumer expectations and too much regulation. Farmers are feeling disillusioned by the lack of public encouragement they receive for their industry and are ready to build bridges.
For many urban people, it is increasingly important to understand how natural resources are being used and how the food they buy is grown. Peoples’ interest in the environment, animal welfare and food safety has meant they are interested and want to know more about what happens behind the farm gate.
Farming has become public business yet many farmers are quiet people who prefer to stand out of the spotlight. In the absence of farmers telling their own story, others have tried to tell it for them and invariable got it wrong; or embellished the ordinariness so as to better meet their own agenda. Untruths and misunderstandings about the adverse affects of agriculture are now widespread. Peoples’ expectations and perceptions are out-of-kilter with reality. People on both sides of the debate are beginning to distrust and suspect the worst from each other.
This Nuffield report will discuss how farmers overseas are engaging with the public to more positively shape commonly held perceptions of agriculture. I look for ways that New Zealand farmers can improve their image and how they can extend a welcoming hand to non-farmers. Based on what I saw overseas, I offer ideas about how to encourage more people to stand beside us on the agricultural stage before I set out a plan of actions that we could do in New Zealand to improve our relationships with non-farmers.
The report focuses on areas that I know I can affect through my work at Federated Farmers of New Zealand. In writing it, I have aimed to inspire, excite and engage others in the campaign to “bridge the divide”.
There is little doubt that the environmental cost of food production is becoming a much greater concern to the general public. Since the change in land use of our own property here in coastal Southland from sheep and beef farming to dairying in 2002 there has been a highly effective campaign to highlight the negative consequences for lowland water ways resulting from this change in land use. This has had a significant impact on public opinion which will inevitably have an impact on the decisions of policy makers who regulate our farming practices.
The aim of my study was to look at the result of intensive agricultural land use in the countries I visited and from that see what can be applied to our situation here in New Zealand.
My conclusions are:
New Zealand animal production systems are much less intensive than those that dominate food production in the northern hemisphere where the majority of animal production is in confined or housed systems. This means they are significantly more energy intensive and have far more animal manure to spread mechanically.
Nutrient regulation seems to follow mechanical manure spreading, probably due to visibility and odour issues. Pressure for regulation increases with affluence and population density.
Regulations are invariably the result of public outcry due to incidents of mismanagement. The response of publicly elected regulators does not necessarily follow good science and tends to be prescriptive and overly cautious.
Prescriptive regulation rarely achieves positive outcomes for the environment as farmers then tend to farm the regulations and it becomes difficult for the game keeper to keep ahead of the poachers.
Regulators tend to focus on limiting inputs and controlling systems (including stocking rate) when their objective is to reduce nutrient losses.
Prescriptive regulation of farming systems effectively stops useful on farm innovation, and reduces the incentive for scientific research into mitigation or even efficiency strategies.
Public opinion towards food production is no longer coloured by the potential for shortage as was the case 50 years ago. With there being no prospect of supermarket shelves going bare, the public are less susceptible to threats that local food producers are unviable.
The majority of farmers see themselves as good custodians of the environment but have no way of proving it. They have little defense when regulators suggest that they are having a deleterious effect and tend to stoically accept the inevitable.
I found that Global Influences are resetting the rules. The economies of large newly developing countries (e.g. Brazil) are becoming very important influences on world agriculture. Global warming and biofuel are causing huge spin off effects in commodity prices
These factors influenced the final shape of my topic which became:
‘Meat supply chains and how they may be affected by climate change’
I Focussed on:
♦The Farmer end of the supply chain and also the Consumer particularly looking at the concept of ‘green-branding’.
♦The UK covering issues such as food-miles and carbon foot-printing. ♦ Wider Europe to give a perspective in markets beyond the UK.
I investigated Key Influencers in the UK including: farmers; retailers; government and regulatory authorities; lobby groups and experts; media; consumers.
