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...

kellogg

Early Implementation and the Future of Individual Cow Monitoring Technology in the New Zealand Dairy Industry.

Cameron Burton Kellogg report
Cameron Burton Kellogg report

Executive summary

The New Zealand dairy industry has a labour shortage from managers to farm assistants. This has pushed producers to look for automation options to reduce dependency on labour.

Recent and ongoing improvements have produced large-scale, commercially viable individual cow monitoring technologies that can significantly reduce the workload on farms as well as increase animal performance and health measures. Suppliers of these technologies report a positive return on investment and a reduction in labour
requirements.

The industry has seen significant growth in the uptake and implementation
of these technologies over the last 2-3 years. Implementation of emerging technologies is not always successful; challenges and limitations will exist in a commercial context that are not foreseen during the development or in early trials.
This report will explore the intended application for these technologies and how this
compares with current uptake and implementation at scale on commercial dairy farms.

It will explore areas of successful implementation and areas where obstacles have
reduced performance or prevented the technology to be utilised as expected. Current
and prospective users of the technology need to understand how different technologies in the market are likely to be implemented on their farms. This will help to make informed decisions around which technologies will achieve a more desirable outcome over the long term.

This report will help the suppliers and developers of individual cow monitoring technologies identify areas where their products are not being successfully implemented, and areas for further development to ensure the success of their technology in the New Zealand dairy industry.


A review of national and international literature was undertaken to confirm the accuracy and reliability of the technologies available to ensure they would improve or exceed the status quo of our performance in the New Zealand dairy industry. The review examined the commercial viability of these products and looked to the future of the development and application of individual cow monitoring technologies.

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews then took place with suppliers of the technologies, users, and non-users. Uptake, success and failure, and future development of the technology were examined.

Key Findings

  • The technology is highly accurate and viable for a profitable outcome in a
    commercial large-scale context.
  • All users agreed that the initial application has been successful and the return on investment has been neutral or positive.
  • There is potential for greater return on investment from ongoing training and
    implementation of the full complement of features the technology has to offer.
  • Challenges exist with the usability of the software and the sensitivity of health alerts specific to New Zealand’s outdoor grazing systems.

Recommendations

Producers

  • Develop a user-friendly interface as fast as possible, and regularly connect with users for improvements and future development.
  • Reduce the sensitivity of health alerts and integrate on-farm weather conditions with health alerts to limit false positives from weather events.
  • Ensure recruitment and the training of support staff can meet customer requirements as uptake increases. New support staff could double as sales staff to allow for early recruitment.
  • Outsource and fund third parties for technical support. Farm consultants, vets, farm advisors, and other rural professionals could be used to help educate and review the data.
  • Produce actionable reports/groups of cows from the data to minimise the interpretation and increase action taken on the farm. 

Current and future consumers

  • Prior to implementing any brand of individual cow monitoring technology, research the current and future access to after-sales support and technical specialists to ensure you will have ongoing support. Pay particular attention to your exposure to individual staff moving out of the role and limiting the technical support available.
  • Be prepared to put the time and effort into learning and understanding the software as there is an interpretation of raw data required.
  • Ensure the technology you implement is largely mainstream to ensure support from other users and increase the chances of new employees being familiar with the software.
  • Work with vets and advisors to create protocols and policies to shift from clinical diagnosis to subclinical investigation and diagnosis before clinical illness impacts production and profitability.

Capturing value on-farm.

Megan Fitzgerald Kellogg Research Report
Megan Fitzgerald Kellogg Research Report

Executive summary

More consumers are seeking food products that have credence attributes, such as improved animal welfare outcomes, lower environmental impact, and positive social impacts. Credence attributes cannot be seen or tasted, consumers only know they are being met by information being passed from producer, through the supply chain to them.

Commodity supply chains struggle to pass on accurate, complex information, leaving consumers who are seeking these attributes looking to buy their food through other outlets. Savarese et al., (2020) identified a real opportunity for New Zealand farmers if they are able to connect to these market segments. This research identifies the key requirements a family farm must have to successfully establish and maintain a short value chain.

Coinciding with the growing consumer market, is a risker macro-economic environment where farmers are subjected to tighter margins on commodity markets. Short value chains present opportunities to diversify risk through accessing alternative markets, equity growth without a dependence on acquiring more land, and a way to include more family members in the family farming business.


This research uses semi structured interviews to collect information from family farm businesses who are selling food products directly to consumers. A thematic analysis is carried out to identify the key requirements to consider when establishing a short value chain.

Establishing and sustaining a short value chain is a cyclic process that needs constant realignment between the resources the farm business has and the demands of the customer segment. Farm businesses must have the desire to connect to consumers and the ability to identify opportunities that allow them to connect with consumers in a cost-efficient way.

Success relies on mobilising the businesses resources and establishing a production system that creates a constant supply of quality product. Finally, the business must continually seek opportunities to realign with changing consumer demands and maintain their competitive advantage – which comes back to identifying opportunities.

The defining characteristics of family farm businesses who participate in short value chains is their ability to create and sustain consumer trust. This trust results in consumers who are willing to pay more for their product.

From the analysis of successful short value chains in New Zealand there are a number of recommendations for family farm business wishing to establish and participate in a short value chain.

