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...

Dan Eb – Moving to citizen-connected food and farming.

Dan Eb, 2021 Nuffield Scholar, is based in Auckland. Dan runs Dirt Road Comms, established to support those building a more just food system. He is also the founder of Open Farms.

With one foot on a Kaipara farm and one in the city, Dan is well placed to talk about the importance of re-connecting urban kiwis with our land, food and farmers.

Awarded a Nuffield Scholarship in 2021, Dan completed his research on
The Home Paddock: A strategy for values-led redesign of the domestic food system.

Listen to Dan’s podcast or read the transcript below.

Bryan GibsonManaging Editor of Farmer’s Weekly.

Kia Ora, you’ve joined the Ideas That Grow podcast, brought to you by Rural Leaders. In this series, we’ll be drawing on insights from innovative rural leaders to help plant ideas that grow so our regions can flourish. Ideas that Grow is presented in association with Farmers Weekly.

My name is Bryan Gibson. I’m the Managing Editor of Farmers Weekly and this week we are checking in with a recent Nuffield Scholar, Daniel Eb. How’s it going?

Daniel Eb – 2021 Nuffield Scholar, founder of Open Farms and marketing specialist.
Kia Ora. Very well, thanks.

BG: And where are you calling from?

DE: I’m calling from Auckland, but half the time you’ll find me at the family farm up in Kaipara.

BG: And is that where you grew up, in Kaipara?

Work fuelled by rural and urban perspectives.

DE: I mostly grew up in the city. I was very lucky to have a foot in both camps. We bought a farm when I was a teenager, and I would normally spend the weeks in the city. Then, either most weekends or every second weekend up at the farm. The older I’ve got, the more time I’ve been able to spend up there.

BG: I know a little bit about your work over the last few years. I mean, you’ve married those two aspects of your upbringing into a career, haven’t you?

DE: That’s exactly it. My mother’s been in public relations for a long time and my father’s a farmer. So I thought, you know what, let’s do agri-comms. 

BG: You run Dirt Road Communications. Tell me a little bit about that.

DE: Dirt Road Communications is a purpose marketing agency. I’m selective of the people I work with. They need to be driving towards a shared mission of mine, which is a just and regenerative food system in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

I have the privilege of working with people like AgriWomen’s Development Trust, who are really focused on building capability amongst farmers. I work with local food system advocates as well. We’re looking more at systemic issues and big changes in food and farming. I support these people with digital marketing and brand positioning, helping them understand their value proposition, building big projects, that sort of thing.

Forging stronger connections to food and our farming system.

BG: That is in the same wheelhouse as your Nuffield Scholar Report, isn’t it?

DE: The report was an opportunity to slow down and look at the big picture as to the change these organisations are driving for. It was about articulating, well, what the future looks like when we achieve a food and farming system in New Zealand that benefits producers and every kiwi, because food is really important and it doesn’t just drive our economy, it drives our families, it drives our culture, and it drives our health.

The report was an opportunity to step back and paint a picture of what success could look like when we change that system.

BG: Yeah. It’s a criticism or a challenge often talked about in terms of our food production sector that it’s so good at certain things, but that it’s lost the connection to its own community, if you know what I mean? Because we export 95 % of all the food we produce. Therefore, all our food prices are driven by international market forces, like the price of cheese, which gets on everyone’s nerves. Is that something that you were looking to address?

DE: I think you’ve explained it really well. I like to tell stories to explain these big concepts. The thing I think about is, if you’re a kiwi mum living in, I don’t know, Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch, 84 % of us live urban lives now, so you’re one of that big majority. You’re aware that in the background food and farming is important to New Zealand as an economic driver. But, the thing that you’re most worried about is, what are you feeding your child for dinner? Is it healthy? Is it nutritious? Has it been grown as sustainably as possible? Is it affordable?

As growers and producers, we’re really good at the production side of things, but that relationship is really important. That Kiwi mum’s kids are going to be the people that we want to recruit into food and farming later on. If they’ve got a broken relationship with food and farming, it’s going to be really difficult to encourage them into food and farming careers. That Kiwi mum’s a voter. She might end up voting for parties that want to be more restrictive on food production.

