global competitiveness - agrifutures australia · rirdc completed projects in 2007–2008 and...
TRANSCRIPT
RIRDC Completed Projects in 2007–2008
and Research in Progress as at June 2008
Global Competitiveness
November 2008
RIRDC Publication No 08/081
© 2008 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 670 6 ISSN 1440-6845 RIRDC Completed Projects in 2007–2008 and Research in Progress as at June 2008 – Global Competitiveness Publication No. 08/081 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.
While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.
The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.
The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.
This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165
Research Manager for Global Competitiveness Program Mr Simon Winter RIRDC PO Box 4776 Kingston ACT 2604 0419 720 700 [email protected]
In submitting their project report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: [email protected]. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published electronically in November 2008
ii
Foreword RIRDC produces Research in Progress summaries of continuing projects and those completed during 2007–2008. Our intention is to: • give stakeholders early access to the results of ongoing and completed work to inform their
decisions, and • inform researchers of results to shape research directions. The complete report on all programs is on our website at http:www.rirdc.gov.au. The Global Competitiveness program aims to identify the impediments to the development of a globally competitive Australian agricultural sector and supports research investments on options and strategies for removing these impediments. The program currently has eight areas of focus which are: 1. New market opportunities for the food sector 2. Domestic impediments to industry performance 3. Trade policy reform 4. Markets for agricultural products 5. Supply chain linkages 6. Policy and institutional analysis 7. Communications This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1800 research publications, which are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • http:// www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html • purchases at http:/www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop
Peter O’Brien Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
iii
Global Competitiveness – COMPLETED PROJECTS
Project No
Project Title Researcher Phone Organisation Page No
2. Domestic impediments to industry performance PRJ-000330
Current issues in intellectual property for the Australian rural sector
Brad Sherman 07 3365 6193 The University of Queensland
1
PRJ-000781
The 2002/2003 drought: Part 2: A review of information advice and producer responses
Mark Barber 02 6249 8055 ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd
4
3. Trade policy reform PRJ-000521
PDOs, PGIs and TSGs: Implications for Australian agriculture
Paul Riethmuller 07 3365 3969 The University of Queensland
5
PRJ-000701
Special safeguards and agricultural trade liberalisation
David Harris 03 9889 9879 D. N. Harris & Associates
7
PRJ-002940
Developing agreed life cycle assessment methodologies
Don Burnside 08 9326 0100 URS Australia Pty Ltd
9
PRJ-003001
Developing agreed life cycle assessment methodologies - Tech advice to URS
Stephen Wiedemann
07 4632 8230 FSA Consulting 10
PRJ-003074
High food prices: an analysis of causes, implications and solutions
Andrew Stoeckel
02 6245 7800 Centre for International Economics
12
5. Supply chain linkages PRJ-000536
Building effective Australia-China supply chains post WTO: a Chinese perspective
Ray Collins 07 5460 1328 The University of Queensland
14
6. Policy and institutional analysis PRJ-000888
The implications of changing global animal protein demand for Australian farmers
Glenn Dalton and Mick Keogh
02 9690 1388 Australian Farm Institute
16
7. Communications PRJ-000896
Annual awards for excellence in agribusiness
Lawrie Dooley 03 9903 2757 Monash University 18
PRJ-002856
Global Competitiveness program R&D 5-year plan
Alan Oxley 03 9654 8309 Oxley International Pty Ltd
19
PRJ-002607
52nd Australian AARES Annual Conference
Tracy Henderson
02 6276 6240 Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society
20
iv
Global Competitiveness– RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
Project No
Project Title Researcher Phone Organisation Page No
1. New market opportunities for the food sector PRJ-000741
Agrifood globalisation and Asia (Final two volumes) [continuation of DFT-1A]
Judith Laffan 02 6261 2605 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
22
3. Trade policy reform PRJ-000713
China agriculture and the WTO Neil Andrews 02 6272 2242 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)
23
PRJ-000702
Agricultural support -- Implications for industry adjustment
David Harris 03 9889 9879 D. N. Harris & Associates
24
PRJ-002384
Viability of alternative frameworks for agricultural trade negotiations
Andrew Stoler 08 8303 6944 The University of Adelaide
25
PRJ-003098
Review of Australia’s agricultural Export Policies and Programs
Andrew Stoeckel
02 6245 7800 Centre for International Economics
26
4. Markets for agricultural products PRJ-000261
Ethical foods: International Situation Assessment, Opportunities/Threats
Michael Clarke 02 9817 5888 AgEconPlus Pty Ltd 27
PRJ-000296
Australian domestic demand elasticities for rural marketing and policy analysis
Henry Haszler 03 9431 0597 Deakin University 28
5. Supply chain linkages PRJ-000276
Enhancing value-chain linkages through internet technologies
Suku Bhaskaran 03 9919 2198 Victoria University 29
PRJ-000283
Inter-organisational leadership in Australian agribusiness value chains
Lawrie Dooley 03 9903 2757 Monash University 30
PRJ-000537
Converting value chain information into producer-based action
Ray Collins 07 5460 1328 The University of Queensland
31
v
Completed Projects – 2. Domestic impediments to industry performance
Project Title: Current issues in intellectual property for the Australian rural sector
RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000330
Researcher: Stephen Hubicki, Jay Sanderson / Brad Sherman Organisation: Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture / The University of
Queensland Phone: (07) 3346 7490; (07) 3735 4140 Fax: (07) 3346 7480 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Objectives
The primary aims of this project are to: • consider recent legal developments in Australia, Europe and the United
States that have opened the way for plants and animals to be patented in these jurisdictions
• examine some of the key differences between patents and other forms of intellectual property protection for plants and animals, in particular plant breeder’s rights
• analyse the extent to which patents are being sought for plant and animal-related innovations in Australia, Europe and the United States
• consider some of the consequences that may arise as a result of the increasing use of patents to protect plant and animal innovations.
Background Historically, patent law has had little direct impact of agricultural practices.
However in recent years patent law has come to play an increasingly important role in the protection of plant and animal innovation. This means that researchers must be aware of the differences between legal regimes and the potential issues this raises for the patenting of plants and animals. This report examines some of these issues, including the nature and scope of patent rights, the extent to which patents are currently being sought over plant and animal-related innovations, and the ways in which researchers in these fields are likely to be affected by the increasing use of patents to protect plant and animal innovations.
