Single marketer of lamb proposed

Press, 20 October 1980, Page 24

Single marketer of lamb proposed

PA Wellington Changes in toe way New Zealand sells its lamb overseas have been proposed by a Victoria University marketing expert. rofeshor David Cullwick. the university’s professor of marketing, says all kinds of problems face New Zealand lamb exports and the best way to deal with them is to set up a national lamb marketing company which would look after all the markets. The company, composed of the Meat Board and meat exporters, would appoint selling agents in each market. Not all present meat exporters would qualify as agents in - any given market. Farmers would have their present exporting rights cut back, too. At present a farmer can export his meat himself, or with other farmers in a “pool,” if he does not want to sell it to an exporter. Many pools function at present, Professor Cullwick thinks they are an expensive luxury and must be reduced to one single national pool. He says that, under the present svstem, the vital United Kingdom market, which will take perhaps half New Zealand’s total lamb production this season. is weak. New Zealand’s share of the British meat-eating market is declining, as consumers move to cheaper fare such as chicken and pork.

Under the present system. it would be very hard to sell more than about 180,000 tonnes there without damaging our returns, he believes — let alone the 210.000 we are allowed to sell in Britain under the recent E.E.C. agreement. There are at present 33 lamb sellers in Britain, and that is too many, he says. Part of the trouble is the farmer pool system. About a third of the lamb sent to Britain is from pools or farmer co-oper-atives. These inevitably have less commitment to marketing the product there. sayS Professor Cullwick. Under the present system there is a conflict between the schedule — the price offered by meat

exporters, to the farmer — and the pool. Professor Cullwick s solution is to reduce the number of sellers from 3-> to about five who would act as agents tor the national iamb company. Agents would be expected to have regional storage facilities in Britain and a commitment to further processing and market development. “In the end it comes to this: if we had a more coordinated approach to marketing, we should be able to sell greater quantities and improve our returns. Everybody would benefit.” he says. There are problems facing new-found markets in the Middle East, he sax’s, and a national lamb company would spread toe risk' and be best placed to develop other markets for anv displaced meat. It would also be able to develop the small markets —tht Pacific and Japan, for example — which individually do not take much, but together buy an important portion of lamb. He says the lamb company could also even tout the varying returns from different markets. Professor Cullwicls plans to put the proposal before the Meat Exporters’ Council. Federated Farmers, and the Meat Board. He believes there is already a precedent for setting up such an organisation, The meat exporters council presentlv runs the New Zealand Meat Marketing Corporation. in which all meat exporters have shares. • The corporation has responsibility for the big Iranian contract. , < a Meat Board spokesman said that the lamb-marketing plans proposed by Professor Cullwick were not new. “We could go back to the formation of the board in 1922 to find the same thoughts being expressed then, bv meat producers and others,” the spokesman said. Many of the points touched on by Professor Cullwick had been raised recently bv the board in addresses to the Electoral Committee and other forums, he said. The board was examining several of these points with toe Meat Exporters’ Council. Particular emphasis hud

bean placed on the changing international market ; scene, not only tor lamb but. tor other meats, Mr P. T. Norman, chairman of the Meat Export- ■ e rs* Council, said that exporters would be most reluctant to see a depar- , tore from the free-enter-prise system of marketing ; New Zealand lamb. “Implicit in the sole- * seller organisation is the total loss of competition. - in the stock-buying field, a reduction in the outlets .;, for farmers, and a serious risk of any mistakes being • big ones," he said J. Mr Norman said that he ; believed that the proposal ignored the “open-door” policy which farmers felt , was so important in providing alternatives to the* schedule. “1 cannot see how a sole-selling agency can .. provide something better than what exists at present, where many exporters, including the ? co-operatives, are actively developing markets . throughout the world," he ■ said. “These benefits are directed back to the producer through the schedule, which reflects the returns from all markets." “What some people overlook,” Mr Norman said, “is the advantage t of the private-enterprise system in encouraging the individual exporter to ; extract the best out of the marketplace, because that ensures him a bigger • share of the livestock.: market bv being able to offer a better price. “I do not- know of any time recently when we have not sold our total production of meat, and we are well organised to sell increasing quantities." Mr Norman said that Professor Cullwicß’S proposal was very complex, but "we are looking forward to meeting him, and discussing the proposal in greater depth."