We’re seeing that now with all the regulation that’s coming through. There’s a missed opportunity that she’s not going to jump on social media or when she’s overseas, badmouth food and farming in New Zealand. There’s a missed opportunity to turn her into an advocate for what we’re doing because she has a broken relationship with food and farming or with farming.

How do we strengthen the connection to food and food production?

We can’t think about farming without thinking about its role in society, and this is now an urbanised society. Until we start building things to rebuild that connection and start taking that relationship seriously, we’re going to continue to see bad results. I think those three big areas; recruitment, social license, and the ability to tell a cool, authentic, proven story overseas.

BG: So how do you go about unpacking this, or solving this, or moving the dial on this problem in a Nuffield Scholar Report? Where did you start? How do you go about it?

DE: Slowly and painfully is probably the best description. The first place I went to was to take a really zoomed-out view, and think, how do we often think about food and farming, and how should we think about food and farming? We often think about it as a business and as an industry, but I feel that food and farming doesn’t necessarily belong just there. I think it should be thought about more as a public good.

Food and farming as a public good.

An example for public good is health care and education. These are sectors within our society that have a high degree of touch with everyday New Zealanders. There’s a whole lot of trust, like social license is almost unquestioned. No one questions whether we need education. It’s just there.

I’ve had the privilege of having a lot of time on farm, so I know that the farm can be a place of healing, it can be a place of learning, it could be a place of inspiration, it could be a place of health. In my eyes, farming has the ability to transcend just a mere industry: shoes, iPhones, socks, handbags, and actually sit in a public good space.

I think that reframe is really important because it opens up a lot of potential. Now you can start saying, well, how would we make farming more like education? Why is education such a trusted sector? It opens up more opportunities for things like funding, because now you can say, can we go to the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Development, and the MPI together and do system change. Because it’s really good for society. So, you’re suddenly in a different ball game just from that mindset shift. So that was the first bit.

BG: And you’re not talking about, for example, if we look at education, a lot of the schools are run centrally. You’re talking more about a partnership in a way of looking at things. So farming businesses go, my bottom lines are met by making a profit on these animals that I raise, but also taking these things off in a social or environmental sense. Is that the idea?

DE: Yeah, that’s the starting place. Then you start to think about what concrete solutions would look like. Education might not be the best example in this instance. Healthcare is probably a better example. To me, healthcare is quite interesting because you effectively have two models that sit side by side. You’ve got a private health care model where people pay for service, and then you’ve got a public health care model. Interestingly, doctors flip between the two. You can have public doctors that operate privately and vice-versa.

Regardless of which system you play in, every doctor gets paid well. It’s a very respected role in society. To me, they’re solutions that mindset will prompt you into.

A relatively concrete solution that I could see is if there was an organisation set up to encourage farmers who are farming close to cities to transition to local food economies and local food business models. Whether that’s community supported agriculture or technology driven food distribution, like Happy Cow Milk, which is the Fonterra factory-in-a-box model. That has some government support because it would be required to reduce the amount that some consumers are paying for food and it could operate on something like a postcode system where, depending on your postcode, you pay a different amount for your food.

But alternatively, a farmer who’s further away from town would probably participate in the more status quo export model running through your processor and then selling our kai overseas. There’s no reason why those two things can’t sit well blended together. But by having that, some farmers incentivised to operate in that local system, you’re solving all these other big issues like social license, like recruitment, like people understanding where their food comes from, and also creating this really fertile ground to tell a really compelling international story about food security and how important kai is to New Zealanders, and this is how we treat it. You’re creating content and you’re building this overseas provenance story as well.

So, a lot of it really does sit within that reframe that, you know what, smart investment from industry and government into these public good food system models, particularly local, can net some massive results in the long-run.

Opening farms for a win-win.

BG: I guess we should mention, since you’re the bright spark behind Open Farms, that programme was run on a lot of farms and most of them were relatively close to urban centres. That showed that there was appetite from both farmers and from the general public to come together and engage on this food journey.