Research This research examines trends in the use of patents to protect plant and animal-related innovations in Australia, Europe and the United States. The scope of this research was restricted in a number of ways. First, the study focused on the patent laws of, and patenting activity in, Australia, Europe and the United States. These jurisdictions were chosen because they are (along with Japan) the only jurisdictions which permit patents to be granted for plants and animals, and they are important export markets for Australian agricultural products. Secondly, the empirical component of the study was restricted by limiting research to publicly available databases. Titles and abstracts were also analysed to exclude patents on products or processes outside of the focus of this report, including agricultural equipment, water and solar plants.1 Thirdly, we did not intend to capture all relevant patent applications (such as claims over plant and animal genes) as this was well outside the terms (and time-frame) of the study. Finally, the analysis of patenting activity in based on patent applications filed in each jurisdiction, rather than granted patents, because applications are a good indicator of interest in protecting plant intellectual property and applications are not affected by processing or other factors.
1 The primary search terms used were ‘plant’ and ‘cultivar’.
1
Outcomes Our research indicates that while animals and plants generally are
patentable, some questions remain. In particular, there remains uncertainty over the extent to which conventionally-bred plants and animals are patentable. In addition, questions remain over the extent to which conventional plant breeding processes are patentable in Europe. Furthermore, our research highlights a number of significant consequences of a shift towards the use of patents to protect plant and animal innovations. These include the extensiveness of patent rights, and the limited nature of existing exceptions to those rights – in particular, the absence of a robust research exemption in Australian patent law and restrictions on the use of farm-saved seed and progeny of patented animals. Our research also indicates that the type of patents being sought for plant-related subject matter varies between jurisdictions: the United States has a high percentage of plant variety patents, while currently in Europe and Australia patent applications are primarily for processes and biological information, such as promoters, isolated genes and DNA sequences. Application rates also vary by crop. In the United States, where patent protection is most prevalent, the majority of applications relate to genetically-modified crops (soybeans, cotton and corn) and animals. In Australia, where there are still moratoria on the commercialisation of GMOs, fewer patent applications have been filed. In respect of animal-related subject matter, the majority of patents have been sought for transgenic animals, milking technologies and harnessing devices. The United States has the highest rate of patenting in this area. However, application rates have been in decline since 2003. In Europe, relatively few patents have been sought for animals. In Australia, application rates have fluctuated in recent years.
Implications The increased use of patents as a means to protect investment in plant and animal breeding has the potential to have profound effects, both positive and negative, on Australian agriculture. The extensiveness of patent rights, and the limited defences to those rights, means that researchers will increasingly be required to obtain permission to conduct research involving patented technology. This has the potential to delay the commencement or continuation of research, and in some instances may even lead to the abandonment of research projects where agreement cannot be reached with the patent owner on the terms of any licence. At the same time, the broad scope of subject matter that is capable of being protected by patents means that multiple components of plants and animals, and techniques and processes used in the production of plants and animals, are capable of protection. This increases the likelihood that researchers will be required to obtain multiple licences, potentially from a number of different patent owners, in order to obtain access to resources required to complete a program of research. It is likely to that the increasing number of transactions that will be required in order to access patented materials will increase the cost of research. The anticipated introduction of a research exemption into Australian law has the potential to offset some of these negative effects, and has the potential to provide a competitive advantage to Australian industries. However, the scope and form of the proposed research exemption remains unclear. It is also unclear whether patent owners will be able to negate the operation of the exemption by incorporating terms in licensing agreements restricting the ability of licensees to make use of the exemption.
2
If managed correctly, the use of patents to protect plant innovations also offers the possibility for attracting increased investment in plant breeding, particularly for the breeding of plants specifically tailored to meet Australian needs.
Publications N/A
3
Completed Projects – 2. Domestic impediments to industry performance
Project Title: The 2002/2003 drought: Part 2: A review of information advice and producer responses
RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000781
Researcher: Mark Barber Organisation: ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd Phone: (02) 6249 8055 Fax: (02) 6103 8233 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The aim of this project, stage two of the drought review, is to understand what farm businesses were responding too at these periods of identified activity, what information was contributing to the decisions being made and how these decisions can be improved to reduce the economic impact of drought on farm businesses.
Background Market theory argues that uncertainty prevents efficient outcomes. This leads to the conclusion that agricultural markets are inefficient because of rainfall uncertainty. It is therefore argued that to increase agricultural market efficiency climate forecasting needs to be improved. This is hardly a revelation! This is one of the arguments used to justify the considerable amount of public funding that has been committed to support climate research for many years.
Research The real options methodology introduced in this report, appears to reflect the way farmers make decisions. This technique, gaining in popularity in other sectors, should be examined by farmers and their advisors.
Outcomes After introducing a range of market based options to adjust to seasonal uncertainty this report analyses the adequacy of current financial analytical tools. The report concludes that the analytical tools farmers currently use to make these decisions must reflect the way farmers approach investments and, most importantly, structure decisions to retain flexibility. Traditional approaches, when used, are limited in the way they manage uncertainty.
Implications This report suggests that, in the absence of any major improvements in climate forecasting, farmers need to develop new approaches to managing their enterprises and utilise the wide range of emerging market based risk management options.
Publications
4
Completed Projects – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title PDOs, PGIs and TSGs: Implications for Australian agriculture RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000521
Researcher: Paul Riethmuller Organisation: The University of Queensland Phone: (07) 3365 3969 Fax: (07) 3365 7299 Email: [email protected] Objectives
• Assemble information on the types of products affected by PDOs,
PGIs and TSG regulations • Assess whether these forms of regulation constitute a non-tariff
barrier • Evaluate what implications these forms of regulation/intervention
might have for Australian agriculture • Identify other related areas where further research may be warranted.
Background
Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) regulations were introduced into the European Union in 1992. Based upon the notion that there are many products in the EU that are regional specialties, the regulations were designed to protect the producers of the regional specialties from producers not in the region copying the products. Over 700 products are classified as PDO/PGI products. Examples of regional specialties include Newcastle Brown ale and Parma ham. Coming at a time when EU agriculture is faced with reduced assistance as a result of the WTO Trade negotiations, supporters of the PDO/PGI regulations say that these regulations will help improve the incomes of producers of these products, stem migration from rural areas and provide assurance to consumers as to the quality of the food that they are buying.
