Bensemann, Wellington based agricultural development manager for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, spent her scholarship year looking at how other food-producing countries had found a lever to pull their sector’s value to a higher level.
Each had distinctive and unique drivers behind the paths they chose to take.
She chose Ireland, Israel, Chile, Singapore and the Netherlands as example for the path NZ could chose.
But despite their differences all five countries shared a common motivation to set their distinct paths for food production.
Bensemann described them as facing a “burning platform” of change that was the catalyst for them to move quickly on setting that path.
The “burning platform” NZ agriculture stood on took the form of a global trade environment increasingly hostile to liberalisation and even looking to shut down borders on some aspects of food trade, partly to protect voting farmers and partly to maintain a level of self sufficiency.
It came after NZ enjoyed the first-mover buzz of the Chinese free-trade agreement from the mid-2000s, co-inciding with a surge in commodity volume and value of exports there, particularly for meat and milk.
“But we can no longer take those preferred trade agreements for granted.
“We have had this focus on free-trade agreements and on increasing productivity and efficiency within the farmgate and through the supply chain, as you must when you are largely an exporting nation.
“But they won’t continue to provide the same value gains.”
It came as other countries had upped their game in those areas, including their export focus.
“But for a lot of those other countries their markets have been right on their doorstep and easier for them to understand than for NZ where we may be exporting a particular product to 100 different countries it’s much harder to get our heads around each.”
But to set a path to continue competing required figuring out what the sector’s kaupapa or guiding principles and ideas for action were before telling the story to markets.
“And I learned this is where we are lacking at the moment. The challenge is to find what our kaupapa are.”
If NZ agri wanted to simply declare it was the best producer of protein for meat, milk and fibre, meeting all safety and quality requirements of customer countries, then it was already there.
“But if we want to be something different or more we need to set ourselves up to do different things. It is more than just a marketing strategy, it goes deeper than that.”
Her study cited the five countries that had achieved this.
Ireland’s “burning platform” had been tough economic times in the mid 2000s and its kaupapa had been to position itself as a global leader in sustainable food production.
For the Netherlands land space pressure had pushed it into declaring itself a leader in agri-tech innovation, particularly further up the supply chain in food processing.
Chile had chosen to buffer itself from the variability of copper returns through agriculture and had recognised the fastest way to innovate was to go global to seek experts across all fields of that sector.
“I realised when I returned home that everyone involved in each part of those countries’ agri sectors could quite clearly articulate what the purpose of their agri-sector was in their country.”
The need for NZ to lay its foundation principles was even more vital now as the sector faced fierce public debate over contentious issues, including animal welfare and clean water, affecting its future.
“It becomes difficult to have those conversations when we don’t have any cohesion around our principles.”
Bensemann was not averse to having foreign input to help shape those principles if need be.
As debate swirled in the meat sector about the pros and cons of foreign funding she said aligning with better-funded partners could be one solution.
“If, for example, we set our kaupapa as being to provide high-quality food focused on the Chinese market, it may make sense to partner with them.”
She was struck by the level of collaboration the other countries had engaged in, both abroad and internally in striking their guiding vision.
“Within those countries there was more cohesion around the three pillars of government, industry and research all moving together.”
Ultimately all had some form of a pan-industry body overseeing food, such as Ireland’s Board Bia.
Bensemann stopped short of defining what NZ’s kaupapa should be, agreeing it was big enough to be a separate scholarship subject.
However, she was encouraged to go and talk to a broad range of government and industry groups to try to start the conversation.
Meantime, as the sector grappled with debate and flak on issues of a domestic nature, including water quality, her concern was they would continue to distract from the need for a shared vision to take to the world.
“I think there is a risk we could become a bit irrelevant in the world of food.
“When you look at the proportion of food traded globally, it is a small proportion. We need the rest of the world more than it needs us.”