The key recommendations are to 

  1. establish your family values and align these to customer segments to decrease costs associated with mobilising resources,

  2. spend time creating a production system that produces consistent, quality products that your consumer wants,

  3. connect with your consumers, provide transparency on product details through face-to-face and more permanent marketing such as websites, social media, etc., and

  4. constantly seek feedback and opportunities to better meet your consumer’s needs.

Barriers to Genetic Potential Through Sire Selection in New Zealand Sheep Farms

Executive summary

Agriculture contributes to 50% of New Zealand’s gross greenhouse gas emissions, an industry that is largely dominated by ruminants producing methane (Ministry for the Environment, 2022).

The Climate Change Response Act 2002 has set a target to reduce biogenic methane emissions to 24–47 per cent below 2017 levels by 2050. Therefore, the reduction of methane emissions from livestock is of significant environmental and economic importance.

It has been demonstrated that there is repeatable, individual variation in the methane emissions of sheep and that part of that variation is genetically heritable. There is now a breeding value that allows commercial farmers to rank, select and purchase lower methane emitting sires. This is currently the only tangible and proven mitigation farmers can start implementing on their farms right now.

In a time where our consumers are more discerning than ever before about how their food is produced, it is vital that commercial farmers utilise resources and technologies wherever possible to further our competitive advantage through sustainable practices.

However – regardless of personal views on climate change or political policies – do commercial farmers have the capacity and capability to understand the opportunity that these low methane-emitting genetics bring?

This research focuses on understanding the barriers to genetic potential through sire selection on New Zealand sheep farms.

To gather information on the barriers for farmers in relation to breeding decisions a literature review was undertaken to understand the gap in knowledge of farmers with regards to genetics, along with establishing factors in commercial farmer behavioural change and understanding of complex decision-making in relation to animal breeding decisions.
This was followed by an unstructured interview process with four farmers from three different farming enterprises, to establish a journey map to understand each farmer’s experiences, by creating a map of their interactions with sire selection. Farmers were selected to represent different types of farming enterprises and perspectives within the sector.

This process also helped to establish a picture of their current level of understanding, perceptions and preferences in genetic decision-making and identification of barriers to genetic potential through sire selection within the farm systems.

Key Findings

Given the significant advances in genetic and recording technologies over the past 20-30 years, it could be assumed that sire selection decisions should have become simpler. However, though these technological advances may provide more information, the complexity and scope of the information may also overwhelm farmers.

Martin-Collado, et al. (2018) describes that when people are faced with complex decisions and/or are exposed to information overload, this leads to either impulsive often suboptimal decision-making or they use simplification strategies (i.e. heuristics).
In terms of effecting meaningful change through genetic decision-making, the ability to effectively compare a farmer’s system with that of others appears to be an instigator to change.

There is a significant educational role to fill with regard to sire selection and genetic decision-making. Whilst we have sheep which are genetically lower methane emitting or significantly more tolerant to facial eczema available for purchase now, there is much to be done to assist the commercial farmer to realise the opportunities available to them when it comes to genetics.

Recommendations

Beef + Lamb NZ should aim to develop a number of tools and resources aimed towards genetics education and extension for both commercial farmers and breeders.

The development of these tools and resources should:

  • consider the individualism of farmers and their systems, the behaviour of change and complex decision heuristics,

  • be developed in collaboration with subject matter experts and farmers to be relatable for the intended audience,

  • share the success stories of farmers who have successfully harnessed the opportunity of genetics,

  • be created for a range of delivery mechanisms to cover a range of learning styles.

    • These should be developed in collaboration with industry partners to facilitate the uptake of these resources by these parties to assist in the dissemination and delivery of the resources.

Organic, Regenerative and Sustainable.

Executive summary

To answer the question, this report considers if these methods can be defined, it explores the main principles and drivers based on a comprehensive literature review; the baseline is conventional farming, and the research shows sustainable farming is usually regenerative and organic and often conventional.

Organic, regenerative, and sustainable are all buzz words; they are methods of farming, growing, and processing; also used in marketing for recognition and financial advantage. This report found that a farmer may align their identity with their chosen method and a consumer’s decision to purchase may be based on their understanding of these terms and an alignment of their values, particularly where there is a premium paid. This report found consumers use the terms loosely and the complexities of farming methods are not understood by non-farmers.

There are no definitive definitions of organic, regenerative agriculture (RA), sustainable or conventional farming in New Zealand (NZ). Each method is guided by principles, and the report finds there are few differences between these, and this means that farmers can use principles from any method. Sustainable practices guide each of the methods and much conventional farming.

NZ farming already has a clean green advantage, and many farmers are leaders in best practice which can be explored further. This report considers the new term, regenerative organic and found its meaning and the relationship with organic farming is not yet established in NZ.

The quick and simple answer is yes, a farmer may be across all these methods, but if claiming to be organic, must be certified.

Organics has had enormous success in becoming well established with stable export markets; legislation is imminent providing credibility and consumer protection; it is odd that organics received little mention in the RA research projects or in strategic planning for the food and fibre sector. It is unclear where it fits into the bigger picture for food and fibre.