Research
Most of the PDO/PGI products are produced in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, and many of the products are cheeses and processed meats. The numbers of products given PDO/PGI protection has been increasing in the EU. As well, other countries including Japan, have been looking at encouraging the production of products that are regional specialties for motives similar to those in the EU. Whether or not the policy is successful is hard to judge – the diversity of products makes drawing general conclusions difficult. There is some evidence suggesting that consumers are willing to pay a premium for a regional specialty and that producers are able to earn higher mark-ups than producers of standard products. The production of PDO/PGI products is what the EU should do well; tradition, history and specialised knowledge not easily replicated elsewhere are hallmarks of these products
5
Outcomes
PDO/PGI products are likely to become increasingly important in countries where producers are faced with declining incomes and where agricultural regions are experiencing population loss and economic decline. This trend will become more pronounced if the Doha Round of trade negotiations results in further reform of border protection of agriculture. Fostering of regionally based specialty products will provide consumers with more diversity of product choice and could help maintain regional economies. The extent to which this does eventuate will depend upon other players in the food chain. Supermarkets in particular will have a big part to play. Many of the regionally based products are produced in such small volumes that supermarket chains may be unwilling to carry them.
Implications
Factors other than price are important in shaping what the consumer buys, particularly in high income countries. The production of many agricultural products reflects tradition, culture and unique features of the production environment. Depending upon the nature of the product, the relative importance of these factors will differ. Nonetheless, opportunities exist for producers to take advantage of this in designing marketing programs for their products. Regulations in other countries can change rapidly and in response to domestic economic developments. Many regulatory changes lack transparency. Given the linkages between economies due to globalisation, monitoring regulatory change in other economies is of vital importance.
Publications
Riethmuller, Paul, Phillip Bodman and Mayu Yamada (2007). Geographical Indications and EU agriculture. Paper presented to the AgriFood Network Meeting, 26 November 2007, Brisbane
6
Completed Projects – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title Special safeguards and agricultural trade liberalisation RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000701
Researcher: David Harris Organisation: D. N. Harris & Associates Phone: (03) 9889 9879 Fax: Email: [email protected] Objectives
To investigate how special safeguards (SSGs) affect global trade in agricultural products and examine issues related to the protective effect of higher import duties the design of safeguard trigger mechanisms and the implications for market access improvements in the major developed economies.
Background
The Uruguay Round trade agreement had provision for the use of SSGs on products subjected to tariffication. Market access for a range of products in the major developed economies is potentially subject to SSGs. They automatically impose extra import duties according to trigger mechanisms based on price and quantity based formulas. The Doha trade negotiations may gain improvements in market access conditions through reduced tariffs. If this is achieved there is likely to be a greater incidence of SSG actions. The potential disruption to trade raises the risk that SSGs could stifle new opportunities for trade growth.
Research
The incidence of SSGs was reviewed for agricultural products in the major developed economies. Experiences with the way the safeguards provisions are operating were examined and issues in the design of the trigger mechanisms were investigated. The analysis considered various aspects of the provisions that could be reformed to ensure they do not act like a new level of trade restrictions and are consistent with the original intentions of a safeguard. Some lessons for the design of Special Safeguard Measures (SSMs) for developing countries in the Doha trade negotiations were highlighted.
Outcomes
SSGs are especially common for meat, dairy and sugar products in the major developed economies. The SSG formulas suggest duties can be imposed for issues not directly attributable to import competition. In some cases SSG actions have been acting more like a new level of trade restrictions than a safeguard measure. Price based SSGs can be invoked on an ad hoc basis if the trigger point has a low threshold. This type of action is not consistent with the original aim of the measures and there is a strong case for abolishing price based SSGs. Quantity based SSGs are weighted towards a lower trigger point because of discretion in the safeguards agreement. Base trigger level conditions have a step function with steep threshold points that do not seem to be consistent with the notion of exceptional circumstances. The 5% minimum growth factor is highly restrictive. In most cases it could not be classed as an import surge especially in situations when import penetration is less than 10% is too restrictive..
7
Implications
SSG actions taken since the provisions were introduced have been limited. But future trade liberalisation gains from the Doha negotiations could be stifled by SSG actions. The analysis highlighted a number of weaknesses and deficiencies in the SSG provisions. There is a strong case for reforming the way the SSGs are structured. The design of SSMs should consider some of the weaknesses that are apparent in the SSG provisions.
Publications
Harris, D. 2008, Special Safeguards and Agricultural trade Liberalisation, forthcoming report prepared for RIRDC, Canberra.
8
Completed Projects – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title Developing agreed life cycle assessment methodologies RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-002940
Researcher: Don Burnside Organisation: URS Australia Pty Ltd Phone: 08 9326 0100 Fax: 08 9326 0296 Email: [email protected] Objectives
• Analyse lessons from Australian and international Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) studies in agriculture • Provide a foundation for the development of a standard methodology
Background
Rural primary industries use water resources and energy, and emit greenhouse gases. Future Australian and international policy directions may require industries to account for their resource use and emissions. LCA is a method to analyse resource issues across the life cycle of a product. It can systematically identify key areas to improve environmental and economic performance, and can be applied to agricultural systems. A standardised LCA methodology for primary industries will help practitioners undertake LCA studies and greatly increase their value by providing results that are comparable between sectors and industries.
Research
Information and literature on agricultural LCA studies was gathered from the public domain, including international scholarly journals, the internet and industry reports.
Outcomes
The literature was diverse in its goals, methodologies and coverage of agricultural issues. This diversity meant that in some aspects of LCA there was limited similarity in the coverage and therefore it was difficult to draw lessons in some areas. However, some general consensus can be drawn in most areas of LCA. The lessons gathered by this review provide the foundation for the next stage of the project to develop a standard LCA methodology.
Implications
Particular areas that are missing from the literature included: ways to account for and measure water use; and ways to address uncertainty in data.
Publications
9
Completed Projects – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title Developing agreed life cycle assessment (LCA)
methodologies – Technical advice to URS RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-003001
Researcher: Stephen Wiedemann Organisation: FSA Consulting Phone: 07 4632 8230 Fax: 07 4632 8057 Email: [email protected] Objectives
1. Providing technical support (from an agricultural perspective) to URS
in the design and implementation project PRJ-0002940 to develop a common methodology for LCA.