DE: Exactly, and I think if we could build local food models that by design connect urban kiwis with the sources of at least some of their food production, then there’s an economic rationale to a farmer to host open days. Now there’s an economic rationale for a farmer to connect with a local school, and maybe there’s some financial incentives that go along with that. Suddenly, you’re breaking that barrier, that 60-minute barrier between city limits and where farming starts.

You start blurring that line and I think the blurring that line is really important if we’re going to solve some of these entrenched issues that urbanism has created over the last 50, 60 years. But we need new models to do that. We can’t just hope a couple of open farm days are going to do it. We actually have to do relatively large system change to design the outcomes that we want.

BG: What else did you find in your report that you think could help in this values driven food transition?

DE: I think it’s important to believe this change is already happening. This isn’t something we have to manufacture. This idea of citizen connected businesses or new business models; this stuff’s already happening organically. It’s about latching on to that. Instead of seeing that as a threat to the export talk, dominated, centralised system of food, we see that as a really supportive ancillary model that the two can gel well together. I do just want to reiterate that these two models aren’t in competition at all. Quite the opposite. I know when we talk about public good, it starts getting into the realm of politics and words like socialism get thrown around and stuff like that, I think that’s a side track.

At the end of the day, we’ve got to focus on the outcomes we actually want and be a bit ideologically agnostic. This is 2023, and we need every tool we’ve got on the table to fix some of these deeply entrenched problems. In terms of other stuff, I think there’s a whole lot of smart tactical plays that we can do to get us there as well.

The Nuffield Global Focus Programme and public good overseas.

These are things like social diversifications that we can layer on to farms. I’ve just come back from my Nuffield GFP travel, and one of the things that really stood out was a bunch of people in the Netherlands who are using their farms in partnership with local health care providers or local schools. These are financial business transactions and having kids come onto the farm regularly as a partnership with local schools. It’s becoming an education platform.

There was one farmer who had partnered with a local healthcare provider to bring kids with learning disabilities onto the farm. It was a collaboration between a healthcare provider, a learning disability specialist, and the farmer. They were all co-collaborating to create this programme for those kids. Now, the funder is the Ministry of either education or health care in that instance. But that diversification costs the farmer to build a hut to make sure they don’t get rained on and some time to build the system. But at the end of the day, that’s a revenue generating diversification that he’s layered onto his farm. That costs him very little and it’s returning him a good profit.

We’re desperate for these ways to eke out some more margin off our landscapes. I just think that these community connection diversifications are an unearthed gem. They cost very little to do. Yes, there’s some soft skills that are required, and there’d be some upskilling, and you’d have to get relatively comfortable with new people coming onto the farm too. But it’s a lot cheaper than putting in kiwifruit for example. Then you’re also running the risk of a bad harvest and all that stuff. There’s very little risk here.

I think in a time when traditional food production on our farms is becoming harder; pick a reason: government regulation, higher import costs, climate change, poor returns on global markets, this social diversification is just gold. I just don’t feel that enough farmers, particularly in those peri-urban areas, are seeing that. That’s what a large part of my work is, building projects that make it easy to move into this new citizen-connected farming model, which I think is going to be really valuable for farmers who are cash-strapped.

BG: Now, you mentioned your travels. That’s obviously a big part of the Nuffield. Any other highlights from your trips you abroad?

DE: Heaps. I’m trying to write up a bit of a reflections document now. It’s hard because I keep trying to add stuff in instead of taking stuff out. We had a great group. We went to Japan, then Israel, then the Netherlands, then Washington DC, and the Central Valley in California. To me, a highlight was seeing what the driving force behind agriculture in these different contexts was. We’d go to Israel where water infrastructure was at the scale and of the excellent standard that it is, not because of government policies or anything like that, but it was all done for security reasons. Security is the number one driver in Israel. So, agriculture is almost a by-product of security. That’s what happens when you fight three existential wars in the last 70 odd years.

Interestingly, the big driver in a place like Japan was tradition. They’ve actually inadvertently figured out through trial and error and population growth in a relatively restricted coastal plain, that they have to fuse agriculture and urban life together. Outside of downtown Tokyo, the landscape is a mix of residential business, rice paddies, vegetable gardens.