I was particularly interested in the attitude and approach of UK farmers towards climate change. UK farmers are becoming more aware of the potential impact of climate change on their farm businesses. How they perceive climate change is influenced by where in the country they farm and which sector they are in. Some areas of England are concerned about the increased threat of drought and flood. With relatively intensive livestock systems awareness is increasing of potential requirements to reduce energy inputs and calculate carbon emissions. Farmers are investigating systems to produce energy from waste and byproducts. Arable farmers, in particular, see opportunities from climate change through growing crops for fuel not just for food. UK farmers have seen the emergence of the food miles concept as an opportunity to reinforce campaigns encouraging the consumption of British food.
At the other end of the chain I looked at retailers and consumer behaviour particularly related to green branding issues. I also looked at the influence that retailers, media, NGOs, food policy experts and government policy are having on consumer reaction to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions throughout the food chain.
Consumer Issues I investigated in the UK included: food miles; carbon footprints; local food; and livestock in the food chain as well as consumer concerns about food ethics. I identified that the British consumer links the ‘food miles’ concept with: climate change; sustainability; gourmet and local food and food patriotism. I concluded that, in the UK, New Zealand needs to promote the broader issues of sustainability and carbon footprints. It is important for New Zealand to communicate a positive message of its green credibility.
In other countries I found that:
‘Food-miles’ is mainly a UK concept
‘Natural’ and ‘safe’ are important concepts in many countries
The approach to climate change varies hugely between countries
Energy is a much more common focus than food
There is considerable variation between cultures and countries in there approach to climate change as there are similarities – it is very easy to focus on the English-speaking countries.
My recommendations include:
Continuing to cultivate and enhance our ‘natural’ image in overseas markets. In the UK in particular this should include providing good quality information on carbon emissions from New Zealand agricultural products.
Increased emphasis on research and development in the area of climate change including a high degree of collaboration both on and off shore. This should include livestock GHG emissions and analysis of emissions throughout food chains that originate in New Zealand.
For carbon equivalent footprints we need industry examples and methodology particularly in the agricultural sector. Where are the easy things to change even if the gains are smaller? Are the differences between farm types and regions significant?
Small grants, pilot projects to get things happening in New Zealand that are everyday overseas in the energy and agriculture sector e.g. more use of by-products and waste.
Each part of the chain needs to understand its contribution and make changes. It may be easier to make larger gains in some areas than others – e.g. refrigeration techniques, but all parts of the chain including on farm need to look to what they can do in the short-term as well as the longer term where new technology and research may make a substantial contribution to solutions.
For as long as I can remember, the catch cry of New Zealand agricultural producers has been to “add value”. Governments and business circles have pointed the stick at the agricultural sector demanding we step up and add value to our commodity products by further processing and marketing before we on-sell that produce.
Dairy companies and Dairy Boards have invested in brands and marketing campaigns to establish a dominant market share in consumer products. The superior value from the consumer markets would add to the returns and enhance the value New Zealand dairy farmers would receive for their milk. Of even greater importance was the added value from consumer markets, which would come into their own in times of low commodity prices. The higher returns from the consumer markets would bolster the ailing commodity prices and provide stability against the rollercoaster nature of commodity returns.
The cost of developing and competing for, a dominant market share in the consumer sector, proved to be very high, with an extremely long payback period. The swings in global commodity pricing and the influence of a floating New Zealand dollar when adverse to New Zealand milk returns have not been able to be offset by the returns from the consumer markets.
The struggling returns from the consumer markets presented a dilemma in times of good commodity prices. Too many times, product and commitment were withdrawn from the consumer markets, to chase the spiking commodity prices. Add to this the recent massive increase in the production of raw milk in New Zealand and the role of adding value to New Zealand milk through consumer products becomes even more daunting.
Conservation is a subjective thing, it is different for different cultures. In the United States, in England and Italy the lived in working rural landscape is highly valued by rural and city people alike, and is protected by a variety of methods.
Government involvement does not necessarily lead to better outcomes in the provision of conservation. It certainly does not lead to the most efficient outcomes. Generally where farmers were paid for conservation outcomes the goals of those programs were unclear. There is little for New Zealand to take from those programs. The English Higher Level Stewardship Scheme is one of the few government schemes that has some elements that could be used in New Zealand.
