sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Even if the Alliance Group adds to the disappeared co-operatives list, the co-op model remains resilient elsewhere

Rural News / news
Even if the Alliance Group adds to the disappeared co-operatives list, the co-op model remains resilient elsewhere

The list of New Zealand’s once ubiquitous agricultural co-operatives looks set to shrink once more, with the Alliance Group of meat plants looking almost certain to need outside investment to revive its fortunes. 

This development will continue a trend that caused many once flourishing co-ops to disappear into either full or partial private ownership, or to listed status on the share market. 

The prospect of the Alliance Group following this trend was made clear in an address at the co-op's last annual meeting in Gore from Chairman Mark Wynne. 

This speech acknowledged Alliance’s farmer-shareholders, who were asked to recapitalise the loss-making co-op last April, either couldn’t afford or didn’t want to pay the money in sufficient numbers. 

“The board's preference is for Alliance to remain a 100 per cent farmer-owned co-operative,” Wynne told the meeting. 

“However, raising the desired capital from farmer-shareholders now looks extremely difficult. We continue to explore other shareholder funding options.

“We are early in the external capital raise process being led by Craigs Investment Partners. Initial signs are encouraging, with both offshore and onshore interest. How this plays out is too early to say.”

If this process goes ahead as signaled, the Alliance Group will follow the experience of its big rival, Silver Fern Farms, though probably to a lesser degree. It spent 68 years as a co-op called the Primary Producers Co-operative Society (PPCS), but surrendered half of its value in 2016 to the Chinese firm Shanghai Maling for $261 million. There was much nationalistic flag waving by politicians at the time, but the co-op’s farmer-shareholders voted to sell anyway, after painfully paying down debt only to face the prospect of having to pay down a lot more. 

But Silver Fern Farms is not alone. The Talleys-owned private company, AFFCO, takes its name from the initials letters of the Auckland Farmers Freezing Company – which was once a co-op.

Westland Milk ended more than 80 years as a co-op when the Chinese company Yili Group took complete control during a debt crisis and the possibility of a Government bailout in 2019. Other co-ops were formed in each province in the last decades of the 19th century, but most were bought out over subsequent years by investors.

The agricultural co-op lives on

Despite these trends, the era of the agricultural co-op is far from dead. One thriving co-op is the dairy genetics co-op Livestock Improvement Corporation (LIC). It proudly avows its co-operative status, declaring that all its profit goes back to its farmer-shareholders after subtracting money for further research. LIC finances stuttered during the high interest-rate regime of the past few years, but experienced a 34.8% increase in net profit after tax in its latest half year report. 

Other extant co-ops include the fertiliser industry's Ravensdown and Ballance. The former made a profit of $4.8 million before tax and the latter, a commensurate figure of $17.2m. Another co-op is the rural supplier Farmlands, which made a net loss after tax of $14.3 million, due to tight farmer spending during tough times and a significant one-off accounting adjustment. Another agrarian supply co-op, Ruralco, also made a loss and is opting to refocus attention on its core business and its Canterbury region. 

Variations like these are only to be expected in co-ops, according to an agricultural economist at NZIER, Chris Nixon.   He says the issue is a complex one, with evidence pointing to both thriving and struggling co-ops. 

“According to textbook opinion about co-ops versus investor-owned firms, it’s made clear that the latter are more efficient,” he says.

“We find co-operatives have struggled to raise funds because they don’t have the ability to issue shares on the stock market as traditional investor-owned businesses do. That means they have limited access to large pools of capital, which is a difficult problem if farmers are reluctant to invest large sums of money.

“But I think this could be a red herring, because we are talking about businesses – investor firms or co-operatives - making bids in the market and some of those bids will succeed and some will not succeed.” 

Nixon says many currently trading co-ops are doing fine. The problem may stem more from the line of work they are in than from the structure of the business. He cites the sheep meat industry as a struggling sector that would be proving difficult for companies of any structure.

The co-operative movement as a whole is rejecting any suggestion that it is in decline. It has its own lobby group, Co-operative Business NZ, and insists it is fighting fit, with the top 30 co-operatives contributing 13% of GDP and employing more than 41,000 people. 

“There are about 125 companies registered under the Co-operative Companies Act 1996 which are active in New Zealand at the moment,” says the group’s CEO Saya Wahrlich.

“Then, there are a few hundred other member-owned businesses, such as retail groups, provincial organisations, credit unions and mutual societies.

“They all form around people having a common need which feeds into co-operative principles which includes the retention of profit by the members of the group. From a New Zealand economy perspective, the money doesn’t go offshore, it stays in our communities and it supports our communities and particularly our regions.”

Wahrlich also insists co-operatives are no less efficient than investor-owned business – nor do they find it harder to raise capital – “We can go to our banks just like any other organisation.”