Progress on RA is at an impasse waiting for industry and or government leadership; however, the journey has started, and recent announcements of research projects will provide much needed evidence and guidance on the extent that existing farm methods are already aligned with RA.

Some leading NZ scientists claim this task has already been done and there is nothing more to be gained. If RA is to gain traction, time is of the essence. NZ needs a strategy, purpose, and an agreed direction. There is an opportunity for NZ to lead the direction of RA.

The report briefly considers if there is a premium to be gained from these farming methods and how this is reflected in the export markets. This matters for NZ because, “our economic security depends on the primary sector, which this year earned us a record $53.3bn in exports” announced Minister Damien O’Connor1. In July 2022, red meat sales reached $1.1 billion according to the Meat Industry Association (Red meat exports reach $1.1b., 2022), NZ needs to continue to add value to its exports, rather than rely on volume of production by identifying its advantage, guaranteeing the quality of its farming systems, and marketing its story.


The food and fibre sector must act quickly, otherwise another nation will lead in regenerative and sustainable farming and the potential market advantage to NZ is lost.

Recommendations

The project provided clarity that there needs to be a collaborative way forward, the following actions are recommended to achieve a unified direction:

Strategy to establish the role and future of New Zealand farming methods

  • The Government to facilitate a collaborative effort from industry organisations, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and research organisations to establish a representative leadership group (the Group).

  • The Group to deliver a Strategy for organic, regenerative, and sustainable farming for the short and long term; this should align with, other sector specific strategies and address sustainable practices across New Zealand farming.

Research

  • The Group should develop a methodology across all farming systems linking production, product quality, livestock, health, and well-being, adopt a holistic view, including evaluation of environmental, social and health impacts. This work must align with existing research programmes.

  • The Group will distinguish between organic and regenerative farming, address the meaning of organic regenerative and sustainable, and include the outcomes in the overarching strategy.

Trade and Export

  • The Group will develop the New Zealand story for consumers, investigate new markets, grow existing ones, and optimise what New Zealand does well.

AGMARDT supports leadership development with new Kellogg Scholarships.

Lee-Ann Marsh and Nick Pyke, AGMARDT

AGMARDT Trustees have approved support for three new scholarships that seek to improve access to leadership development. The New Zealand Rural Leadership Trust (Rural Leaders) deliver the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, a critical point on the rural leadership pathway.  

AGMARDT’s support will manifest as three scholarships specifically for the Kellogg Programme. 

“We want to help improve access to leadership development by countering some of the challenges scholars can face. These may include the ability to meet the financial commitment required to undertake learning.  

It is vital industry does all it can to ensure leadership potential is given the space it needs to grow. To help achieve this, we’re thrilled to give our support to scholars looking to enter the Kellogg Programme,” said Lee-Ann Marsh, AGMARDT General Manager. 

How the AGMARDT Leaders Scholarship works.

The AGMARDT Leaders Scholarship allows three scholars to enter the Kellogg Programme per year. It covers the $6,500 fee for the Programme. A fee already generously subsidised by Rural Leaders’ Investing Partners, including AGMARDT.  

Applicants for the AGMARDT Leaders Scholarship are encouraged to contact the Programmes Manager at Rural Leaders to discuss the opportunity and how it might be best tailored to their own circumstances.  

“We are grateful to AGMARDT for their continued support of leadership development in the Food and Fibre Sector. Their support reflects AGMARDT Trustees’ desire to make leadership development as accessible as possible, especially those who might not have the balance sheet support of bigger organisations.  

This also recognises that in a fast-changing environment, we need grounded leaders who are strategically capable, now more than ever,” said Chris Parsons, Rural Leaders CEO. 

The new AGMARDT Leaders Scholarship will be available from Kellogg Programme One, January 2023, and joins three regionally available Scholarships that also support participation in the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme.

These are:

AGAMRDT Leaders Scholarship 

Three scholarships to participate on the Kellogg Programme per year valued at up to $6,600 each. These scholarships seek to increase access to leadership development. 

Whanganui and Partners Regional Scholarship 

Two scholarships per year to promote leadership in the Whanganui Region. Valued at $2,500 each, the scholarships are available to those attending NZ Rural Leaders Programmes who are from the Whanganui region or contributing to the Whanganui region.  

Te Puni Kōkiri Scholarships 

Up to two scholarship places on the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme may be awarded. Valued at $6500 each, the Te Puni Kōriri Scholarships support Māori in the Food and Fibre Sector to develop stronger strategic leadership skills. 

Whāngarei A&P Society Scholarship 

One scholarship per year to cover fees. The Whāngarei A&P Scholarship aims to grow future strategic leaders for Northland’s Food and Fibre Sector.  

Dame Jenny Shipley: On Leadership. On Point.

Listen to "Dame Jenny Shipley - On leadership. On Point." on Spreaker.

On leadership. On point.

Lynsey Stratford has discovered farmers make a few assumptions that aren’t very helpful – like accepting the fact that work might be dangerous and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. As Lynsey explains, “There are changes we can make, but those assumptions and those mindsets have been deeply held for quite some time.” 

As a consultant, Lynsey helps the primary sector with people management and development services and training. And, when it comes to health and safety she says, “We shouldn’t expect people to just know this stuff, but rather teach them and support them as they develop skills.” 
 