There are many examples of where the non government sector takes an active involvement in conservation. The outcomes from this involvement appeared to be more effective and more efficient then those from government involvement. The United States situation where large NGO’s such as the Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited are very active, demonstrates what can be achieved when the right policy environment is in place. Creating the right policy environment for conservation groups and land owners to work together can bring real innovation to the provision of conservation outcomes. That innovation includes a full spectrum from short term contracts for a conservation service. to permanent easements and land purchase.
The ability of the larger conservation groups, both in the US and UK, to work with a variety of partners from federal government through to private individuals appeared to be a key competence for the success of their programs
Incentives matter. If the incentives for private and public landowners are wrong then the desired outcomes will not be achieved. I found documented evidence of where landowners had responded in the opposite way to that intended by well meaning legislation.
Niche markets will require specific environmental quality standards which will progressively require verification of integrity of claims. Over time this may move to where minimum environmental standards are a prerequisite for access to many of New Zealand’s markets for agricultural produce. There is potential for much confusion in the market over environmental claims and it would be beneficial if common environmental standards could be developed.
In other countries the relationships between conservation groups and landowners is different than the current New Zealand situation. There is a recognition that dealing with landowners can lead to more enduring outcomes than a command and control approach. There is also recognition from landowners that it is ok to deal with conservation groups.
Internationally housing development is seen as one of the biggest threats to landscapes – a much bigger threat than farming activities.
New Zealand primary producers have been facing a gradual decline in real commodity prices for decades, costs of production are increasing and more recently land values have in many places exceeded the level where an acceptable return on capital is possible.
I hypothesised that our commodity producers could overcome these problems, on an industry wide basis, by investing in longer term research and innovation, with the aim of removing this emphasis on commodity production.
I used my Nuffield Scholarship opportunity to go in search of good models of industries where this approach was successful. My study tour included parts of North America, but primarily United Kingdom and Europe.
The first discovery was that many primary producers were in fact exploiting opportunities that enabled them to continue in business whilst facing the issues highlighted.
New Zealand agriculture has historically concentrated on exploiting its comparative advantage in the production of commodities, relying on favourable soil and climate conditions. Marketing has also been supply driven. This approach is not sustainable as other nations discover similar comparative advantages.
Successful commodity production appeared to be sustainable only where competitive advantage is gained, offering consumers greater value through lower prices or greater benefits that justify greater prices, i.e. lowest cost or differentiated product. Lowest cost can be gained through production techniques, superior processes and infrastructure, and unique skills.
The major shift is from a production driven supply chain to consumer driven value chain, and the aim is to gain a bigger share of existing value of a commodity.
However the focus of my study was enhancing the total available value of a commodity in a value chain, or value adding, as a mechanism of removing emphasis on commodity production.
I investigated various industry and value chain participants who were investing in fundamental research, research with less well defined return on investment than applied research, but with more commercial application than blue skies research. Investors came under the categories of Government, Cooperative, Levy Body, Private Company, and Individual.
Through this process I saw a number of interesting initiatives that provided a two way transfer of information and knowledge between primary producers and researchers, or provided new investors with support with the development of new products and processes. A number of these could provide benefits to New Zealand primary producers.
Following this extensive consultation I made the following conclusions and recommendations for the consideration of New Zealand primary industries.
Investing in value adding and innovation is a useful mechanism of improving overall business return.
Value adding and innovation can be achieved at many levels.
At the very least, New Zealand’s agricultural industries should invest in gaining competitive advantage, and I recommended that farmers continually analyse the long term potential of their industry and their personal position within it to assess whether a change of business strategy or focus is required.
Not everyone wants to invest in value adding and innovation.
Industry wide investment in value adding and innovation should be well targeted.
Best individual results could be achieved by private investment model.
The critical point for industry wide investors to consider their investment position is the presence of intellectual property. I recommended that holders of Levy Orders under the Commodity Levies Act 1990 ensure they have a clear mechanism for assessing the value of investing in intellectual property, and a clear process of controlling how far down that ‘path’ they do invest.
