Māori agribusinesses: the whakapapa network for success

Abstract

Reviews of Māori land generally focus on how the 80% identified as “under-performing” or “under-utilised” can be more productive. This article analyses the 20% of Māori Land Incorporations and Trusts classified as “high-performing” to identify what enabled their success, but to also determine any remaining constraints. It uses thematic analysis to both refine themes initially obtained during a literature review and examine the interviews. The five key themes explored are legal framework (whakaritenga), finance (huamoni), capability (matatau), relationships (whakawhānaungatanga), and paths to market (whakatairanga). While many of the findings corroborate industry best practice, it also found provisional evidence of the role of whakapapa networks—that is, formal or informal Māori collectives—in the success of Māori Land Incorporations and Trusts.

Keywords

Māori land Māori agribusiness Māori trusts Māori incorporations

Introduction

Around 80% of all Māori land is identified as “under-performing” (though currently used in production, 40%) or “under-utilised” (not productive, 40%) (Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI), 2014). Reviews focused on how to make this Māori land more productive are common. These reviews identify a common set of issues limiting performance and land utilisation: legislative constraints, access to finance, a lack of skills and knowledge, problematic relationships, and limited paths to market. However, examination of the other 20%, classified as “well-developed businesses” is less common. This “leading fifth” of Māori Land Incorporations and Trusts (MALITs) are at the cutting edge of international agricultural practice. This article provides analysis of these high-performing MALITs to identify what enabled their success, but to also determine the remaining constraints, with some tentative conclusions on how this could help the “under-performing” 40%. This article emerged out of the authors’ work on an Our Land and Water (OLW) National Science Challenge project developing an online tool to assist MALITs in making strategic decisions, which involved interviewing a number of high-performing MALITs.

The article will first review the literature, from which five provisional themes were extracted. It will then outline the methodology used to refine the themes and analyse the interviews. After this, the five key themes will be examined individually, illustrated by quotes from the interviews. Through this process, we determine that the key ingredients for success corroborate much of the literature concerning Māori agribusiness and wider industry best practice. We also found provisional evidence of a more unique Māori enabler: whakapapa networks—that is, formal or informal Māori collectives based on shared genealogy and values. These networks appear to provide a competitive advantage for MALITs, though many are motivated as much by a sense of manaaki (caring for others) and whānaungatanga (sense of connection) as by financial objectives. This is based on relatively limited data from the interviews and would require a more detailed and focused analysis to determine and map.

New Zealand’s agriculture sector, particularly the meat subsector, is sometimes criticised for its lack of cooperation and collective action, with an engrained “rugged individualism” that sees farmers and processors fragmented and competing against each other (Jay, 1999; Parsons, 2008; Turner et al. 2016). In contrast, successful Māori agribusinesses appear to demonstrate high levels of internal and external cooperation built upon strong relationships. Dell (2017) maps colonisation’s disruption of bonds, connections, and relationships among Māori, identifying this as a leading cause of under-development of Maori land. Our research suggests that the leading fifth of MALITs have overcome these disruptions caused by colonisation. This in the face of the added burdens of extra legislative hurdles, issues gaining finance, governance skills deficits, proliferating disconnected shareholders, and lack of market access and supply chain control.

Ironically, vertical and horizontal sector networking and collaboration are key strategies championed by New Zealand agribusiness experts if the sector is to create value chains (Bensemann, 2016; Brakenridge, 2016; Heron et al., 2001). Ironically, while they were likely influenced by this work, MALITs have done it their own way, driven by their own values. Overcoming the constraints on development and colonisation’s disruption of relationships, the deeply embedded cultural ethic to prioritise and value relationships, to build and sustain networks, could provide MALITs with a competitive advantage in the agricultural sector. Māori, with their deeply embedded drive to work collectively, are in many ways better placed to achieve these strategies than the “rugged individualists” that make up much of the sector.

Literature review

The majority of reviews of Māori land identify a number of common constraints to development. These have been categorised as: legal framework (whakaritenga), finance (huamoni), capability (matatau), relationships (whakawhānaungatanga), and paths to market (whakatairanga). These five constraints could be categorised in a variety of ways; however, these were felt to provide the broadest and most comprehensive typology that best captured the most important constraints.¹ The categorisation process was initially achieved through a literature review and questions were loosely grouped around these, then refined during the thematic analysis (TA) (outlined in the methodology section below).

The two legal constraints examined are the Māori Land Court (MLC) and the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act (TTWMA). There is widespread criticism of the TTWMA and MLC in the literature (MPI, 2014; Office of the Auditor General (OAG), 2004; Phillips et al., 2014; Reid, 2011; Te Puni Kokiri (TPK), 2014). The MLC has been around in various iterations since the mid-19th century. Originally the mechanism of Māori land alienation, its focus was changed in the mid-20th century towards ruling on all cases relating to Māori land. This includes enforcing the 1993 TTWMA, which sought to promote land retention and development. The TTWMA was acknowledged as stemming the tide of Māori land alienation and providing new methods of managing and organising Māori land (Kingi, 2008; Reid, 2011). However, critics note that it has not done enough to prevent continuing shareholder fragmentation, has lowered the value of Māori land, made access to finance difficult, and created inflexible governance structures (Bennion, 2013; Hitchcock, 2008; New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), 2003; Waitangi Tribunal (WT), 2016). Likewise, the MLC has been criticised for having too much control over the governance of MALITs, of taking too long to make decisions, and of lacking the necessary skills and knowledge to make decisions, particularly relating to farming operations (MPI, 2014; Phillips et al., 2014; WT, 2016).

