kellogg

This project was intended to investigate the potential uses of remote sensor environmental data by farmers to help them improve their environmental outcomes. This could promote innovative management practices whilst making compliance easier for farmers.

The concept of ‘outcome-based’ regulation as well as environmental monitoring through sensors has been explored with some good applicable literature from case studies available to study. Several common themes emerged from this literature around benefits and risks as well as the importance of the system design.

Due to their nature of basing regulation around outcomes farmers can self-manage their environmental outcomes, removing managerial restrictions to not only allow, but encourage farmers to innovate and achieve better and more cost-effective results.

European researchers have noted farmers improve their skills over the duration of result-based schemes and form new social connections between conservationists/ecologists due to their common goals. It was also theorised that change may also occur in the relationship between farmers and the public, with farmers assuming the responsibility for management practices and the credit for
environmental improvements as opposed to merely meeting government requirements.

Better environmental monitoring data would be hugely beneficial to both regulators and farmers as the feedback would allow for better prioritisation of actions and funds. To maximise these benefits, it has been shown that the timing and frequency of water sampling is of great importance. Water quality varies greatly around storm events, within seasons and between years. Data needs to be amassed over several years to fully understand the real impact of land management practices.

The risks of outcome-based regulation have come through the literature as:

• The need for careful establishment of desired outcomes, how they are benchmarked and how they are measured.
• Possible lack of effective mitigation options and farmers exposure to events beyond their individual control e.g., large flooding events
• The issue of data ownership and how it is used and/or shared

The success of any outcome-based scheme would be greatly dependant on the identification and development of indicators. These should be carefully considered, and a balance needs to be struck between minimising the scheme complexity and having sufficient indicators to represent the objectives. If this cannot be achieved a combination of regulatory approaches may be necessary.

The last risk identified is the need for a better understanding on how farmers are likely to respond to result oriented approaches. Past examples have shown many benefits, these are mainly concerning agricultural subsidies and a switch to compliance may change the results.

With this technology still in its earlier stages of development, the cost and availability of sensors combined with poor rural connectivity make the possibility of widespread adoption purely theoretical, at least currently.

I conclude that it is too early for New Zealand to incorporate an outcome-based regulation system. Given the substantial benefits which may be achieved I don’t believe the idea should be completely abandoned and I have recommended further trails to understand and quantify any potential efficiencies. As technology develops further and becomes less prohibitive a hybrid model of ‘action’ and voluntary ‘outcome’ based regulation may be created reducing the cost of compliance and helping farmers to be seen as part of the solution and not part of the problem.

My main recommendations are as follows:

1. Address data ownership and use issues. Any increase in data capture and reporting requires a data strategy addressing data ownership and how it is to be used. In order for farmers to voluntarily give their own environmental data to a regulatory body there would need to be assurances made to address any concerns in this area.
2. Begin environmental data collection. Early trial work by regulators would provide feedback and learnings from live sensor data. This would help in designing required actions for environmental protection. It would also have value if data can be incorporated into existing models to strengthen their validity.
3. Identify indicators for monitoring. Designing a system of effective indicators should be carefully considered and would need to involve a high degree of consultation. If an environmental outcome cannot be monitored simply and effectively then an outcome-based scheme may not be appropriate for that measure.
4. Start small, proof of concept trials. This might suit larger high-country properties where it can be safely assumed that water entering the grazed areas is of high quality. Water leaving the property could then be monitored to establish agricultural impacts. This would have benefits as the cost to fence off all water ways on these properties would likely be uneconomic if required under an action-based scheme.
5. Explore options for a hybrid model between action and outcomes based environmental legislation.
6. Allow voluntary data use. Live sensor data could well be incorporated as a voluntary component of a digital farm plan, creating a ‘hybrid’ model allowing innovative farmers and regulators to test the approach before wholescale adoption.
7. Factor in future technological advances in writing regulation. Currently the technology looks to make this option cost prohibitive. Legislation could be written now to allow for its use in the future.

Farm ownership within the New Zealand arable sector has and will continue to become a more contentious subject as we develop and age as an industry and a country. Do we accept that the current trends of the established becoming more established, or do we try and initiate a conversation to address the elephant in the room? We need greater diversity in farm ownership to ensure critical mass is maintained.

The aim of this project is to gain some insights into the realities of a person/couple in how feasible it would be for them to be able to gain a foot hold into an arable farming business. I specifically wanted to target people that were not in a position that will or may benefit from matrimony, alimony, and patrimony. Of all the people I interviewed not one example of farm ownership could be thought of that didn’t involve the three pervious terms.

The methodology used in this report was literature review into the arable sector and its current situation, this was used to quantify themes present. Using both informal interviews and my own profession I explored the key themes coming out of the industries professionals that service this sector.

The arable industry is a relatively small sector when compared to other food and fibre sectors around New Zealand. The critical mass of the industry has been increasingly put under pressure over the past 15-20 years. The number of arable farming businesses have decreased from approx. 1200 in the early 2000’s to a hard-core group of approx. 300 that are classed as true mixed small seed & grain arable farms. It is this trend that has driven the questions around this report.