2. Ensuring the common methodology for LCAs is able to be practically implemented within agricultural sectors.
Background
All primary industries use energy and water resources throughout their supply chains (such as purchased inputs, production, processing, refrigeration, transport, retail). All produce greenhouse emissions to a greater or lesser degree. In the future industries may be called to account for their emissions and energy and water use by the community, much as the coal and oil industries are being targeted now for their emissions. Already consumers in Europe are seeking information on the life cycle of primary products and the ‘food miles’ imported goods have travelled. Energy and water consumed per standard unit of product are becoming important issues. Life cycle assessment (LCA) also has the potential to accurately inform Triple Bottom Line reporting. Australian environment protection agencies are using LCA as a regulatory compliance tool. Energy and water use and emissions accounting is not simple and, even though there is an International Standard for life cycle assessment (ISO 14040), which is accepted as the basis for undertaking a LCA, debate continues about the type of methodologies to be applied, their cost and what they ‘tell an industry’ when completed. Australian primary industries have had mixed success ‘going it alone’ developing and applying LCA. There would be an advantage in developing common approaches to ensure any future moves by government or the market place to encourage LCAs for primary industries are appropriate and practical. There is an opportunity to share learning between industries gleaned from previous experiences with LCA and seek out international best practice in life cycle reporting. To address this, a number of agricultural industry sectors, through the RIRDC, have recently contracted a LCA specialist company, URS, to undertake a project to develop a common methodology for LCA.
10
Research
The role was to provide technical support and critical review, however as part of this role FSA Consulting carried out a limited literature review of agricultural LCAs and provided written summaries of the Australian Red Meat LCA. Additionally FSA Consulting engaged all industry stakeholders in the process of establishing the supply chain boundaries and functional units for each supply chain.
Outcomes
FSA Consulting supplied two review documents and supply chain diagrams for each industry. Few of the review comments were incorporated by URS into the literature review or draft methodology review and this was a disappointment. FSA Consulting staff members attended the stakeholder workshop to assist in conversation and facilitation of the workshop.
Implications
The methodology was developed by URS with input supplied by FSA Consulting. On many points of difference the review comments provided by FSA Consulting were not addressed adequately however.
Publications
No formal publications were developed from FSA Consulting' component of the project, however contribution was made to the literature review and methodology document.
11
Completed Projects – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title High food prices: an analysis of causes, implications and
solutions RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-003074
Researcher: Andrew Stoeckel Organisation: Centre for International Economics Phone: 02 6245 7800 Fax: 02 6245 7888 Email: [email protected] Objectives
To shift thinking at a major meeting of world farmers on the need for a more market-orientated agriculture. The food crisis has arisen because supply has not been able to keep up with demand. There has been too little investment in agriculture in those countries best able to produce an exportable surplus. The reason is too much government intervention and restriction of world trade. Agriculture remains one of the most highly distorted world markets. There is a real risk that agricultural producers perversely resort to yet more protection as a solution to the food crisis. That would hurt Australian farmers and it is the wrong approach.
Background
The increases in food prices experienced in recent years have given rise to weighty debate about appropriate policy responses. Some countries have responded by adjusting policies regarding food price controls, subsidies, export restrictions, grain stock holdings and reducing taxes on food. The political and social impacts of high food prices give rise to fears about national food security. This mistakenly leads to conclusions that restrictions on world trade will improve food security, when in fact it is existing restrictions on world trade and subsidies that have constrained growth in agricultural output over the last few decades.
Research
The study analysed what has happened to food prices and why. It was undertaken as a desk exercise, by investigating the short and longer term supply side shortcoming and distortions, as well as the distortions to demand. Simple graphics to demonstrate these demand and supply side developments are used. The study also outlines the social and political impacts of high food prices and puts forward an appropriate suite of policy measures to both encourage the expansion of supply while minimizing adverse impacts on food consumers in poor countries.
Outcomes
Provides a sound economic research piece to use in shifting thinking on the need for more market-orientated agriculture and less government intervention and restriction of world trade, to lower food prices and provide other benefits: • Lower agricultural protection would potentially provide billions of
dollars in benefits to Australian farmers. • Because global agricultural output is not produced in the most
efficient way, in the most efficient places (for example by efficient agricultural exporters like Australia), the output the world produces now is done so by using too many inputs. By moving towards more efficient global production of food, global output can be increased from using fewer inputs and putting less pressure on the environment.
• Poor people spend around half or more of their income on food. The food crisis has hit the poorest the hardest.
A more efficient and flexible system of production and distribution of
12
food, that would result from heavier reliance on market forces and less government intervention, would see lower real prices of food available to poor people with obvious social benefits.
Implications
The primary research conclusion of the paper is that more market-orientated agriculture is the best policy that governments have available to lower food prices. The food crisis has arisen because supply has not been able to keep up with demand. There has been too little investment in agriculture in those countries best able to produce an exportable surplus, because government intervention and restriction of world trade have closed many markets and depressed prices in others, which have constrained supply.
Publications
Paper: High food prices: an analysis of causes, implications and solutions
13
Completed Projects – 5. Supply chain linkages Project Title Building effective Australia-China supply chains post WTO:
a Chinese perspective RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000536
Researcher: Ray Collins Organisation: The University of Queensland Phone: (07) 5460 1328 Fax: (07) 5460 1324 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The aim of this research is to produce a unique blend of Chinese and Australian insights into the building of effective supply chains between the two countries in a free trade agreement (FTA) environment. The objectives are to: 1. Identify potential post-FTA opportunities for Australian
agribusinesses to access Chinese markets. 2. Analyse existing approaches to supply chain management (SCM)
between firms in chains that span developed and developing countries.
3. Identify drivers of successful SCM from the approaches and examples analysed in (2) above.
4. Taking a Chinese perspective to evaluate these drivers for their relevance effectiveness and ability to be implemented in building effective agribusiness supply chains between Australia and China.
5. Using the range of opportunities identified in (1) above to propose supply chain building approaches for Australian agribusinesses.