They don’t have a social license problem because their geography represents that breaking of the barriers and fusion of urban and rural and food production and the lifestyles that I’ve been talking about. The geography has pushed them into a space. It’s interesting to look at those places and think, Well, what’s our driving force? If we’re honest with ourselves, right now, it’s agribusiness. It’s an economic powerhouse. There’s nothing right or wrong with that. But to me, that feels very limited. I think there’s a lot we can explore and experiment on top of it as just an economic powerhouse.

I think food and farming can be a public good. Interestingly, I think our geography, this idea that we’re basically restricted as Kiwis to our urban centres, and there’s a whole lot of farmland in between, that’s a huge barrier. We’ve got to build little strings and break little gaps in that wall, particularly in our peri-urban areas, to get where we want to go. That being a society where people are really proud of food and farming, are healthy, and see food and farming not just as a viable career, but as a mission and a purpose for something that they want to do for the rest of their life.

I think that’s entirely achievable. We just got to build things to do it.

The Nuffield Scholarship experience.

BG: How have you found the Nuffield experience overall?

DE: Awesome. Honestly, I can’t recommend it highly enough. I think everyone’s experience is a little bit different. I think it can give you what you’re looking for, even if you don’t really know what that is. For me, it was time. It was a forced requirement to sit down and write out my manifesto, almost. These thoughts are running through my head. How are they all working together? What am I aiming for? And that was really valuable for me. It’s enabled me to articulate some of these things, which are pretty hard ideas to describe. And so Nuffield gave me time, whereas I can say that for a lot of my fellow scholars, Nuffield gave them experience, or some learning about themselves that they wouldn’t otherwise have got. For me, it was time.

BG: Thanks for listening to Ideas that Grow, a Rural Leaders podcast in partnership with Massey and Lincoln Universities, AGMARDT and Food HQ. This podcast was presented by Farmers Weekly.

For more information on Rural Leaders, the Nuffield New Zealand Farming Scholarships, the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, or the Value Chain Innovation Programme, please visit ruralleaders.co.nz

A principles-centred leadership model for Aotearoa New Zealand’s Food and Fibre sector. 

In 2022, the Food and Fibre Centre of Vocational Excellence commissioned New Zealand Rural Leadership Trust to research and design a leadership development ecosystem for Aotearoa New Zealand’s Food and Fibre sector.

The first report looked at the state of leadership development in the sector.

This new report, A Principles-centred Leadership Model for Aotearoa New Zealand’s Food and Fibre Sector, builds on the findings of that first report.

The Principles-centred Leadership Model proposes three impactful elements. Each element can be considered separately, though real power comes from all three elements being applied together.

The Model states that leaders who truly lead unleash their potential and that of those around them. In doing so, they create an exponential impact for the Food and Fibre sector and for Aotearoa New Zealand.

The Model combines three major elements to be applied holistically:

  1. The Food and Fibre context, which is significant to New Zealand’s wealth and wellbeing, is founded on an entrepreneurial spirit and requires leaders to be grounded practically, environmentally, culturally and in their communities.
  2. Food and Fibre Principles. Feedback from the sector has been distilled down into three leadership principles, people, service, and teams.
    1. Leadership starts with knowing and understanding people – if you wish to influence others, first know yourself.
    2. Leadership is about the service and accountability, not status – you wish to lead, serve.
    3. Leadership is a team sport. Leaders build teams and teamwork – if you wish to generate power, share it.
  3. Three dimensions of true leadership.
    Who we are is at the core of why, what, and how we lead. To truly lead requires more than physical and practical behaviours, it requires more than the psychology of hearts and minds, true leadership requires the leader to do the internal work to truly know themselves, their wairua, and lead from within.

    The best leaders then also see beyond the horizon and lead those they serve through the changing context, for the purpose of a thriving future and in a way that unleashes the potential of those they lead.

If we create pathways for people to develop and take on increasing responsibility in the Food and Fibre sector can have a multiplier effect on Aotearoa’s future prosperity that goes beyond the impact that leadership systems in other sectors can create.

The next phase of this project is the development of the leadership handbook – available 2024.