Lynsey’s research report unpacks the paradox that while farmers care about their people, farms as workplaces are overrepresented in fatal accident and injury statistics. So, what can be done to improve this?

Bryan Gibson, editor of Farmers Weekly.

I’m Bryan Gibson, Farmers Weekly Editor. This week, I have a very special guest, Dame Jenny Shipley. How’s it going? 

Dame Jenny Shipley, 1984 Kellogg Scholar, Bay of Islands.
Very well, thank you.

Bryan: Good. And where are you calling in from today?

Dame Jenny: Well, I live in Russell in the Bay of Islands now. And while I still do a lot of traveling domestically and when I can internationally, this is where we call home.

Bryan: Oh, wonderful. The winterless north. 

Dame Jenny: The winterless north, and it couldn’t be a greater contrast really, from my beautiful Canterbury electorate. But even learning to garden in the north is an entirely different process. But I’m enjoying it very much. 

Bryan: Now, you grew up down in the Deep South, is that right? And spent a lot of your political career at least, in Mid–Canterbury?

Strong South Island roots.

Dame Jenny: Yes, I was born in Gore and my father was a Presbyterian Minister in Pukerau at the time. So many of those early roots were in a truly rural area. And interestingly, I’m going back there this weekend to take part in a nice ceremony.  So I stay connected with a lot of those old roots, even though I’m now living somewhere else. 

I spent a lot of my time in the South Island, and the early part of my life, in Nelson and that also has transformed. I don’t think there was a grapevine in Blenheim, or in the Marlborough area when I was a child. It’s a magnificent example of intense of horticulture today.  

As a student I went to Canterbury and met Burton and the rest is history. We farmed and then I went into politics and had the great privilege of representing one of the most productive electorates in the country in that central and Mid-Canterbury area. 

Bryan: Such a powerhouse of a rural area isn’t it? 

Dame Jenny: Very much, yes. 

Kellogg and the desire to lead.

Bryan: You connected with Rural Leaders for the first time doing a Kellogg Scholarship back in the early eighties, is that correct? 

Dame Jenny: Yes. We were young and farming, and I was already involved in a lot of community leadership. At that time the challenges for agriculture in New Zealand were huge. The change was immense, the economic viability was demanding, interest rates were horrifying. Rural communities were very active, with a lot of emphasis on leadership.  

I got given the opportunity to apply for the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, which was an emerging force at that stage. I forget whether it was year three or four that I was a member of – but it was a fabulous experience and in many respects it clarified my desire to lead.  

The Programme taught me a lot about what else I needed to focus on in order to be effective. But it definitely gave me the strength and sense of impetus to get on – initially as a Counsellor in my local Malvern area and then into politics. 

Is sector history repeating?

Bryan: We talk about the early to mid-eighties in the farming world. It was obviously, as you say, such a disruptive time. Many people think that we’re going through a similar sort of thing now. Do you see those comparisons? 

Dame Jenny: Well, I think the commodity cycle is much stronger at the moment, although it’s clearly able to be volatile depending on what happens both at home and abroad.  

The other difference, I think, is that agriculture today in New Zealand is not dependent on government subsidies. At that stage you’ll recall, there were multiple transitions going on – the support for agriculture was being removed, the markets were extremely volatile and the farming community was really facing challenges on multiple fronts.  

Even in my early years as a Member of Parliament, the residual effects of that period flowed through – it was a very difficult period. Today I think that while there are huge challenges coming up economically, I personally think the agricultural sector is in a very resilient state.  

But what is different now, is that there are so many regulatory pressures coming on farming which I don’t think were present in our era. And so, yes, there are huge challenges, but I think the economic viability overall gives at least some ability for farmers to confront those. I think the leadership question is different too, though, and perhaps that’s something that needs to change. So it’s relevant for where we are now.  

Bryan: How is that, do you think? 

Dame Jenny: Well, when we were farming, all of us belonged to Federated Farmers. It was a widespread group. Husbands and wives turned up and it was an active process in most local communities. I’m not familiar with whether that’s the case now. But like many organisations, I think that they’ve become more professional.  

But whether the grassroots element of representation is as strong, I don’t have such a feel for that. But I think that what we’re coming into is that we have to have both the agricultural leaders reflecting the experience of farmers on the ground and making the case very clearly about what can and can’t be done, and indeed what has been done.  

We need to share our good news more often.

If I can just pause on this point for a moment. I’ve observed enormous change by farming in response to public pressures. I travel quite a lot around the country and have just have been down through the Waikato – right into the West Coast part of it.  

One of the things that struck me over the last five years is that what started off as tree planting on agricultural land for emissions purposes, now the work around wetlands and the fencing of streams and things. New Zealanders can be very confident that the farming community is not only responding but leading in some of these areas.  

To come back to the point, I think that for farming to advocate for itself, it’s not only advocating for what’s annoying and frustrating them, but there’s also a huge need for us as an agriculturally strong community to continue to share both the gains and the commitment of the agricultural community to farming well both for themselves, the community, and the future. I think that’s a big change.  