Industry wide investment is important to underpin future applied research.
Government investment is critical in the areas of research capability, ‘blue skies’ research and the majority of fundamental research. I made the recommendation that Government ensures that sufficient resources are invested in ‘blue skies’ research and scientific capability to allow for future national growth and works more closely with levy bodies to assist in achieving industry fundamental research goals.
Farmers need to be made aware of potential value adding and innovation opportunities, and I recommended that Government and levy bodies encourage farmer investment in value adding and innovation by ensuring opportunities are highlighted and that engagement processes are transparent and competitive.
Government should support farm based businesses in exploring value adding and innovation opportunities. I made two recommendations. Firstly, Government and levy bodies ensure that there is a clear pathway for sourcing information on the establishment and running of farmer controlled value adding businesses, and secondly that Crown Research Institutes and Universities consider how pilot processing plant could be made available to aspiring processors, with Government support.
Industries collecting commodity levies should better cooperate in coordinating generic applied research activities. I recommended that holders of Levy Orders of the Commodity Levies Act 1990 ensure there is a forum where generic research cooperation is fully discussed
This report investigates aspects of corporate governance as it should apply to New Zealand agricultural co-operatives. It looks at best practice corporate governance in public listed companies and identifies areas which pose challenges to agricultural co-operatives.
The author attended the 55th Advanced Course in Agricultural Business Management at the Imperial College Wye campus in Kent where he received valuable understanding of EU and UK farming policies, practises and challenges. He visited agricultural co-operatives, training organisations, co-operative associations, co-operative directors and chairmen, farms and farmers in England, Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands and the United States on his self-study tour. He met Australasian co-operative directors at the eighth annual Monash University Agribusiness Co-operative Leadership and Governance Forum held at Hamilton Island in Australia. He met people involved in consumer co-operatives and members of the International Co-operative Alliance at the 2005 co-operative congress in Glasgow where Cooperative UK corporate governance review group presented their final report and had it ratified by the congress.
A key recommendation of this report is that New Zealand co-operatives should voluntarily comply with the corporate governance guidelines published by the New Zealand Securities Commission in 2004.
There are some areas of corporate governance where co-operatives have their own particular challenges. A democratically elected board sourced from the co-operatives members can often result in a board with a wealth of ability, but in a narrow range of skills. There is often a lack of diversity around the board table, directors can be elected without adequate experience or understanding of the role, and there is a tendency for them to stay in the job for too long. To overcome these issues it is even more important in a co-operative, than in a public company, that there is quality training available for directors and prospective directors and that the performance of the board and individual directors is evaluated so that the dead wood can be removed. There needs to be a process to identify skills required on the board and ensure that the candidates put to a members vote have the skills and experience required for the position. If skills gaps can not be filled by training existing directors, or from the membership base then boards should look to appoint from outside the organisation.
The other major point of difference is in a cooperatives relationship with its members. Cooperatives need their members to be united by common goals, and committed to participating in the co-operative to achieve them. This is a communication issue that often receives insufficient attention. Effective communication is two-way. Newsletters are useful but only one way, hence regular meetings with members and shareholders, perhaps in small regional groups, can be very beneficial. There needs to be a culture of openness in the board’s dealings with its members, with a requirement to disclose more information to members than a public company would to its shareholders. Co-operatives need to be sure that they are meeting their member’s needs and are following a strategic direction that will continue to meet their member’s needs.
This report raises the issue of conformance versus performance. Conforming with corporate governance principles requires a lot more commitment than just going through the motions ticking the boxes. Good corporate governance on its own cannot make a cooperative successful, it needs a balance of conformance and performance. The performance dimension focuses on strategy and value creation. The focus is on helping the board to make strategic decisions, understand its appetite for risk and its key drivers of performance, and identify its key points of decision-making. Co-operative ownership is no excuse for poor performance.