We look forward to sharing more on the project over the next few months, but should you wish to discuss the leadership model further, please reach out to Lisa Rogers, CEO Rural Leaders, at lisarogers@ruralleaders.co.nz

Click on the image to access the report.

Engage – a Rural Leaders and Lincoln University programme collaboration.

Engage is designed, developed, and delivered collaboratively by the NZ Rural Leadership Trust in conjunction with Lincoln University (Dr Victoria Westbrooke), and with funding from the Ministry for the Environment.

The first pilot for a new programme ‘Engage’ wrapped up after an inspiring and highly interactive three days, spread across workshops, field trips and hearing from industry leaders.

Facilitated by Dr Scott Champion, Engage bridges the knowledge gap for individuals aimed at those with moderate to low knowledge of the sector. Engage is ideal for those connecting to the Food and Fibre sector, particularly in farmer-focused roles such as policy, advisory, or regulatory.

Engage really is a case of seeing the need and addressing it. One of the challenges people entering the Food and Fibre sector can face is acquiring enough knowledge and skills to approach and speak to farmers collaboratively.

Engage is designed, developed, and delivered by the NZ Rural Leadership Trust in conjunction with Lincoln University (Dr Victoria Westbrooke), and with funding from the Ministry for the Environment.

The three-day programme included speakers, workshops, and visits to two impressive farming operations: arable-mixed (Hamish Marr and Stuart Marr), and dairy (Matt Iremonger).

Our sincere thanks to both Hamish, Matt and to all of the industry leaders who shared their time, knowledge and insights with the group (Mel Poulton, Jess Smith, Mike Peterson, Ian Proudfoot, Sam Mander, and Denise Beswell from Scarlatti).

Engage is now into it’s second pilot as well as the third of five bespoke programmes for a large organisation. If you’d like to know more, or to book a team member or group on the May 1-3 programme, contact Dr Lyndsey Dance, Programmes Manager at Lyndseydance@ruralleaders.co.nz

Lisa Rogers appointed CEO Rural Leaders.

Press Release: Lincoln, 28 July 2023.

The Board of the New Zealand Rural Leadership Trust (Rural Leaders) has announced the appointment of Lisa Rogers, current General Manager, to the role of Chief Executive Officer.

Rogers brings nearly six years’ expertise and knowledge gained as Programmes Manager and more recently, as General Manager of the Trust.

Rogers replaces former Chief Executive Officer, Chris Parsons, who resigned in April to take up the Chief Commercial Officer role at MyFarm Investments.

Since joining Rural Leaders in 2017, Rogers has led its highly respected programmes. These include the Kellogg Rural Leadership and the Value Chain Innovation Programmes. She has also helped steer the Nuffield New Zealand Farming Scholarship, which sees up to five sector leaders embark on a period of research and international travel each year.

Bringing professionalism and insight to the Trust’s long-established leadership development platforms, Trust Chair, Kate Scott, also welcomed the stability and expertise Rogers offers.

“We are excited about Lisa’s appointment and what it will mean for the Trust. Lisa will ensure continuity of our projects, such as the Food and Fibre Leadership Development Project while also delivering a steady operational and strategic momentum, both for our investing partners and for our team.”

Rogers brings a deep understanding of Rural Leaders’ operational and strategic ambitions, along with a wealth of pan-sector influences and knowledge gained from senior management roles in food and fibre, extraction and banking and finance.

“Lisa not only brings her valuable experience to the role, she is, at her core, genuinely passionate about the people in food and fibre and the growth of its leaders,” adds Scott.

As General Manager, Rogers has been acting in the capacity of interim CEO of Rural Leaders since May. 

How do early-stage AgriTech founders use professional assistance?

Executive summary

This project has looked at how smaller AgriTech start-ups have used professional assistance, with the objective of better understanding of why or why not assistance is obtained and the timing around these decisions.

A combination of a literature review followed by interviews with six founders of smaller AgriTech start-ups and four professional advisors were undertaken to identify topical findings.

There was limited New Zealand specific literature, therefore relevant literature from a broad range of overseas countries has been reviewed.

Interviews were undertaken to obtain qualitative data from founders of smaller AgriTech start-up companies and professional advisors aligned with the AgriTech industry.