When we were farming, many were just farming to survive. Now, I see farmers all over the place investing not only in best practice for themselves, but I do see a lot of change. I think the voice of that needs to be shared across the community much more broadly so that the urban New Zealand population both values agriculture and understands that it’s moving in response to many of the concerns that urban communities have. 

Bryan: Farming, as you say, is always evolving for the most part in New Zealand because we are very good at it, and improving. That gets lost sometimes. 

Dame Jenny: Well a lot of it is a social response. I mean, farmers will tell you that they are fencing streams and planting for their own benefit and the benefit of their own environment. But there’s a huge public good element in it which unless people either have a chance to see, or you share how much is being done, or see the change that’s going on.

A sector supporting New Zealand through tough times.

I think that urban-rural split has always been a risk in New Zealand and it’s one we can’t afford to give airtime too. Because, frankly, if you just thought that even in the COVID period, if we had not had a strong agricultural sector during the last three years when the global economy had been disrupted, New Zealand’s position economically would be far more dire than it is at the moment.  

Tourism collapsed, a number of other productive areas were compromised and yet agriculture was able to carry a huge proportion of the earnings, as it’s always done. But thankfully, on a strong commodity cycle at this particular time, and again, I think we should name the value of agricultural exports. The effort agriculture puts into the New Zealand economy to support our way of life, in a broad, holistic sense – not a them and us sense. 

We’re in this together, being the best we can be at home and selling the best we can abroad in a best practice sense. I think if we keep sharing that over and over again, there’ll be a better understanding between rural and urban communities. 

Leadership needs to reflect the people on the ground.

Bryan: Just touching on what you mentioned earlier about how historically, people like Federated Farmers, organisations like that, had a very, kind of a, grassroots focus. It’s quite evident at the moment around the emissions pricing process that a large number of those grassroots farmers think that the farming leadership has, if not deserted them, then certainly not represented them well. What’s your take on how they go about that? And what are the challenges that those farming leaders have in engaging with the government on things like this? 

Dame Jenny: Well look, I’d be the last one to criticise them because I know how hard it is. I have admired the agricultural leadership, that they have taken a more inclusive, let’s find solutions together approach. I have been involved in a number of significant working parties not only on emissions, but in a number of areas that I can think of which I’ve simply been a distant observer. But I’ve noticed that level of engagement.  

The problem is, in any leadership model, if you aren’t both working with, and then reflecting the people on the ground who actually live agriculture every day and have to implement the stuff, not only physically but also economically, then you have to test whether your leadership is in isolation as opposed to being able to carry people forward.  

I do think we have to support the leadership group because unless they are able to foot it with the officials and the government ministers and be supported at that level, then they’re clearly not serving their constituency anyway. But every organisation, and I don’t want to make a judgment on Federated Farmers because I simply am not close enough to it, but there have to be systems where it’s not only consultation.  

Often we say, well, we consulted, or we sent out a document and gave them a chance to comment. I think that for people to genuinely become supporters of a regime, they have to have a deep sense of ownership. They need to be able to see themselves in whatever is proposed as opposed to seeing something being imposed on them, which they don’t or can’t relate to.  

So the test of high quality engagement and consultation has got to be that measure of – can the people we’re representing see themselves in the proposed solutions or are we just saying, well, regardless of what you think, you’ve got to be there in five or ten years’ time. That’s not easy to do. I think in New Zealand’s circumstances, whether it’s agriculture or Maori – Pakeha relations, or any of the other demanding spaces, we’ve just got to put the time and work into it. 

The power of industry at the highest level of decision-making.

Bryan: Now, just digging into that a little more. I mean, you were obviously in central government for a long time. What’s it like in those meetings with industry? How much power do the industry leaders from the agricultural community have when they sit down around the table with the likes of MPs, Prime Ministers, officials? 

Dame Jenny: The answer is, it depends. And I’m thinking back on two or three occasions where the agricultural sector and governments were working intensely. When a government decides, for example, to break up monopolies, I think the conversations are quite demanding. 

I recall at the time that we decided to break up a number of public organisations, the electricity sector and of course the dairy industry was in the line of sight. That was never an easy conversation and the agricultural leaders, and particularly the directors of the original company very much resisted that. In those moments, you’ve got to put the economic argument of why these particular sectors needed to be able to face competition, not only in their growers interest, but also in New Zealand’s market in the world. The resilience and flexibility to attract investment.  

We were trying to grow the New Zealand economy and grow the efficiency of the New Zealand economy in the world. So to some extent, in those big strategic moments, it’s tense, because sometimes you’ll have agricultural leaders with you as champions. Sometimes you’ll have small players wanting you to act and take on the big players. 

So there’s many dynamics going on.  

Usually before those moments, if it’s a strategic question, the ministers will have debated the relative merits of this before they go barging in and say, well, look, the government has decided to strategically move forward and create competition in the agricultural marketing sector, or whatever it is. And then you try and engage.  

It’s a wee bit like the emissions environment where you’re having to say, look, we have to work out a way in which to change. It is going to be different from what is the case now, so let’s try and work out where the mechanisms are and how we can move forward.  

Sometimes you’re responding to requests from the agricultural sector to solve problems and then it’s straightforward. Your meet as equals at the table. You put the facts on the table, you get the officials to work through and come up with a solution. Often in the majority of cases, things just get sorted out. But in the big, complex policy issues, where big change is required, there’s higher degrees of tension, but generally you get there in time. 