6. Validate these approaches with Chinese researchers, Australian firms and their potential Chinese customers.
Background
Post-WTO, the opening of Chinese markets represents a particular opportunity to Australian agribusiness as a Free Trade Agreement is negotiated between the two countries. At the same time, China is experiencing great difficulty in establishing and enforcing a code of practice for food quality, safety and traceability, especially for domestically produced food products. Partially in response to this situation, as incomes rise Chinese consumers are discriminating in favor of high quality, safe, but more expensive imported foods. While Australian agribusiness is well placed to address this emerging demand, it will have to build chains between the two countries that can guarantee the quality, safety and authenticity that Chinese consumers are seeking. Supply chain management is a western business concept whose aim is to build chains that can respond to consumers’ needs in profitable, sustainable ways for all chain partners. It would seem to offer at least a guiding framework for Australia-China agribusiness trade, but little or no research has been done to examine its ability to span significant cultural and commercial differences such as those between China and Australia
14
Research
This research examines the current supply chains for Australian food to China, including the channels for getting food into China, China’s domestic food supply chains and the differences in supplier/customer relationships between Australian and Chinese firms. Results are compared with contemporary concepts of supply chain management in agribusiness for their relevance and effectiveness in an Australia-China free trade environment. Data for the research was gathered from desktop analyses, plus interviews or surveys of 22 Australian firms and 84 Chinese firms involved in agrifood exporting, importing, wholesaling and retailing.
Outcomes
The analysis showed that logistics and distribution systems were risky, infrastructure was poor, cool chain management unreliable, border crossings difficult at times, and the distribution network complex, multi-layered and fragmented. Most Chinese firms have arms-length relationships with their suppliers and customers, with a lack of information sharing and limited interaction. Chinese firms do not believe their key suppliers and customers are honest while Australian firms do. As a result, Chinese firms show less trust and commitment to key suppliers and key customers than Australian firms do. Australian firms show higher levels of co-operation than their Chinese counterparts. Chinese firms do not want to share information about their customers with their suppliers because of the risk of a firm being bypassed by its customers going directly to its suppliers, or vice versa. In the future, Chinese importers are likely to remain the driving force in the supply chain. Most of them are not consumer oriented, but focus on large volumes, fast turnover and low prices. Although overcoming these barriers for Australian food producers is a major challenge, two strategies are proposed that can enhance the chances of building more effective supply chains.
Implications
Two approaches are suggested for improving the effectiveness of current chain. Strategy 1: Develop partnerships with Chinese importers who supply directly to large retailers, supermarkets and hypermarkets. This strategy will link Australian firms with a growing segment of the retail market frequented by middle to high income earners who are seeking higher quality safe foods, and to do so in as direct a way as possible. This gives Australian firms better control, more product traceability, better feedback and enhanced opportunities to promote their products to the retailer and consumer. Strategy 2: Establish the Australian firm’s own representation in China. This allows firms to build and monitor their own networks in-country, control product distribution and quality management and reduce non-payment risks. Many Chinese prefer to deal with companies who are personally represented in the market because it is always better to do business face to face, and it minimises the risks of counterfeit goods.
Publications
Collins, R. and Sun, T. 2008. Comparing business relationships of horticultural firms in supply chains between China and Australia. XVIth International Symposium on Horticultural Economics and Management, Thailand, Dec. 2008.
15
Completed Projects – 6. Policy and institutional analysis Project Title The implications of changing global animal protein demand
for Australian farmers RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000888
Researcher: Glenn Dalton and Mick Keogh Organisation: Australian Farm Institute Phone: (02) 9690 1388 Fax: (02) 9699 7270 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The broad aim of the project is understand the impact of changing global diets and energy use on Australian agriculture and predict the likely changes in demand for agricultural products that will arise as these changes occur. The project also aims to identify the strategic policy steps that Australian agriculture should take in order to prepare for these changes.
Background
Growing wealth in developing nations is leading to increased demand for animal protein – specifically poultry, pork, red meat, dairy and fish products. This, in turn, is leading to changes in the nature of agriculture imports by developing nations, depending on the make-up of agriculture in those nations and the availability of natural resources such as land and water.
Research
The research involved a relatively small-scale ‘desk study’ of official reports and information drawn from a variety of government and commercial sources. The research also involved an analysis of a large body of peer-reviewed papers and publications on these and related issues.
Outcomes
The most compelling need identified by this study is the urgent need for Australia to build up maize and oilseeds production capacity to underpin expanded livestock production and contribute to the production of fuel from crops. The study also concluded that the Australian Government should tread carefully in expanding a crop-based ethanol-production industry in Australia. At best, crop-based ethanol could only provide a small part of the answer to future energy needs for a limited period. As a fuel, biodiesel appears to have a much better long-term future than ethanol, and its development should be encouraged, as it will provide a suitable alternative fuel for heavy haulage and agricultural purposes. The study also highlighted that Australia needs to develop closer trade links with the group loosely known as the Tiger II countries in order to increase exports of animal protein – specifically red meat, dairy products and live cattle and sheep exports.
16
Implications
For Australia to take advantage of this future demand for animal protein a greater focus on research and development will be required of suitable maize and oilseed varieties, and associated production technology. Of the countries under review, Australia has a long-term trade agreement with Thailand and is in negotiations with China and Japan, which have every prospect of being successful if based on mutual self interest. Australia needs to develop closer trade links with the group loosely known as the Tiger II countries, including Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan to take advantage of changes in demand for agricultural products.
Publications
Dalton, G & Keogh, M 2007, The Implications for Australian Agriculture of Changing Demand for Animal Protein in Asia, Research Report, Australian Farm Institute, Surry Hills, Australia.
17
Completed Projects – 7. Communications Project Title:
Annual awards for excellence in agribusiness
RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000896
Researcher: Dr Lawrie Dooley Organisation: Department of Management
Monash University PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145
Phone: (03) 9903 2757 Fax: (03) 9903 2718 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The Agribusiness Awards for Excellence were established to recognise and reward companies and individuals with outstanding achievements in Australia's Agribusiness industry. Award sponsorship provides the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) with an opportunity to present their corporate image to the Agribusiness industry. By supporting this prestigious event RIRDC is able to show its commitment to promoting excellence in the Australian Agribusiness industry.
