The Irish agri-food industry contributes a greater proportion of export revenue than non agri-food production, which is equally true of this country.
Obviously there are differences, notably the effect of the European Union common agricultural policy on Irish farm incomes, the destination of exports, the lower efficiency and smaller scale of farms, and the variation of production volumes.
The DAFM’s strength, weakness, opportunity and threat (SWOT) analysis shows comparable strengths in Ireland’s sustainable grass-based production systems and animal health status, and opportunities from the global demand for nutritious food and protein, its clean green reputation and the potential for foreign direct investment.
The perceived weaknesses and threats include price and exchange rate volatility, lack of private investment in research and development, scarcity of skilled people and access to finance.
In many ways a SWOT analysis of NZ agricultural prospects would look quite similar.
One particular threat that was on neither country’s radar until recently, and therefore not mentioned in any of the planning documents is Brexit – the referendum on the United Kingdom leaving the EU – the outcome of which will be known today.
My challenge to the agricultural sector is not to let MPI speak for the sector or be captured by the Government’s desire for good news but decide what agriculture actually needs to succeed and grow and how best to implement the strategy.
Even after the vote, I suspect the full effect will remain unclear for some time, particularly if the “Leavers” win the day.
However, Ireland’s biggest markets for sheep meat by far are the UK and broader EU, whereas NZ has the growing advantage of the counter-balancing Chinese market. Neither country actually knows what effect a vote to leave the EU will have on exports to the UK.
To me one of the most interesting aspects of the Foodwise 2025 report, presented to the Irish Minister of Agriculture in July 2015, is the size and composition of the 2025 Agri-Food Strategy Committee, which consists of 36 members from agricultural organisations, the farming sector, business schools and the private sector.
The secretariat was provided by DAFM as the lead agency, but the sheer weight of commercial and intellectual grunt was impressive.
It is worth asking the question whether NZ’s cause might be better served by combining resources in this way, instead of each organisation coming up with its own separate ideas on the best strategic direction.
MPI is the lead government agency for the agricultural sector, but it is not clear to me that it necessarily succeeds in capturing the thoughts of each sector through the individual industry organisations representing producers, processors and exporters.
The ministry’s strategic objectives contain good ideas such as, for example, “Primary sector businesses use attributes of the NZ story to enhance their own story” but the lack of a coherent brand strategy suggests this may be more wishful thinking than reality.
I suspect MPI’s plan is viewed by the rest of the industry as a document aimed at satisfying the requirements of government ministers looking for sound bites.
It is not a plan that everybody has bought into because the rest of the industry had no part in its preparation.
How much better to have convened a group of people from across the sector, including farming leaders, marketing people, retailers, exporters, and scientists, to formulate a strategic plan for the NZ’s agricultural brand.
So my challenge to the agricultural sector is not to let MPI speak for the sector or be captured by the Government’s desire for good news but decide what agriculture actually needs to succeed and grow and how best to implement the strategy.