The Kellogg Programme and leadership pathways.

Bryan: Now, you mentioned to me before we came on that as well as the Kellogg Programme, you’ve been involved in a number of other leadership programmes. Do you think there are good pathways into leadership positions in New Zealand at the moment? 
 
Dame Jenny: The Kellogg Programme is fantastic. I’d encourage any community to keep identifying young leaders and to promote them into those Programmes. Often people think, these people are too young. I must have been, I don’t know, 32 or thereabouts when I went into Kellogg. Often at that stage, you haven’t identified your leadership purpose and your particular intentions as to how you will use your leadership skills. But others often see leadership potential in those young people.  
 
There’s no question that our political environment, our economic and social environment, need younger people coming through all the time in order for us to be able to shape the future successfully. I would encourage people to look for those chances and look for individuals who they can sponsor or promote and make sure they support them. Because often these are the young people, male and female, who have got kids and are trying to run a farm and all that. So the programmes themselves are a big commitment, but it’s worth it.  

Supporting leadership development.

The other programme, I was actually involved in establishing, was Rural Women Stepping Out, I think we called it at the beginning. It was run out of Lincoln and was only initially a two or three day – and sometimes only a one day programme. 

But it was at a time where there was huge economic stress on many farming communities. Lots of women came and had lots of examples of how women entrepreneurs were establishing small rural businesses to supplement the income of farms at that time.  

Much of it was in the cottage industries, or services – many aspects of agriculture. I think that sharing and bringing together helped a lot of those women sustain the pressure of that period. I guess my point here is, rural communities are very important to New Zealand and keeping both men and women well and supporting them to be as engaged as they can be, both in running the farms and running the rural communities of which they’re a part.  

Any support in leadership and leadership development is well worth the investment. So whether it’s the leaders at universities or the sponsors that are the companies who make these things happen, so that these families can make the choice, I think agriculture and New Zealand benefit from programmes like Rural Women, the Kellogg Programme and the Field Scholarships. All of those platforms are invaluable in terms of the legacy and the investment that they’ve made. 

Bryan:  Thanks for listening to Ideas That Grow. This podcast was presented by Farmers Weekly. For more information on Rural Leaders, the Nuffield New Zealand Farming Scholarships or the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, please visit ruralleaders.co.nz 

Māori in Governance of Agricultural Co-operatives in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Executive summary

Māori are significant and substantial long-term participants in the primary sector of Aotearoa New Zealand.

They are kaitiaki of significant tracts of land for future generations, just as previous generations were kaitiaki for them. This concept of stakeholders’ past and stakeholders’ future links Māori to the whenua through whakapapa and means that they will never sell their land assets.

The Māori economic engine is significant in terms of both asset holding and in generating activity for the economy of Aotearoa New Zealand. Despite this Māori have almost no presence in the governance of the Agricultural cooperatives, despite these being businesses that they are significant suppliers and customers of and hold equity in.

The purpose of this report is to understand the reasons behind this, identify ways to re-engage Māori at governance levels with the cooperatives and understand the benefits and costs to each from doing so.

The methodology used within this report included literature reviews of Māori economic performance and how contemporary corporate governance models fail to meet the needs of Māori governance.

In the context of this research topic, it is important to determine the contribution made by Māori to the economic activity of Aotearoa New Zealand generally and to the primary sector specifically as this project investigates the premise that it is reasonable to achieve representation if there is a contribution.

The review of Māori governance included discussion around the kaupapa and tikanga that provide a framework to Te Ao Māori and how this influences the decision-making of Māori governance entities.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight Māori governors including participants in cooperative director elections. These were conducted to understand the view of Māori who had experience with governance in both Māori and non-Māori entities and in a cooperative election process.

The answers were then critically analysed with themes developing from the analysis.

A structured survey was supplied to members of Cooperative Business New Zealand. It was important to assess the view held by cooperatives around levels of Māori engagement at a governance level.

These were analysed with themes developing from the analysis.

The results from the structured survey and the semi-structured interviews were then analysed together to identify areas of commonality or divergence.

KEY FINDINGS

MĀORI MAKE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PRIMARY SECTOR AND AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND

The scale of Te Ohanga Māori (The Māori Economy) is significant, contributing 6.5% of the GDP of Aotearoa New Zealand in 2018. This is on par with the primary sector which also contributed 6.5% of the 2018 GDP with Māori contributing NZD 2.700 billion dollars (or 14%) to the primary sector GDP.

Further in 2017 10% of dairy production and 30% of meat and fibre production were sourced from assets owned by Māori.

These statistics are important as they prove that Māori is significant contributors to the economy and primary sector of this country. The lack of Māori representation in cooperative governance seems incongruent with the level of contribution made by Māori.

MĀORI HAVE LOW TRUST IN COOPERATIVES AND ELECTIONS

Lack of engagement by Māori with the cooperatives appears to be seated in a level of distrust by Māori in the cooperatives (although the Institution of the Cooperative may be acting as a proxy for its Pākeha shareholding base) This is a result of (real or perceived) racial bias over time with a
general feeling in the interviews with Māori agribusiness leaders that the cooperatives are Pākehacentric institutions with a low understanding of the needs of Māori.