A consistent theme observed in the findings from both the literature review and interviews was that better outcomes can be achieved by founders of smaller AgriTech start-up companies who make use of appropriate professional assistance earlier on in their journey.

The main recommendations are:

  • Founders of smaller AgriTech start-up companies should seek professional assistance early in the journey.
  • Founders of smaller AgriTech start-up companies should actively seek out their regional start-up hub for educational events and networking.
  • Professional Advisors should be sufficiently self-aware to understand that they may not have the appropriate skill set for working with smaller AgriTech start-up companies.
  • Professional Advisors should provide Founders with a road-map outlining the stages at which specific advice would best be most useful.
  • Founders and professional advisors should ensure that their relationship is built on mutual trust. There needs to be an inherent level of trust between the founders of smaller AgriTech start-up companies and the professional advisors that they engage with.

    As noted in the limitations to this project, further research could be undertaken with a larger sample pool to ensure robustness of the conclusions.

Steve Hydes

Know Your Why – Motivations for a Sustainable Future.

Executive summary

With growing demands for sustainability in the food and fibre industries, there is mounting pressure from consumers to produce environmentally responsible products. This report addresses the necessity for the New Zealand dairy industry to prioritise climate change concerns and associated greenhouse gas emissions to secure a sustainable future.

The report aims to understand the motivations behind the adoption of new innovations by dairy farmers and learn how to accelerate the uptake of practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby ensuring the long-term sustainability of farming in New Zealand. Additionally, the report aims to create a resource to inform government, industry bodies, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) about alternative approaches to motivate farmers in reducing greenhouse gas emissions positively.

The research question guiding this study is: How can we motivate New Zealand dairy farmers to embrace practices that effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

A literature review was conducted to gain insights into the significance of greenhouse gases in the New Zealand dairy industry. The review examined the impact and relevance of greenhouse gases within the New Zealand dairy industry. 23 semi-structured interviews were used to uncover the motivations that would drive New Zealand dairy farmers to adopt practices aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions on their farm. Responses were categorised into the following high-level themes:

WHY (belief): Explored the aspects of purpose, motivation, social structure, and trust.
HOW (actions): Focused on leadership, communication, and pathway implementation.
WHAT (result): Addressed knowledge acquisition, problem definition, and barriers encountered.

Information gathered from the literature review and semi-structured interviews, highlighted the importance of understanding the “WHY” behind motivations and the utilisation of effective communication strategies (“HOW”) to drive the adoption of sustainable practices within the New Zealand dairy industry.

Recommendations:

  • Leverage the intrinsic values and purpose that farmers already possess. When developing GHG related communications to dairy farmers, industry partners should inspire farmers towards transformative change by building on farmers’ existing intrinsic values and encouraging mastery to drive toward continuous improvement.

  • Emphasise the importance of the economic benefits and social licence to operate. Milk processors need to communicate to farmers and rural professionals the potential advantages of being market leaders in greenhouse gas emissions reduction and the consequences of falling behind.

  • Create a single location for information regarding greenhouse gas related resources. Ministry for the Environment should provide and manage a resource location (i.e. website) for reputable GHG related literature, policies, regulations and general resources related to climate change specifically for the dairy sector.

  • Provide greenhouse gas emissions resources for veterinarians. New Zealand Veterinarian Association (NZVA) should curate a list of reputable sources of information regarding greenhouse gas emissions regulations, mitigation strategies, and the economic advantages of adopting practices that reduce GHG emissions. As a trusted source of information, veterinarians can disseminate this information to dairy farmers.

Tracey Reynolds

Lean on Me: The Effectiveness of Psychosocial Services Available to Farmers Following Adverse Events.

Executive summary

Climate change is increasing the frequency of climatic extremes. Accordingly rural psychosocial services must be prepared to support farmers in the face of increased adverse events. For those farmers most severely affected, the rural clinical mental health services which treat farmers are often underfunded, under resourced and difficult to access due to structural inequities.

New Zealand’s economy and wellbeing of its people are intricately linked to the success of the primary sector. Therefore, farmers’ psychosocial recovery after an adverse event is vital, not only for moral reasons, but sound economic reasons.