Background In 1996 the Faculty of Business and Economics at Monash University, initiated the first national awards in excellence for Australian Agribusiness. Since their inception, the awards have grown and are now nationally and internationally recognised as the premier awards in Australian Agribusiness, with sponsored support for awards in leadership, export, value adding, technology and innovation, environment and energy management, rural enterprise, primary production, employer of choice and risk management.
Research Members of the Australian Agribusiness community are invited to nominate organisations or individuals for awards in the various categories. We currently have a mailing list of 5,000 companies and organisations and conduct mass marketing through advertisements in selected media including electronic newsletters and web pages of supporting organisations. Telemarketing is conducted to invite companies to consider applying for the awards. Prospective applicants are obtained from sponsors and articles of interest collected from BRW, Financial Review, The Age, The Australian, Stock and Land, Weekly Times, Australian Farm Journal and Queensland Country Life. Applicants have to address key selection criteria and the winners are selected by a judging panel with representatives from all sponsors and chaired by Dr. Lawrie Dooley, Food and Agribusiness Programs Director, Monash University.
Implications Australian agriculture has developed an internationally competitive production base for agricultural commodities. The future challenges us to add value to these commodities in global markets for food ingredients, food service inputs and branded food products. These case studies of successful Australian agri-food companies demonstrate the potential to value add to our commodities if we can maintain a strong customer focus, produce differentiated branded products and develop partnerships and traceability throughout the supply chain.
Publications
18
Completed Projects – 7. Communications Project Title Global Competitiveness program R&D 5-year plan RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-002856
Researcher: Alan Oxley Organisation: Oxley International Pty Ltd Phone: (03) 9654 8309 Fax: (03) 9654 4922 Email: [email protected] Objectives
Produce the R&D plan for the RIRDC Global Competitiveness Program for the period 2008–2013
Background
Australia exports approximately two thirds of its agricultural production by value and is vital for the domestic market. Our competitiveness both at home and in global markets is therefore vital to the future success of the rural sector and to the livelihood of all Australians. The Global Competitiveness Program within RIRDC aims to identify the impediments to the development of a globally competitive Australian agricultural sector and support research investments on options and strategies to remove these impediments.
Research
A 5 year work plan was developed which outlines a strategy to reduce impediments to the development of a globally competitive Australian agricultural sector, improve export performance, and drive national and international public policy which impacts on the competitiveness of the agricultural sector. Developing the plan entailed a systematic process of desk research, preparation of a strategic issues paper, consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and strategic analysis.
Outcomes
Research which supports a contemporary strategic direction for improving the global competitiveness of Australian rural industries focussed on areas where threats and opportunities will emerge in the next 5-10 years. Key areas identified include international trade architecture, environmental sustainability, climate change, regulatory requirements and market requirements.
Implications
Industry participation will be encouraged and facilitated by RIRDC in all of the component areas of the program.
Publications
19
Completed Projects – 7. Communications Project Title 52nd AARES Annual Conference RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-002607
Researcher: Dr Tracy Henderson Organisation: Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Phone: 02 6276 6240 Fax: 02 6276 6273 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The objectives of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES) 2008 Annual Conference in Canberra, 5-8 February were: • to bring together over 250 individuals from all States and Territories
of Australia, New Zealand, the United States and other countries to improve their knowledge of the latest developments in agricultural and resource economics research and policy analysis
• to improve linkages between personnel formulating agricultural and resource economics policy, implementing policy and analysing outcomes; and
• to recognise and reward excellence in the field of agricultural and resource economics through presentation of AARES Awards.
Background
The principal aim of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES) is to encourage research, discussion, extension and policy evaluation in areas related to Australian agriculture, food, natural resources and economic development. The major activities of the Society are publishing the Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (AJARE), holding an annual internationally-attended conference, workshops and symposia, encouraging and facilitating branch activities, encouraging and facilitating attendance at the triennial congress of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, awarding annual prizes for academic achievement and the best article in AJARE, publishing a newsletter, “AARES News and Views”, for members, and an online membership directory. Membership of the Society is open to all persons and organisations interested in agricultural, resource and environment economics. For further background information on AARES please visit the website http://www.aares.info/
Outcomes
Key outcomes of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES) 2008 Annual Conference in Canberra, 5-8 February, were: • A total of 252 individuals from all States and Territories of Australia,
New Zealand, the United States and other countries improved their knowledge of the latest developments in agricultural and resource economics research and policy analysis. In particular, there was a major invited speaker session on Research and Development Policy, and two contributed paper sessions on Research and Development. A complete list of Invited Speaker and Contributed papers are available at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/33650/browse-title
• Existing linkages between personnel formulating policy, implementing policy and analysing outcomes were strengthened and new linkages formed;
20
• Excellence in the field of agricultural and resource economics was recognised and rewarded. A number of Awards were presented to eminent economists and to the top undergraduate agriculture and resource economics students across Australia.
Implications
The 2008 AARES Annual Conference was successful in achieving the stated objectives. Sponsorship of the 2008 AARES Annual Conference by RIRDC and other entities with aligned objectives to AARES was recognised as critical to the success of this event. The 2008 AARES Annual Conference delivered tangible benefits to the agricultural and natural resource economics profession, industry, researchers, policymakers, and others.
Publications
Over 130 Invited Speaker and Contributed conference papers were published as a result of the AARES 2008 Annual Conference. These papers are available from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/33650/browse-title
21
Research in Progress – 1. New market opportunities for the food sector Project Title Agrifood Globalisation and Asia (final two volumes) RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000741
Start Date: 05/01/2005 Finish Date: 31/07/2008 Researcher: Judith Laffan Organisation: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Phone: 02 6261 2605 Fax: 02 6261 1858 Email: [email protected] Objectives
To provide useful and accessible, detailed information and analysis about the rapidly changing landscape of Asian agrifood markets, to the Australian agrifood sector, from farmers and fishermen, agribusiness and food companies, exporters, investors and policy-makers.