There was a general feeling that the Māori would struggle in an election process as the Pākeha majority would favour other Pākeha over Māori no matter the skills Māori may offer.

COOPERATIVES RECOGNISE THAT MĀORI ARE  UNDERREPRESENTED IN GOVERNANCE

Cooperatives are generally aware that their existing governance fails to adequately represent the contribution made by their Māori stakeholders to their businesses.

They generally believe it is important that there is Māori representation in their governance bodies, however, the responses indicate that no cooperative has established a strategy to change this.

OPPORTUNITY EXISTS FOR BOTH PARTIES IF RELATIONSHIPS CAN BE STRENGTHENED

  • For the cooperatives, the opportunities are twofold:

    Operationally they partner with Māori to secure long-term multigeneration supply relationships at a time when production is falling in response to climate change initiatives and land use change.

    Strategically they gain insight into what appears to be a shift away from laissez-faire and liberal market theory to a growing ESG investment paradigm that is more rooted in equitable returns to social and natural capital as well as real (economic) capital. This is due to ESG concepts largely mirroring the pou or drivers of Māori governance models.

  • For Māori, the opportunity lies in attaining influence in an industry they already participate in and in a business in which they may already hold equity.

    Influence is important to ensure that Māori maintains a level of control over the use of Tikanga, Kaupapa, Te Reo, and Matauranga Māori – those things that make Māori unique in the world and are effectively the Intellectual Property of Māori.

    Māori are afforded the opportunity to bring Te Ao Māori into the dominant mainstream so that it is valued and practised in an authentic way.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COOPERATIVES

Cooperatives face distinct challenges to overcome the lack of trust that Māori have expressed in the election process and in the cooperatives. This will require rebuilding trust levels and relationships.

  • Decide if the organisation believes the lack of Māori representation is an issue that requires addressing.
  • Develop strategies to effect cultural change so that all shareholders perceive their treatment to be equal with clear and demonstrable intolerance of intolerant.
  • Build manaakitanga with Māori by being institutionally intolerant of any form of racial bias.
  • Organise wananga with Māori stakeholders so they can learn who you are, and you learn who they are.
  • Engage in whakawhanaungatanga. This will facilitate discovery and understanding as the first step in relationship building (whanaungatanga).
  • Learn and understand Te Ao Māori, Mātauranga Māori, Tikanga and Kaupapa – these are the things that will guide relationship building with Māori.
  • Develop methods to provide governance opportunities for Māori within your organisation – training options and assistant/future director opportunities.
  • Use a Māori lens in decision-making – a celebration milestone for Pākeha could have been at the expense of Māori interests for example. This is also important when using taonga in
    commercial ways.
  • Ensure that the cooperatives are not structurally racist – for example, check to see if election rules could exclude Māori from standing in a director election. This is important given the unique nature of some Māori ownership structures.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MĀORI

  • Practice rangatiratanga by using the voting powers that come with ownership.
  • Be open to building whanaungatanga with cooperatives – maintain a focus on attaining influence by taking roles in the governance of these businesses.
  • Show kohtahitanga and manaakitanga by voting for rangatira who stand for election to these boards.
  • Māori voting for Māori in elections dominated by Pākeha demonstrates rangatiratanga.
  • Continue to develop governance skills in Rangitahi.

Owhaoko B&D land block.

Suzanne Hepi Kellogg report image
Suzanne Hepi Kellogg report image

Executive summary

Māori land plays a critical part of Aotearoa and its history. Understanding the dynamics of Māori land ownership and the role they play to ensure their whenua is taking care of, is not as straight forward as people assume.

Māori landlocked land has influenced a change in the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act to lessen multiple barriers for Māori. This research has been conducted through a kaupapa Māori approach, for Māori by Māori.

This case study is concerned with understanding the land block, its isolated location, the barriers of access and how the trust can initiate a sustainable involvement for the owners. The report is based on semi structured interviews and analysis of secondary data.

Purpose

The aim of this report is to discuss the landlock block Owhaoko B & D with trustees and beneficiary owners. Overall, I am gathering data to build an understanding of what is occurring on this land block, trust developments and what the future aspirations could potentially be.

Key Findings

The key findings of this report have been grouped into themes and are a general understanding of the narrative around the story of the land block. It is supported by quotations from interview participants and is raw information that they have voiced.

Recommendations

  • Data – Embark on further research of this land block and internships conducted by beneficiaries or owners of this whenua with support from the trust and tertiary institutions.

  • Transformation – develop and deliver environmental programmes to help educate whānau about the importance of being kaitiaki for the land.

  • Collaboration – form a partnership with a Māori tech and digital business that could showcase the land blocks history and whakapapa digitally, to owners of the land that cannot experience it first-hand.

  • Capability development – Provide opportunities for owners to participate in projects associated on the block such as seed banking, wild game monitoring etc.

  • Leadership – Government to help support a leadership programme that is delivered partially out of the land block, informing this cohort about the change in legislation and how the land can contribute to this.

  • New initiatives – Establish other incentives for owners wanting to visit the block such as high-end accommodation, events, or annual activities etc.