This project examines who the stakeholders are in the rural psychosocial ecosystem, how farmers interact with these stakeholders, and how these stakeholders in turn interact together. It aims to understand the challenges and constraints to delivery of effective psychosocial services, and solutions to overcome these challenges and constraints.

The key learnings of this project are:

  • Distant stakeholders who set policy and control funding are removed from rural communities’ needs and consequently, prioritisation and understanding of rural mental health suffer.
  • There is a lack of strategic direction and metrics in rural mental health, and specifically psychosocial recovery following adverse events. There is a dearth of data, duplication and confusion of roles, unsustainable funding models for psychosocial services and a stretched clinical mental health workforce. All of which contribute to a less effective service for farmers.
  • Psychosocial services need more support to develop and deliver their services.
  • There is currently no plan to address rural mental health clinical workforce issues.
  • In the absence of sector leadership, the government is currently leading the psychosocial response after adverse events which is leading to ineffective outcomes for farmers.

The recommendations from this project are:

  • Develop a long-term national strategy for rural mental health including psychosocial recovery following adverse events, led by the sector and its industry co-funded mental health champion/ chief executive (CE).
  • Establish a role within MPI’s Rural Communities’ office to advocate rural mental health and improve prioritisation of rural mental health.
  • Develop a rural pathway for clinical psychologists and psychiatrists with their respective registration bodies to bolster the rural mental health workforce, overseen by Ministry of Health and the sector’s mental health champion/ CE.
  • Fund and resource existing psychosocial services, such as Rural Support Trust, to attract and develop some in-house clinical expertise to lessen the burden on the rural clinical workforce.
  • Prioritise rural connectivity to enable technological solutions, with subsidisation for satellite connectivity.

Vanessa Thomson

Women in beekeeping: how to champion ladies in the apiculture industry.

Executive summary

The Apiculture industry plays a key role in the economy not only for their production itself but also for all the benefits that bees provide to the ecosystem and economy. It is also important to consider that diversity and inclusion are not a trend or an item on the governmental agencies agenda, but it is one of the goals of the United Nations to achieve sustainable development by 2030. This report will focus on female beekeepers and will delve into their experiences in the New Zealand’s Apiculture Industry.

Key findings.

The nine interviews provided valuable insights and the semi-structured questions were thoughtfully organised into thematic groups that facilitated the subsequent thematic analysis of qualitative data. To maintain focus and coherence, the identified themes will be kept for in-depth exploration and analysis.

Representation: female beekeepers see the industry as a place where they are underrepresented.
Support: Mentoring was key, and life-changing support was received. The support they did not receive but was needed, is diverse; varies from one beekeeper to another greatly.
Barriers, Uncovering Biases and Advancing Gender Awareness: the most mentioned were gender-based bias and queen bee syndrome.
Women+: Work flexibility is especially important for employed beekeepers as well as for self-employed, this perk is fundamental in attracting more women into the industry and increasing retention.

Recommendations.

Increase women’s representation:
● Annual women’s meeting at the beekeeping conference.
● More female speakers at conferences.
● Showcase the ladies that represent the industry.

Biases, gender awareness and harassment: things to keep in mind on the way to gender bias-free interactions are: Question your bias, address inappropriate behaviour and act against “bad” behaviour.

Improve Gender Equality in job promotions: Ask Why? Why are women not applying for a position?

Sol Tejada

Addressing Mortality in New Zealand Lambing Systems.

Executive summary

The New Zealand sheep industry has become increasingly productive in recent decades. This has been achieved primarily through the fecundity and improved feeding of modern sheep breeds. While impressive, this world-leading production has created unintended consequences in the form of excess mortality rates. This is most notable in triplet-bearing ewes, mated hoggets, their offspring, and all lambs in adverse weather conditions.

New Zealand farm systems have a reputation for being free-range and pasture-based. Currently, consumers are unaware of, or accept a certain level of death as a natural outcome of this free-range system. However, the industry must consider whether the increasingly conscientious customers and consumers will accept high mortality levels in sheep flocks, particularly if they understand the inflated death rates following storm events and the regular wastage in higher-risk animals.