Meanwhile, the giant of them all – Fonterra – remains a proud and assertive farmer-owned co-op, but has a sprinkling of investor icing sugar, with non-voting shares tradable on the NZX and ASX via the Fonterra Shareholders Fund. In addition, Fonterra’s sale of its consumer brands such as Anchor, could transfer some economic activity out of the co-op sphere if they are bought by a listed or private company.

 Internationally, the co-op movement is thriving – in fact the United Nations has designated 2025 as the International Year of Co-Operatives. This is overseen by a global body, the International Co-operative Alliance, which serves three million organisations world-wide, with total turnover of $US2.4 trillion. Large co-ops include the French banking giant, Credit Agricole and Dairy Farmers of America, which produces one fifth of the nation’s milk. 

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

14 Comments

If you look at the history of both Alliance & PPCS/SFF you will note over the years, a series of events in the manner of recapitalisation. Those requirements were because trading was not sufficiently profitable in terms of cash flow and most importantly to fund  the cost of plant maintenance and upgrades to meet market specifications. That negativity is still applicable today. That means that each recapitalisation is run off which then requires having to have another go. Alliance right now is demonstrating that part of the cycle.

Up
0

The cooperative structure has been integral in the development of agriculture in NZ, it's a fantastic model, but like listed companies is not immune from poor management and unprofitability. A well informed and engaged supplier base should know the importance of profitability to allow retained earnings for maintenance and development. A great model for farmers to work together to maximise the value and return for what they produce. Introduce non-supplying investors and the profit gets spread a bit thin. From my observations as a dairy industry participant, one myth to disparage and undermine the co-op model is to claim without evidence that it is commercially sluggish because of the need to consult membership. 

Up
1

Things though change. The tax concessions that advantaged true co-operatives early on, largely got whittled away. In the early days PPCS, operating and trading under the open door policy,  didn’t have actual freezing works to maintain and Alliance only the one. Both company’s increase in plant numbers came through acquisition from the failing large processors but the trend, latest Smithfield, of plant closures has nevertheless continued.

Up
0

Dosn't matter what the model is they all work with good management and sound business practice.

The key determinate is that the returns from whatever product they handle can be sold for enough to cover the grower and processors costs and leave enough for a profit for all.

Therein lies the issue for the meat coops - processors and growers.

Up
0

That's perhaps a tad simplistic. Because 1, the farmer cooperative shareholders are the farmers, so profits go back to the farmer. 

2, the  cooperative is theoretically focused on delivering maximum sustainable return for the raw product.

3 the open shareholder company is focused on sourcing raw product at least price to enable sustainable business continuity and best return to shareholders, probably not farmers.

 

Up
0

Fair enough but the products need to produce enough income for any entity. My point is any industry will struggle if suppliers and processors can't both be profitable. If either stops being profitable for long periods the other will suffer as well as either will fail. 

The structure becomes a bit irrelevant if parts are going broke. Theoretically the coops should have meant the best returns to growers but in meat this hasn't happened. That's something Alliance shareholders will have to mull over when being asked to tip in more capital.

Up
1

One aspect that I do not see canvassed is scale. 

As with dairy and kiwifruit, the real competition for NZ meat is offshore - USA Australia, South America - and protectionist strategies such as subsidies, tariffs and quotas in countries we export to.

Unlike dairy and Kiwifruit, meat processing in NZ is made up of multiple "small" operators which at some level will be competing against each other in offshore markets.

I argue that now is the time to establish a single farmer cooperative for export meat. It would hold greater scale to to leverage consistency of product quality to market and secure better supply contract arrangements with international buyers. 

Up
0

Yeah well that is why I have always been against fragmenting Fonterra. NZ produces a bit on the global scale only because of our small population hence low local demand. Therefore most gets exported.

Same with meat and pretty much everything we produce off the land. Everything needs to be sold in cohesion to be a marketing force. Kiwi fruit seems to have the right idea even though they have some problems with producers in other places.

I am sure you will remember Lou when there were little Dairy Co-ops in every district. That is why Fonterra was dreamed up, a single marketing enterprise. Now it is being pulled apart by competing companies.

Lets sit back and see where the meat industry goes, hope someone backs the processors because without that industry us farmers are custard.

Up
0

A large part of the meat processing industry problems were caused by the race to convert sheep grazing to dairy, especially in Southland; and all encouraged by the fools at Fonterra.

Not only has have the environmental effects been damaging to the waterways, but the conversion model relied on high cost imported supplement feed, which made production marginal when the milk price is below $8/kg...

However, the unfortunate side effects of dairy conversions done at pace wiped out the sheep meat supply for these meat processes...

Most other business experiencing such change would have suffered the same fate....

Poor governance on the part of Fonterra for dare I say it short term executive bonuses. The board at the time needed to go to the slaughter house, which some did...but the damage was already done and wide...