Contracting Seed companies face decreasing diversity with their grower base, corporate, syndicate and large establish family farming businesses have substantially increased their foot hold on large arable operations. Available land suitable for arable production systems is relatively scarce and is heavily contended for on the open market. The established are and always will be able to upscale and grow.

Investigating how an outsider could possibly compete with these established businesses, it become very apparent that the system is broken. The willingness and fortitude of thinking that should and would be required by the banking sector to see the importance to encourage and back the next generation to a sort of farmer ownership was completely lacking.

There were signals of hope with examples equity partnerships, asset fund management companies, and growers signalling that they would be interested to develop relationships with young and up coming individuals. Share farming was a commonly used term to describe situations where a landowner would slowly step back allowing a trusted partner to slowly buy into an arable business.

The relationships that are required for such agreements seemed to be the most difficult aspect to establish, with many growers opening admitting that they wouldn’t know who they should turn to in order to make a connection.

The key take outs form this project are:

1. There needs to be a fundamental change of mindset by banks. Rather than looking at one’s risk portfolio why not look at their business strategy and passion for achievement.
2. Young people/couples that are driven and hungry for stepping up into an arable farm need to find, foster, and build a trusted relationship with a current landowner.
3. The methodology that is currently used in valuing properties for sale must change to reflect what that business is worth, using the previous three years of EBITDA as the basis.

This report seeks to draw insights from the global response to Covid-19 and evidence from actions currently underway in
New Zealand’s food and fibre sector to predict the likely future scenario for the global food system in 2030. Given this likely scenario, the report will identify areas of opportunity for New Zealand to pursue to position itself to succeed in a changed future food system.

Analysis provided in this report relies heavily on a scenario mapping exercise undertaken by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2017 titled ‘Shaping the future of global food systems: a scenarios analysis.’ My research will seek to unpick these scenarios to answer the below focal question:

“According to the four potential worlds provided by the WEF (2017), what is the likely scenario for the global food system in 2030 and how can New Zealand position itself to succeed?”

Findings demonstrate that in 2030, the world’s food system will make significant shifts towards being more resource-efficient, with reasonable market connectivity showing a balanced focus between local production and trade.

This future provides the platform to achieve an aspirational food system that is efficient, sustainable, inclusive and delivers healthy and nutritious food to the world. In doing so, the world can improve its food system and contribute towards achieving a large majority of the Sustainable Development Goals agreed by the United Nations (UN) in 2015. To get to this state, significant investment must be made in climate and environmentally responsible actions to lower the overall emissions and pollution profile of the sector.

Shifts in consumer habits are already signalling a preference for healthy, safe, environmentally sustainable, and ethically produced food. Food innovation is enabling new product development to help keep products relevant. Green economic recovery strategies following short term Government responses to the pandemic are highlighting various Governments’ prioritisation to rebuild back economies within planetary boundaries, putting our ecological and social systems first.

Redesigning Aotearoa’s Food system

New Zealand is well positioned to succeed in any likely future global food system scenario. However, disruption from Covid-19 and the various impacts on the food and fibre sector from putting social and ecological considerations first, has signalled that change is required. For New Zealand’s food and fibre sector to remain relevant and lead aspirational change towards an aspirational food system in 2030, this report recommends that, as well as pursuing the opportunities noted in section 8.4 of this report, the below actions should be taken. Further detail on the below recommendations can be found in section 11.

1. Taking action towards initiatives as set out in the sectors’ Fit for a Better World roadmap. 2. Co-investing in a centre of excellence to share market insights and improved data coordination and access.

3. As noted in Fit for a Better World (2020) removing trade barriers and maintaining market access through developing appropriate ethical and environmental standards to keep up with the changing food system and international market consumption trends.

4. Developing a fit for future horticulture system and supply-chain by:

• • using our competitive advantage to invest in intellectual property and new commercial opportunities from native fauna;
  • incentivising and supporting the uptake of new horticulture and novel product development through capability building and connecting growers with a pathway to market; and
  • incentivising collaboration between Government, business and research institutes to invest in horticulture and bio-technology.

5. Pursuing new / innovative structural changes to the food and fibre sector labour market by:

• • ensuring education institutes are providing agriculture, horticulture and agribusiness study opportunities;
  • appropriately recognising the skillset required for jobs in the food and fibre sector and reflecting this in renumeration; and
  • improving cross-sector collaboration to provide a national network of accommodation for seasonal employees in multiple industries.

6. Proposing regulatory change for industries likely to experience market failures such as honey.

7. Supporting marketplaces for start-ups, novel products and new horticulture by considering the appropriateness and economic viability of creating regulations or incentives that guarantee shelf space in all supermarkets for New Zealand products.

8. Taking action to adapt food supply chains and improve supply chain resilience through:

• • ensuring local authorities maintain a space for local markets to operate safely in a Covid-19 environment;
  • investment by industry bodies and businesses in e-platforms, and digital marketplaces; and
  • encouraging co-investment in a feasibility study for New Zealand to own a small shipping fleet to enhance supply-chain resilience.