  • Mātauranga Māori – Produce or deliver a wānanga based on traditional Māori practices such as rongoa, identifying native trees, land use etc.

Happy and Healthy at Work.

Executive summary

Labour and its shortage remain a critical issue that needs addressing, with the growth of horticulture predicted, coupled with on-orchard automation look ing closer to 2030. With low unemployment in New Zealand, engaging the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workforce is vital to remaining successful as an industry.

The purpose of this report is to understand and provide recommendations for the key attributes of a successful team within the seasonal RSE workforce, focusing on the kiwifruit industry. The methodology includes a literature review on the characteristics of a seasonal workforce and breaking down what a successful team looks like, followed by semi-structured interviews with ten orchard owners and pastoral care managers to gain insights from their experience with RSE teams. Themes were generated through thematic analysis to provide conclusions and recommendations.

Key findings

A family culture with a village mentality is key to the success of an RSE team and results in a team that is both happy and healthy at work. Team building and a homely living environment add to this. RSE employees’ purpose of making money to send home to their families, needs to be kept front of mind.

The RSE team needs to be well-formed with the right mix of skills, experience, and personalities with a clear and well-understood leadership structure. The team leader must be trusted and respected, creating productivity and success. Peer mentoring also adds to team success with team members supporting and encouraging one another.

The mindset of continuous improvement is essential to the success of the RSE team. Highly engaged RSE employees need development opportunities beyond their day-to-day tasks.

The relationship is symbiotic, with New Zealand employers needing to be willing to learn more about the values and culture of the Pacific Islands. All parties working together need to have a strong cultural understanding of similarities and differences, which improves team performance. Planning for continuity and succession is vital.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made to orchardists looking to build a successful RSE team:

  • Develop a family culture, cultivating the village mentality. This is developed through having an inclusive living environment and creating a home away from home by their New Zealand employers.

  • Ensure all permanent employees have a good understanding of the similarities and differences of the Pacific Islander culture. This can be developed through developing a cultural training programme for all permanent staff.

  • Ensure RSE employees understand their purpose and motivation for being in New Zealand which is sending money home to their families. Checking in on this regularly to keep them reminded of their purpose is important to retain engagement.

  • Put in place an RSE team leader that is trusted and well-respected.
    • Create a culture of empowerment amongst the team to allow peer mentoring across team members.

  • Put in place regular team-building activities and be in regular communication with the RSE team.

  • The New Zealand employer needs to have a mindset of continuity and succession. The key to this is building a strong referral system.

  • Ensure RSE employees have access to development opportunities. The main provider of this is Vakameasina.

  • Be open to learning about the values and culture of the Pacific Islands.

What Goes In Must Come Out.

Executive summary

Social licence to operate (SLO), also known as just social licence, is an unwritten agreement between stakeholders and a business/industry on the impact that they can have on the environment and community.

As the values of the community change our SLO is going to come under increasing pressure. Stakeholders are increasingly scrutinising water usage, agrichemical and fertiliser applications, worker welfare, noise pollution and visual impacts. They want to see justification of use of the products and tangible outputs (saleable product).

The aims and objectives of this project is to investigate whether growing cherries in an intensive, indoor growing system will protect our social licence to operate. Social licence will be defined, the aspects that are important to different stakeholders explored and how we can enhance our social licence with forward thinking growing systems explained.

A literature review was conducted to gather some insight to the origins of the social licence to operate concept, define social licence, identify stakeholders and examine what businesses can do to maintain social licence.

Three levels of stakeholders were identified as being significant to cherry production operations. These were seasonal workers, the general public and regulators. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with each stakeholder group to ascertain what aspects of cherry growing operations they perceived to be most important to the social licence to operate and what of these operations put the social licence to operate most at risk. These factors were then compared through a case study between a traditional open field cherry growing system and cherries grown intensive indoor growing system.

Conclusions

  • The practices of a cherry growing operation are likely to come under the spotlight. When questioned about operational practices and use of natural resources it is important that growers can provide quantitative data on the inputs involved and demonstrate attempts to increase efficiency.
  • Industry needs to be more open to sharing the positive aspects of their operations on the environment and community. We need to get better at promoting the good stories and letting people know all the good stuff we do. This way the industry has control over the information that is shared.

  • Education and communication are key to maintaining social licence to operate. Stakeholders are more likely to accept practices if they know why they need to occur, when they will occur, justification for the practice and what measures have been put in place to minimise any risk.

  • An intensive indoor growing system will protect the social licence of cherry growing operations. It will do this by decreasing the amount of water, fertiliser and agrichemical required to grow a kilogram of cherries while minimising the amount of waste product that is produced.

Recommendations

  • An industry-led research program needs to be set up to actively identify the stakeholders of cherry production and engage with them to find out their perceptions of positive and negative aspects of production and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each part production cycle. It will also identify practices that are deemed to be acceptable and unacceptable.

  • Embark on an information sharing and education program with stakeholders. Keep them up to date with orchard activities, invite them to the orchard and use social media as an information sharing platform.

  • Investment is required by industry to implement growing systems that are more efficient, that is have higher yields, less waste and use the natural resources and synthetic inputs more efficiently.