On another note, Fonterra shareholders need to think carefully about what McBride is up to. It looks like an asset strip to me, at the expense of vertical integration...what other business would go down this path? Hurrell is just doing what he is told, on the basis he will keep his salary even though the business will be significantly smaller....

 

 

     

 

Up
0

Not sure I can really agree with you there GS. For a start sheep on that good land were uneconomic verses dairying. Fonterra is basically the power house of the NZ Ag economy and hardly fools, Yes there have been mistakes but in any enterprise chances have to be taken. Things are looking better now. 

Take a deep breath and chin up. If you have any better ideas for land use that would increase the economy, please tell us.

Up
2

Hans, I am on your side in relation to the relative economics of  alternative land uses
KeithW

Up
0

Like Hans, I can't agree with your analysis of what lead to the meat industry woes. Here's a little history...

Back in the 70s under Muldoon, increasing meat and wool production was touted as the saviour of NZ in response to Britain joining the EEC (now EU). The government of the day rolled out supplementary minimum prices (SMPs), land development encouragement loans, and the livestock incentive scheme (LIS) to drive higher production........and we know what that lead to for LUC class 6, 7, & 8 lands on the east coast of the North Island, that is still being dealt with. 

Then came meat processing deregulation. I think the Hawkes Bay Farmers Meat Company works at Takapau was the last new processing facility established before deregulation. Following the expansion of sheep numbers to 70 million,  processing capacity was was overwhelmed. Post deregulation a number of new processing facilities were developed. 

Roll on rogernomics with the removal of SMPs, LanDel, LIS and transfer of rural bank lending to market interest rates. This dessimated farmers, leading to a crash in stock and land prices (in 1986 I bought 4x 2 tooth ewes at Stortford for mutton at $4/head and sold the skins to Classic Decor in Napier for $6 per skin). Treasury proclaimed agriculture was a sunset industry and that the future of NZ was "Knowledge Economy".

Interestingly Farmers who survived that period of depression (both economic and mental health) became more efficient to the point where NZ produced the same volume of sheep from a national flock of 30 million as it did from 70 million.

The meat industry now is little different from the dairy industry Hans describes 20 years pre-Fonterra apart from 1 aspect.   That is the Dairy Board was the legislated single exporter of NZ dairy product. The meat industry has not really had that except probably through WW2 and the Meat Board briefly attempted compulsory acquisition to be the single exporter of NZ meat in the late 70s was stymied by offshore owners of some of the biggest processors in NZ (Borthwick, Vesty).

NZ meat industry is really more like the Kiwifruit industry prior to the legislation establishing what is now ZESPRI. And if you think back to the early 90s , the Kiwifruit industry was virtually bankrupt. Te Puke, reputedly the highest density of millionaires per hectare in the world (a 4 hectare orchard was valued at $1m+) tanked. The collapse stemmed from the plethora of exporters trying to sell "small" volumes of pretty much the same product to a pretty small panel of massive northern hemisphere supermarket chains. NZ exporters were competing against each other to sell their perishable product and, predictably prices plummeted. Great for northern hemisphere supermarket profit margins, and because NZ exporters carried no risk ( ticket clipping a margin), not a too much of a worry to them  - they just passed the losses back down the value chain to the grower, hence the massive losses at orchard level. 

To establish a single desk exporter for NZ meat would take courage by the government to overcome the vested interests that exist in the processing sector.  Dairy and kiwifruit are shining examples of the potential for success. Does the courage and foresight exist to make it happen for meat? Sadly, I don't think it does.

Up
1

For the sheep meat industry if you consider the difference in operation from Takapau, Hawkes Bay opening in 1981 and Silverstream, Otago opening 1990 you will see that encapsulates how much the industry had changed. The former was a freezing works, its prime export the traditional frozen carcass. The latter a specialised slaughter and fresh cutting operation. There has not been a significantly sized plant constructed since then. The introduction of fresh cutting and then the development of an excellent chilled product added value but insufficient viability. The sheep flock since the 1980s has halved and plants continued to close. The mutton/lamb carcass is labour intensive small unit processing which is costly. Less than 35% of the carcass is suitable for high end chilled product, and only 20% if mid leg portions are not involved. It  is also difficult to process to ready retail and costly to transport from the remoteness of NZ. Slipe wool and pelts and offals no longer cover the expense of saving them. The market for which Takapau was designed hardly exists now. A single desk sales point will not solve those problems because the actual problem is not based in NZ. It is a straight case of the market profile and presence now being heavily diminished. Nobody really needs it and that is the unfortunate reality. In its heyday the industry thrived on the basic and relatively simple trade of a commodity in carcass form, by grade unchanged from farm to market. Ironically that nature of commodity trade largely supports, thanks to dairying, the beef industry with the supply of bulk packed boneless beef to the massive NthAmerican burger trade.

 

Up
2

Thank you 

Up
0