Current Progress
Following publication of the first four volumes of the DFAT SSII Agrifood Globalisation and Asia project* over 2001-2004, as well as a stand-alone China report in 2004, the project’s principal analyst and coordinator, Judith Laffan, is working to complete the final two volumes in the series: • Volume V: Asian Agrifood Supply Trends, and Asian Agrifood
Companies (release 2007/08) • Volume VI: Australia’s Outlook and Opportunities as an Agrifood
Supplier to Asia (2008)
The current project work is focused on: drafting overviews of the main production trends of the key agrifood sectors, globally and in Asia; drafting overviews of the agrifood sector of each Asian economy (covering the whole agrifood chain from agriculture through processing to distribution and trade); and revising and updating earlier drafts of Asian agrifood company profiles for the leading Asian economies (Japan, China, Korea [ROK], Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Sri Lanka), plus drafting overviews of the main corporate agrifood sector trends and leading agrifood companies in each leading Asian economy. Research trips to China (4 weeks in 2005) and India (2 weeks in 2006) have been undertaken to interview local and foreign agrifood companies operating in those markets. * Summary details of the project and the series volumes can be found at <//www.dfat.gov.au/publications/agrifoodasia>. Further enquires can be made to Judith Laffan, Principal Analyst, Agrifood Research, AGB/OTN, DFAT, by email ([email protected]) or telephone (02-6261-2605).
22
Research in Progress – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title China agriculture and the WTO RIRDC Project No.:
ABA-21A
Start Date: 01/05/2006 Finish Date: 15/12/2008 Researcher: Neil Andrews Organisation: ABARE Phone: (02) 6272 2242 Fax: (02) 6272 2346 Email: [email protected] Objectives
• Assess China's experience in implementing its WTO accession
commitments for agriculture. • Analyse the potential trade impacts of further multilateral agricultural
liberalisation for China. • Identify priority areas for further WTO reforms for agriculture.
Current Progress
The first part of the project is an assessment of the implementation of China’s WTO accession commitments for agriculture. This assessment was undertaken in terms of three broad policy areas – market access, domestic support and export subsidies. The second component involves a quantitative analysis of the impacts on both China and Australia of further WTO agricultural trade liberalisation. A reference case using ABARE’s GTEM model has been established. Consistent with the outcomes of the 23 November 2006 advisory committee meeting, the outcomes of the trade liberalisation simulations will be evaluated at the next project advisory committee meeting and the priority and timing of all remaining project milestones considered. Specifically, will be important to make a decision on whether the regional analysis will proceed. ABARE, in consultation with RIRDC, will review the remaining milestones in light of the outcomes of the project advisory meeting.
23
Research in Progress – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title Agricultural support -- Implications for industry adjustment RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000702
Start Date: 30/09/2006 Finish Date: 31/07/2008 Researcher: David Harris Organisation: D. N. Harris & Associates Phone: (03) 9889 9879 Fax: Email: [email protected] Objectives
1. Compare structural adjustment and economic performance in highly
protected industries in the developed economies to industry performance in countries that do not provide support.
2. Investigate the distribution of financial transfers from policy support measures between small scale family farms and large scale commercialised farming operations.
Current Progress
The first three stages of the project have been completed. A review of highly protected industries in the major developed economies was undertaken. Sugar and dairy were selected as the industries to use for comparing industry performance between highly supported and un-supported circumstances. Structural adjustment and industry performance data was collected and analysed for Australia, the US, Japan and Canada. OECD estimates of support for sugar and dairy in the major economies were collected and analysed. The OECD methodology for calculating support has been revised. This required a revision of the initial estimates developed for the study which has now been completed. Physical farm performance indicators have been calculated for selected industry examples. A mid-term review of the project with NFF, DAFF, DFAT and ABARE representatives discussed some data issues associated with the project. Some alternatives for developing structural adjustment indicators have been investigated. Work on stage 4 of the project, an assessment of the distribution of support for selected industry examples, is nearing completion. Information on the distribution of farming operations and estimates of support has been collected and analysed to demonstrate the implications of structural change for the distribution of support.
24
Research in Progress – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title Viability of alternative frameworks for agricultural trade
negotiations RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-002384
Start Date: 01/06/2008 Finish Date: 30/05/2010 Researcher: Andrew Stoler Organisation: University of Adelaide Phone: 08 8303 6944 Fax: Email: [email protected] Objectives
This project aims to identify viable alternatives to the current approach to agricultural trade negotiations in the hope that a way will be found to un-block progress and open the way to future economic development opportunities based on open market access and the reform of damaging subsidy policies.
Current Progress
This project started in June 2008.
25
Research in Progress – 3. Trade policy reform Project Title Review of Australia’s agricultural Export Policies and
Programs RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-003098
Start Date: 03/05/2008 Finish Date: 05/05/2009 Researcher: Andrew Stoeckel Organisation: Centre for International Economics Phone: 02 6245 7800 Fax: 02 6245 7888 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The purpose of this submission to the panel set up to Review of Export Policies and Programs (the Review Panel) is to submit the main ideas and findings of a program of relevant research into one main area of Australia’s exports, namely agriculture.
Current Progress
This project started in May 2008.
26
Research in Progress – 4. Markets for agricultural products Project Title Ethical foods: International Situation Assessment,
Opportunities/Threats RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000261
Start Date: 01/07/2007 Finish Date: 31/10/2008 Researcher: Michael Clarke Organisation: AgEconPlus Pty Ltd Phone: (02) 9817 5888 Fax: (02) 9816 4840 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The project is relevant to RIRDC's Environment and Farm Management, Global Competitiveness, and Food Integrity and Biosecurity programs, including the following goals and objectives: • support analyses identifying new opportunities in the market place • develop a research program supporting more globally focused
competitive food sector • environmental accreditation and labelling, eco-labelling • undertake research that enhances the capacity of participants in the
supply chain to ensure full integrity.
Current Progress
The study has progressed through international literature review with an emphasis on USA, Canada, Western Europe and Asia, a dialogue has been established with RDCs and an overview analysis prepared. Ethical products include a wide range of goods and services. This project focuses on ethical food, grocery and beverage products. There is no single universally accepted definition of ethical foods. The four main elements within the ethical food category are 1. organic and natural 2. fair trade 3. free range animal welfare friendly 4. environmentally responsible and sustainably produced. Other attributes include a preparedness to pay more for ethical foods and a willingness to institute boycotts and other actions to bring about ethical outcomes. There are contradictions and tradeoffs between elements of the ethical food movement. For example organics may necessitate the generation of additional food kilometres. Universal compatibility is not the point of purchasing ethical foods. ‘Thinking about the consequences of your consumption’ is the reason ethical foods are purchased. Next steps in the project include completion of market size estimates and forecasts, international supply – sources and impacts, risks and emerging sector trends, Australian Agriculture SWOT analysis, trade implications for Australia and review of findings with relevant RDCs.
