One-for-all board last goal of retiring meat boss

By PHILIPPA STEVENSON agricultural editor

Farmers have shown a preference for slimmed-down producer boards for meat and wool, but the retiring Meat NZ chairman is to push for a super-board.

John Acland, who will step down in March, said the McKinsey report on the wool industry, which suggested closer links between wool and sheep meat, did not go far enough.

A pan-industry body linking sheep and goat meat, beef, venison and wool was likely to be better than SheepCo, the research and development body for wool and sheep meat suggested by the consultants, Mr Acland told last week's Meat Industry Association annual meeting.

And the Meat NZ chairman of five years hinted he would make the setting up of a livestock board his swansong.

"I don't believe that the meat levy-payers want us to follow the same route as proposed by McKinsey, but they are looking for a lead from us as to how and what activities should be amalgamated."

He said he was "flying a kite because the debate needs to get started," but his views appear to be well developed.

Meat exporters gave the plan a mixed reception. Some questioned his seriousness; others proclaimed the plan a significant breakthrough.

"If this livestock board covers sheep, beef, and possibly venison, then perhaps it needs to be made up of producers, with the decisions of promotional funding, research and development being made by joint groups, where the representation could be 50/50 with industry," Mr Acland said.

"Why not just collect a levy on the slaughter of each class of livestock, such as sheep and beef?

"The collection of the wool levy is more expensive and difficult, and could be dropped."

He suggested the super-board be made up of seven producer members and two others appointed for their expertise, that it have statutory powers from Government and that producers have the right to review their levies every five years.

The new board would have four main divisions, covering trade access, advocacy and market development; a joint body for promotion, with equal numbers of exporters and board members; a research and development body; and an agritech holding company.

The structure was simple and cost-efficient and would give levy-payers the best return for their money, Mr Acland said.

He warned that producers could not go it alone. "We must work together if we are to grow and prosper."

Mr Acland said research money should be spent where it gave the greatest return, and must take into account that two-thirds of sheep farmers' income came from meat, and the rest from wool.

"Looking ahead, one would have to say that the greatest productive gains will come from increased lambing percentage and lamb growth rate."

He told the meat industry executives they needed to work with his board to develop a joint strategic plan "that reaches out for at least three years and that embraces the amount of funds that need to be spent and in what markets that spend should be.

"Without such a plan, publicly supported by the industry, continued payment of levies will be questioned, and there will be no prospect of an increase, even though it could be in the best long-term interest of the producer to spend more funds in the marketplace."

Producers also still needed to take a role alongside the Government in ensuring market access.

"Government at times does not have the resources of knowledge or funds to fight all our battles, and we saw this in our battle with the USA on lamb quotas," Mr Acland said.

"While McKinsey suggest in the case of wool this area can be handled only by the Government, I do not agree. The problems wool has over market access compared to meat are less significant, but they do exist."