9. Increasing the availability and affordability of nutritious and healthy food on the domestic market by:

• • pioneering food business to doctor models;
  • increasing Government and public health investment in nutrition education and regulating food deserts to maintain a minimum quality of access to healthy food; and
  • exploring the feasibility

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into rural land is a topic that most New Zealanders have an opinion on and in the past two decades has become an increasingly controversial and emotive topic. Our economy is driven from production using our land and water resources, this is seen as our competitive advantage – so the ownership of these resources is continually under the spotlight, regularly reported on and is a frequent political issue.

New Zealand also needs to broadly recognise the direct links FDI has with supplying our nation with much needed capital, continued and new access to offshore markets, innovation, and technology. Contentiousness around FDI has been centred around the sell down of our land assets (and by default our competitive advantage), with less consideration given to the immediate and downstream benefits.

This study aims to reflect on Foreign Direct Investment and provide an overview of where we are today, the numbers and trends, particularly in reference to the central South Island. It will explain how Foreign Direct Investment is governed and regulated in New Zealand and investigate our current legislative policy in New Zealand.

It was important to review national and regional literature on Foreign Direct Investment in New Zealand with a lens towards my home region of Canterbury and balance this with a series of interviews and case studies with farmers, rural professionals, academics and overseas investors. All parties have been selected to seek a balanced view of the impacts of Foreign Direct Investment in the central South Island since 2005. And where are we heading?

The key findings and recommendations from the report show:

• As New Zealand farmers become more sophisticated in their approach to business, we are seeing more happening in the <25% investment space, “It’s New Zealanders accessing strategic capital offshore, not the other way around”.
• Access to the ‘right’ capital is fundamental to our country’s long term prosperity, we need a balanced approach towards finding the right type of investor. The opportunity exists to further grow our agri-economies by partnering and co-investing.
• The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) will continue to face a challenge in applying the purpose of the Act. The current legislation is accommodating the easy wins for New Zealand i.e. forestry investment and viticulture. Tension remains around our pastoral activities.
• The regulatory framework from which foreign ownership is governed is key and needs regular review. The consensus is we nearly have this legislation right.
• There is an ease in attracting FDI to New Zealand, it includes our open and business-friendly economy, low levels of corruption, good protection of property rights, high living standards, political stability and advantageous tax policy.
• There is broad acknowledgement that it is a privilege for New Zealand businesses to access FDI and do what they are doing. OIO restrictions are not only a benefit to the nation, but give any business operating in this space clarity about what is expected.

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are targeted at any party wanting a greater understanding of Foreign Direct Investment, the impacts, benefits and future considerations.

Recognition among our rural women and their success is a topic I don’t think is acknowledged or emphasised enough. Being able to confidently believe and recognise you make an impactful contribution to meet your values, and have a definition of your success while being content with your moral compass is essential.

The aim of this project was to talk to a cross-section of rural women and then make an informed decision about the definition of their success, and how they believe it impacts over their lives and communities.

For this study I interviewed 11 rural women in a semi-structured format as well as recording these conversations and then completing a thematic analysis on the results. Then along with reading plenty of books and articles I have built on these themes to cover the key take-home points.

The importance and relevance of defining these characteristic become the main points to understanding and finding the women’s definition of success:

Identifying success and whether it is measurable

Support systems

Health and wellbeing

Challenges and adversity

Primary industry perceptions and pressures

Following on from these points I then created an understanding and gave clarity to these themes. Having women identifying that their success is a way of how you make others feel and their own needs being met, and that it is measured in reaching a goal or making an achievement.

Having the right support systems around to be able to grow and prosper while finding your purpose has proven central to the women interviewed. Creating a life where health and wellbeing needs are being met and can you identify where change can occur also emerged as a central theme.

It was recognised that facing challenges and adversity and having the resilience to carry on forwards when these may occur was key to success for many interviewees. And finally, having an understanding of the perception of others on what it is you do and how that represents you, while comprehending the effects this may have on our wider industry and the markets that it involves also impacts on women’s understanding of success.

The following are the key observations and recommendations I have discovered during this research:

A need to recognise that rural women’s success comes in different ways;

Measuring success and taking the time to recognise and reward during this process is a constructive exercise;

Having support systems in place to streamline the objectives you want to achieve is essential;

The importance of recognising when you need to address your wellbeing and implement strategies to do this.

Being able to make good clear decisions to know when things align with you values and morals is a clear priority for successful rural women.

Being able to rise above others perceptions and keep focussed on your realities is an important message for rural women.

Joining in with liked-minded groups, such as Rural Women NZ or the Dairy Women’s Network, can provide further opportunities and support.

Resolutions to these themes were then identified in the conclusion and key characteristics of success were identified among these women.

Having the confidence to create and lead change is a defining part of understanding success. Knowing your place within your role, your community, and the industry, and having a plan to implement clear pathways to affect others perceptions is essential. It is clear that believing in the cause and knowing that you can always create and work towards positive change is a key driver for many rural women. I believe these are the key take home points to rural women defining their success.