27
Research in Progress – 4. Markets for agricultural products Project Title Australian domestic demand elasticities for rural marketing
and policy analysis RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000296
Start Date: 05/02/2007 Finish Date: 30/11/2009 Researcher: Henry Haszler Organisation: Deakin University Phone: (03) 9431 0597 Fax: (03) 9244 6238 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The aim of the proposed project is to estimate a full systems based set of Australian domestic demand elasticities for foods and other major elements of household spending. The research will update and refine existing information and – very importantly – will provide a significantly increased range of disaggregated individual commodity or product level elasticities.
Current Progress
Compilation and analysis of ABS retail price data continues. A different analytical method for a proposed paper analyzing prices is being considered after the first attempt proved unsuccessful. My preliminary review of the ABS price data indicates we may need to buy some information from commercial sources. I have made preliminary inquiries of AC Nielsen (prices generally) and the NSW Agriculture department (fresh foods). I am also considering approaches to Woolworths and Coles. A few individual firms may be approached for specific data eg for honey. The ABS has been asked to accredit me for using the data from its Household Expenditure Surveys. Data for earlier surveys are available at Deakin and data for the latest HES CURF have been requested. Building a concordance between the HES surveys will follow. The concordance will help define the retail price information needed. In February while in Canberra on other business, I met briefly with Jane Fisher, Simon Winter and Margie Thomson. We agreed I would suggest more specific milestones than now in the contract. That remains to be done.” The purchase of data and changes to milestones are obviously subject to agreement between Deakin and RIRDC in accordance with the Project Agreement.
28
Research in Progress – 5. Supply chain linkages Project Title Enhancing value-chain linkages through internet
technologies RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000276
Start Date: 10/04/2007 Finish Date: 30/04/2009 Researcher: Suku Bhaskaran Organisation: Victoria University Phone: (03) 99192198 Fax: Email: [email protected] Objectives
• Constructing sampling frame • Systematically selecting fSMEs for mail-out of letters advising of
project • Completing telephone interviews with fSMEs identified for in-depth
interviews
Current Progress
Six small-to-medium scale (SMEs) food processors expressed interest in the taking-up the project. On completing diagnostics, we determined that four SMEs would make the required financial and resource commitment needed. We conducted detailed evaluation of the strategic intents of these four firms, evaluated the appropriate ICT capabilities to be introduced and the cost of introducing the capabilities identified. A project brief and costs were submitted to one SME which then accepted the offer and made its financial contribution towards the project. In this SME, the web-page will be redesigned and extranet and customer relationship management capabilities will be introduced. The project is progressing rapidly. The SME indicated that it is very satisfied with project progress. We have documented detailed pre-intervention data on this SME so that tracking and comparisons can be documented post intervention. Detailed discussions were completed with the remaining three SMEs to determine the ICT capabilities needed in these SMEs to achieve the strategic intents of these firms. We are currently preparing the project brief and detailed costing and will submit this to the two SMEs. We have scheduled follow-up discussions with the managers of the fourth SME. Recruitment initiatives for a fifth SME is in progress.
29
Research in Progress – 5. Supply chain linkages Project Title Inter-organisational leadership in Australian agribusiness
value chains RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000283
Start Date: 31/08/2007 Finish Date: 01/12/2009 Researcher: Lawrie Dooley Organisation: Monash University Phone: (03) 9903 2757 Fax: (03) 9903 2718 Email: [email protected] Objectives
The major objectives of the project are: • To determine the role of inter-organisational leadership in reducing
transaction costs in Australian agribusiness value chains • To identify the specific leadership capabilities and skills such as trust
building and transparency required in Australian agribusiness chains to enhance their global competitiveness
• To develop a model of successful inter-organisational leadership styles for Australian agribusiness value chains.
Current Progress
An extensive literature review on the topic has been completed and on the basis of this some key characteristics of successful inter-organisational leadership styles have been identified. In general these are consistent with transformational leaders who: • Empower and coach followers • Encourage followers to identify with them • Motivate followers to ignore self interest, work for the larger good ,
achieve significant accomplishments and make major changes Based on the literature (Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter, 1990; Carless, Wearing and Mann 2000) some practical guidelines can be suggested for those who want to develop transformational leadership styles: • Develop a clear and appealing vision • Develop a strategy for attaining the vision • Articulate and promote the vision • Be confident and optimistic • Express confidence in followers • Use early success in small steps to build confidence • Celebrate successes • Use dramatic, symbolic actions to emphasise key values • Lead by example Some preliminary analysis of video taped interviews with Australian agri-food chain leaders has identified some examples of this transformational leadership style. A preliminary list of Australian agri-food chain leaders has been developed for more extensive in-depth interviews and a semi-structured interview guide is being developed.
30
Research in Progress – 5. Supply chain linkages Project Title Converting value chain information into producer-based
action RIRDC Project No.:
PRJ-000537
Start Date: 1/07/01 Finish Date: 30/04/10 Researcher: Ray Collins Organisation: The University of Queensland Phone: 07 5460 1328 Fax: 07 5460 1324 Email: [email protected] Objectives
Working in partnership with the Queensland Farmers' Federation and the Agricultural Business Alliance of Queensland, this project aims to research, develop and implement the most effective strategies to: 1. Raise producer awareness of the role of value chain alliances in
improving farm competitiveness (the outcome will be a very large number of producers across most primary industries exposed to generic information about value chains).
2. Transform generic awareness of value chains into applied knowledge that is specific to individual enterprises in individual industries (the outcome will be a large number of producers actively involved in transforming value chain information into knowledge that is specific to their own circumstances).
3. Create a small number of best practice (role model) examples of how to use this knowledge to develop and implement chain based strategies to improve competitiveness (the outcome will be a smaller number of producers actively involved in transforming value chain knowledge that is specific to their industry and their personal circumstances into actual chain building activities).
4. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of this approach to engaging producers with their value chains (the outcome will be a formally researched process whereby value chain information is turned into producer based commercial action - a process that can be applied in other Australian primary industries.
Current Progress
Problems have hampered the conduct of this project over the last 12 months, and review of the project’s progress is due in July 2009.
31