This project explores how New Zealand sheep farmers can improve livestock survival during the lambing season. Information was gathered through literature reviews, 10 expert interviews, 10 farmer surveys and three case studies. Key findings were:

  • Death rates in triplet-bearing ewes and their lambs are significantly higher than in other stock classes and the majority of these deaths occur during the lambing period
  • Industry experts and farmers unanimously agreed that lamb mortality is a problem and needs to be addressed, but few have management solutions for triplets, and a portion of farmers actively ignore the issue
  • There is a minority of top-performing farmers with management plans in place who achieve far below industry-average death rates
  • For improved welfare, mated hoggets require intensive management through the lambing period
  • There is a lack of collaboration between government and industry in funding applied science and performance-based studies to innovate further solutions
  • Farmers believe Beef + Lamb NZ should increase investment in research and development and extension work
  • While there are no market signals that current wastage is an issue, there was unanimous agreement that it could be a trade barrier. Comparisons should be made to bobby calves and future legislation being superseded by industry requirements
  • To drive behaviour change and improved outcomes, a culture shift amongst farmers is required where animal welfare is viewed as paramount through the lambing season and high wastage rates are frowned upon and considered unacceptable by peers.

These key findings were evaluated and recommendations were made to the industry. These are summarised below:

1. Conduct market research to assess perceptions of wastage in NZ lambing systems and the risk this could pose in accessing premium markets.

2. Investigate and understand the extent of wastage in New Zealand lambing systems and subsequently innovate solutions to reduce mortality. The sector should increase investment in research and development and explore opportunities for collaboration between MPI and the science community.

3. Identify innovators who are achieving industry-leading survival rates, and analyse their systems to gauge financial implications and the potential for broader uptake.

4. Improve extension services with an increased focus on wastage. Teach best practice management and distribute new innovations. The rapid development of extension modules and ready-to-present workshops specifically focusing on improving survival are required.

5. Empower industry experts and incentivise further interaction with farmers to promote discussion and make this issue front of mind for farmers.

12.0 Recommendations for Industry, Pg 48 explores these recommendations in more detail.

Richard Dawkins

How Can Technology Help Achieve Sustainable Agriculture in New Zealand?

Executive summary

This report examines the potential of disruptive innovation and emerging technologies to enhance the sustainability and resilience of New Zealand’s sheep, beef, and dairy farming systems. It also explores the drivers, barriers, and impacts of technology adoption on farms. The report draws from peer-reviewed literature and semi-structured interviews with, industry representatives and scientists.

The main findings of the report are:

  • New Zealand’s agricultural sector faces significant challenges in reducing its environmental impact, especially in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate leaching, while maintaining its economic viability and social acceptability.
  • Disruptive innovation and emerging technologies can offer solutions to these challenges by improving farm productivity, efficiency, profitability, and environmental performance.
  • The adoption of these technologies is influenced by various factors, such as cost, risk, regulation, consumer preferences, social norms, knowledge, skills, and infrastructure. These factors can act as drivers or barriers depending on the context and the stakeholder perspective.
  • The impacts of technology adoption on farms can be positive or negative depending on the type, scale, and distribution of the technology.

To facilitate the transition to more sustainable and resilient farming systems through disruptive innovation and emerging technologies, the report recommends the following actions:

  • The industry should foster a culture of innovation and collaboration among farmers, researchers, policymakers, businesses, and consumers to identify and address the needs and opportunities of the sector.
  • The industry should invest in research and development to generate evidence-based knowledge and solutions that are relevant, accessible, and applicable to New Zealand’s farming context.
  • The industry should provide farmers with education and extension services to increase their awareness, understanding, and skills in using new technologies and practices.
  • The industry should engage with stakeholders and the public to communicate the benefits and challenges of technology adoption and to build trust and acceptance of new products and processes.
  • The industry should advocate for supportive policies and regulations that enable innovation and technology adoption while ensuring environmental protection, animal welfare, food safety, and social justice.

This report aims to stimulate discussion among the policy, farming, academic, and wider communities to help shape a future that will safeguard New Zealand’s social, economic, and environmental well-being.

Kathryn Broomfield