Finally there are comments made to the author by people involved with co-operatives around the world. These comments represent the wisdom gained through decades of experience serving on and chairing co-operative boards in different sectors of agriculture and in different countries. They offer a balance to the more theoretical content of the report.
The quality of our NZ economy depends on our ability to acquire, protect, translate, combine and apply knowledge. This knowledge is required to solve today’s problems and to prepare the ground for solving tomorrow’s. Without new knowledge, and new combinations of knowledge, there will be no innovation. And without innovation, NZ will struggle to keep pace with our competitors.
These tenets apply to any country aspiring to maintain its place as a 1st world economy. But they particularly apply to an agricultural sector that currently supports 17% of our economy. The future of an untended NZ agriculture is well signposted amongst other western societies; commodity producers struggling for profitability and shrinking in importance.
The alternate and more attractive, yet ‘difficult-to-achieve’, approach is for NZ Agriculture to embrace innovation to reduce our costs of production, to improve the efficiencies of processing, and to add value and profit to our products. It is this latter point; applying innovation management to add value to food products that was the focus of this study.
Innovation management is about combining the concepts of innovation (creativity, speed and change) and management (planning, organising, monitoring and control). In the context of this report, it is about the question “can we improve the conversion of R&D spend into profitable products?”
The method used to answer this question involved case study visits to world class food companies in Europe, the UK, the United States and Japan. It also included visits to universities and learning institutions to understand their role in promoting innovation. Finding small and medium food enterprises proved to be problematic; start-up and small innovative companies from a range of sectors were utilised.
Each of these case studies provided the following insights regarding the key factors for successful innovation management:
⇒ To innovate requires investment and by most measures NZ under-invests. Successful FMCG[1] companies such as Nestlé and Kraft are spending approximately 1.2 – 1.4% of sales on R&D, ingredient companies typically spend 0.7 – 0.9% of sales on R&D. By comparison, Fonterra (NZ’s largest private investor in R&D) spends 0.8% of sales on innovation. Nationally, our R&D spend is approximately half of the OECD average and government research expenditure in the agricultural sector has fallen since the early 1990’s.
⇒ Successful innovation needs to be targeted by a clear vision and business strategy. New Zealand is competing against world-class food conglomerates so our vision and strategy must focus the scope of our aspirations and must match our key competencies with market requirements. Bernard Matthews, a vertically integrated meat company now ‘owns’ the UK frozen lamb category through an absolute alignment of the company activities with the market.
⇒ Successful innovation requires a constancy of purpose. Danone, a French Company, has set out to dominate the fresh dairy category through focusing on active health, nutrition, customer preference and technology. After more than 20 years of resolute effort, they have overtaken the giant, Nestlé, as the category leader in most of their markets.
⇒ There must be a supporting innovation culture, such as that displayed within Kerry Group’s strategic business units. Staff must be encouraged to innovate; rewarding success must be balanced by understanding failure, and both internal and external networks must be fostered.
⇒ Whilst business structure doesn’t appear to be critical, most successful food businesses have a centralised Research facility with supporting in-market product development centres. Although NZ is a good location for Research, our development activities may be better placed off-shore. The lack of NZ development activity for lamb in the UK market was noticeable.
⇒ Intelligence – including the orderly gathering, processing and use of information is critical to determine the most profitable areas of development. Bernard Matthews uses store sales and market research to drive product development.
⇒ Strong links into the market. There are real tensions between technology push and market pull – and in NZ we are dominated by ‘push’. Innovation that isn’t linked to real market requirements will fail. Unilever, a multinational food and consumer products company displays excellence in this regard.
⇒ Innovation tools that result in a superior conversion of R&D spend into profitable process improvements, products or services. The best companies have clear criteria for saying ‘No’ to projects at all stages of their development. By cutting failing projects we have more resources available for the projects that are most likely to succeed.
⇒ Managing the skill base – addressing issues such as the recruitment and retention of people with the needed conceptual and scientific or technical skills, or of accessing those skills externally. Most of the companies studied, as leaders in their field, had strong resource recruitment and retention capabilities.
