Transparency, return on investment key to success for ag groups

Beef Central, 19/07/2019

A new Nuffield research report has put the spotlight on how different agricultural groups from around the world are structured and represented in order to advance the position of farmers on a political, social and economic stage.

Daniel Meade on farm, Victoria.

The report was developed by Victorian dairy farmer Daniel Meade, who received a 2017 Nuffield Scholarship from the William Buckland Foundation to investigate the world’s most powerful and effective agricultural organisations.

Over two years, Mr Meade travelled to 12 countries and met with many members of the agriculture industry, all of whom were fiercely passionate and positive about the future of the sector. His report found a direct correlation between the structure of membership offerings and member attraction and engagement.

“We know that advocacy and policy development play an important role in the prosperity of farmers and their communities, yet in recent years we’ve seen a decline in the resources, returns and relevance of agricultural groups both at home and abroad,” Mr Meade said.

“My report seeks to highlight some of the best examples and encourage adoption here in Australia. As a starting point, my research pointed to entry cost, member benefits, voting rights, succession and youth options, as key factors contributing to the success of an organisation.

“The New Zealand Federated Farmers (NZFF), for instance, is an effective organisation that has a ‘more the merrier’ type approach. It’s made a real effort to broaden the scope of its member base and communications, as well as to highlight key policy wins that are taking its farmers forward.”

On his travels, Mr Meade found groups that enabled members to vote on leadership decisions and run public campaigns were the most effective in engaging members with the organisation’s purpose and vision.

“Public campaigns and open elections for positions resulted in greater publicity and awareness of an organisation and its achievements. A good example is the American Farm Bureau (AFB) which has a defined voting structure from county to state to federal,” he said.

“As the country’s peak farm body, the AFB allows farmer members to directly impact the leadership result. This puts candidates in front of members, allowing them to hear about issues firsthand, while giving members the opportunity to vote for candidates based on their authenticity and purpose.”

The AFB currently has around six million members and follows a simple model whereby each state decides the fee to join with most being a flat rate, such as the New York Farm Bureau, which charges US$75 for all businesses on an annual basis.

“Unsurprisingly, one of the simplest and most affordable models had the most members,” he said.

“When the AFB tells the US Congress they have six million members, the Congress stands to attention. These high membership numbers form a true representation of the farming community.

“Other groups attract members in more innovative ways. The Irish Farmers Association, for example, negotiates competitive electricity, telephone and internet packages for members, which result in lucrative savings for them and incentivises membership renewal.

“Above all, I learnt that empowering the next generation of farmers to participate was critical to the sustainability of these groups. New Zealand Young Farmers, for example, has built closer ties with the education system to develop their “Agri-Kids” and “Teen Ag” programs, a younger demographic that now comprises 50% of its membership.”

Daniel Meade and Terry Copeland, CEO, NZ Young Farmers.

Mr Meade said Australia’s dairy research counterpart, Dairy New Zealand, was one of the strongest at levy payer engagement, both equipping levy payers with the latest information and receiving feedback on its overall performance.

“Dairy New Zealand uses targeted, regionalised discussion groups as a key method to communicate and engage on research and extension, with an estimated 70% of levy payers having some form of face to face interaction with the organisation each year,” he said.

“Overall, face to face interaction was viewed as the most effective method of engagement, with written communication preferred in shorter, sharper bulletins, as well as targeted to farmers by production type and geography.”

Mr Meade concludes that to better demonstrate the benefits of any agricultural research or representative group, there must be transparency around the group’s activities, and a clear demonstration of return on investment.

“I encourage peak bodies, research organisations and other representative groups to look at the report, see what’s happening around the world, and learn how they can bolster their own organisations for the betterment of Australia’s vibrant agricultural community.”

Source: Nuffield Australia


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your comment will not appear until it has been moderated.
Contributions that contravene our Comments Policy will not be published.


  1. John Gunthorpe, 20/07/2019

    This is important work and totally relevant to the disastrous proposals contained in RMAC’s While Paper. Daniel spent 2 years reviewing agricultural representative organisations worldwide and found (the words are worth repeating) “… my research pointed to entry cost, member benefits, voting rights, succession and youth options as key factors contributing to the success of an organisation.” Red Meat Australia fails on all these factors.
    Daniel on his travels “found groups that enabled members to vote on leadership decisions and run public campaigns the most effective in engaging members with the organisation’s purpose and vision.” Again Red Meat Australia fails to permit levy payers a vote on leadership decisions or run public campaigns.
    Dairy New Zealand was one of the strongest at levy payer engagement. In that organisation farmers elect five directors and three are independent professional directors. Red Meat Australia propose to appoint their directors from peak councils. The Senate Report said democracy was critical and so does Daniel’s report.
    Surely we can learn from this body of work by a Victorian dairy farmer on his Nuffield Scholarship. How many times do we need to be told what is important in setting up a successful representative body for our industry? The White Paper will take us down the totally wrong path. Levy payers need engagement and an active role in electing their directors and judging the performance of levy investments.
    We encourage members to let the Minister of Agriculture know that the White Paper fails in so many areas we ask it be withdrawn.
    Australian Cattle Industry Council

  2. Loretta Carroll, 20/07/2019

    The MoU Review Task Force and the Red Meat Advisory Board should read Daniel Meade’s report. Daniel claims that democratic advocacy organisations with strong levy payer engagement are the most successful across the world.

Get Beef Central's news headlines emailed to you -