In addition to the large company case studies, innovation in a small and medium sized firm (SME) context was studied. SMEs suffer from a lack of finance, capability and capacity in applying the innovation process. Successful SMEs have a clear and limited vision, a good understanding of the path to commercialisation, can access good business acumen and can secure funding from a range of angel or venture capital sources.
Whilst the detail of this report was focused on innovation, the Nuffield experience allows scholars to consider a wide range of issues relevant to NZ agriculture. The state of our competitors, the potential for product substitutes, the attitude of the urban public to agriculture and environmental issues were all additional subjects of interest. A series of farming magazine articles written during the course of my studies are appended to this report
The wide degree of anticipation for the completion of this report by many people suggests to me that the problems of getting the job done whilst maintaining harmonious employment relationships are greater than first envisaged.
The human (social) component of triple bottom line reporting has only recently become acknowledged as part of sustainable business management.
The race for talent has begun; the statistical projections for where future employees will come from are compelling. All industries are competing for fewer available and skilled people.
People have been leaving agriculture for years and the job has still got done. However the quality of output, level of productivity and lost opportunities does have a cost. The real labour shortage in agriculture is in the area of middle management and people who can manage people.
Supply chains are being shortened, product specifications more defined and margins squeezed. If employers cannot compete as producers of high quality low cost food and fibre, then production will be exported to countries with lower costs of labour.
There are no simple answers to harmonious employment relationships. No one size fits all. Even the very best people people can get it wrong despite spending vast amounts of time in communicating with their people and upgrading their skills.
In agriculture we will see a bigger gap between those who think and those who do. In the past we have had to be able to do the whole job. Future farm size will prohibit this. Scale and specialisation will dominate world agriculture in the future.
Agribusiness has to adopt a professional approach to Human Resource management. As employers we must upgrade our skills and be seen as employers of choice for an ever decreasing talent pool, rather than last resort.
There are only three essential elements that we need to get right; Recruit, Motivate and Retain. Recruitment is the only time we can truly influence the outcome, if in doubt, don’t hire. Recognition and achievement are real motivators and remember to say thanks. People will stay with the business if they think they own it, devolve responsibility but maintain accountability.
Best practice in employment can be summed up as:
Full and honest communication with employees about each individuals performance and about the companies prospects,
Involve employees in developing the business and invest in growing their skills.
Treat employees fairly and with respect
Leadership in farming requires more than just being technically sound. Leaders of people require an understanding of self combined with a positive and disciplined approach.
We have a very good set of points of difference and positive lifestyle factors to leverage off. There is nothing like prosperity to raise the profile. As society changes new types of employee will emerge, particularly from older lifestyle changers.
Once a day milking shows real promise in fitting into the changing needs of society. This would fit the NZ style of pastoral farming more than any other. A mindset change is required away from production to productivity and profitability.
Adoption and adaptation of new technology to farm systems needs to continue. Measures of milk produced per person compared to twenty years ago would suggest that this would continue. Robotic milking is a limited option. Labour is not eliminated but still required to manage and interpret information.
There is opportunity for groups of farms to engage a specialist HR consultant. Also to share labour across enterprises.
Sectors of agriculture such as “dairy farming” need to be re branded to get away from some of the current negative connotations. Everyone has a duty to lift the image.
Development of simple modulated systems that are well documented and easily replicated will assist in improved productivity. Roles are likely to become more specialised and tasks based on rostered systems. More shift type work will prevail.
Recruitment of immigrant labour to fill low skilled and seasonal positions is a very real option. These people are very keen to work and are often well qualified. They do not need to be looked upon or treated as slave labour. Some may be displaced farmers from other modern countries.
The result of socially influenced policies of work life balance and reduced work hours will necessitate agribusiness becoming more flexible to accommodate the needs of their employees.
As employers we have very real competition for competent skilled staff and must walk the talk to attract and retain sufficiently skilled and motivated employees. If we want a good reputation then we have to do a good job.
Understanding the Carbon Footprint in Farming Systems – Craige Mackenzie