MALITs struggling to access finance is a common issue noted in the literature. (Hitchcock, 2008; Kingi, 2008; MPI, 2014; NZIER, 2003; Reid, 2011). MALITs have traditionally faced higher costs borrowing capital because of specific land ownership constraints and because of the TTWMA and the consequent oversight function of the MLC (NZIER, 2003; OAG, 2004). The banking sector is said to lack confidence in the governance capabilities of MALITs, viewing the marginal and isolated nature of much Māori land as high risk, and having concerns that they would face issues undertaking a mortgagee sale on Māori land following a default (Hitchcock, 2008; NZIER, 2003). Historically, the most common method of accessing finance has been changing the status of the land from Māori to general (Hitchcock, 2008). However, more recently, MALITs have been able to overcome some of these issues by using stock, infrastructure, or products as collateral security (NZIER, 2003). Still this remains an issue, with the government creating an investment fund in 2019 to provide capital to develop Māori land.

Problems regarding MALIT capability are a key theme in the literature (Hitchcock, 2008; Kingi, 2008; MPI, 2014; OAG, 2004; Phillips et al., 2014; Reid, 2011; TPK, 2014). MALITs have more complex, larger governance structures than comparable non-Māori land (Kingi, 2013) and many boards are identified as lacking the skills and knowledge needed to govern (OAG, 2004; Phillips et al., 2014; Reid, 2011). Board members are often elected due to their standing among shareholders rather than because they have any particular business or farming experience (Kingi, 2008). Consequently, boards have been criticised as being too reliant on external consultants or, conversely, relying too heavily on their own inadequate capabilities (Phillips et al., 2014). That said, Kingi (2013, p. 1898) did note that while framed negatively, the “multiple layers of decision-making within these entities that require input from expert consultants, thus providing reporting and monitoring disciplines not often found in typical family farms” could be considered an advantage. Sourcing skilled and willing shareholders to work on the farms is also identified as an issue in the literature (Keeys, 2015; Phillips et al., 2014).

Problematic internal and external relationships is a common theme in the literature (Barrett-Ohia, 2010; Heron et al., 2001; MPI, 2014; Phillips et al., 2014; Reid, 2011). Often identified are antagonistic relationships among board members and between the board and shareholders (Dell, 2017; Kingi, 2008; Phillips et al., 2014; Reid, 2011). These emerge out of deep historical grievances as well as more contemporary issues regarding capability problems among the board, economic and environmental failings on-farm, and clashes between personalities or value sets (Dell, 2017; Reid, 2011). More generally, current literature has noted the problems the New Zealand agricultural industry faces due to lack of cooperation (Parsons, 2008; Turner et al. 2016). This has led to research examining and emphasising the importance of “horizontal” relationships between farmers in New Zealand as a key means of sharing capabilities, building capacity, and accessing new paths to market (Heron et al., 2001; Parsons, 2008; Phillips et al., 2014; Turner et al. 2016).

Issues regarding accessing processors, supply chain control, and branding/marketing are also raised in the literature (Barrett-Ohia, 2010; Cottrell, 2016; Kawharu, 2018; Keeys, 2015; Kingi, 2013; Phillips et al., 2014). Because Māori land is often remote, accessing a variety of processors to find optimal financial and supply chain outcomes can be problematic (Cottrell, 2016). Likewise, the small size of many Māori trust and incorporation farms makes vertical integration and branding and marketing difficult (Phillips et al., 2014). The literature also identifies potential for MALITs to find new paths to market, to control their supply chain and to effectively and authentically brand and market their products overseas using cultural values to gain a premium (Kawharu, 2018; Keeys, 2015; Kingi, 2013).

Method

The data for this article came from interviews with 13 Māori agribusiness representatives—six current or former board chairs and seven board members. The MALITs are all located in the North Island within a single region. Most run majority sheep and beef—though many have dairy and forestry as well as more diverse land uses—across holdings that run from 150 ha to over 5000 ha. Many of the larger MALITs operate a number of properties within their portfolio. All of the farms fit within the 20% of “well-developed” businesses, with 11 at the top end of this category. The interviewees were selected by the interviewer, a Māori agribusiness expert, using professional and whakapapa networks. While this does not provide a random sampling, this was felt necessary to ensure high-performing MALITs were found, that they would consent to be interviewed, and would provide candid and comprehensive responses.

As detailed by Braun and Clark (n.d.), a set of questions were developed from the literature review. The questions were very general, essentially asking participants what the biggest constraints and enablers were across the different themes. Interviewees were encouraged to use the questions as launching points for their own thoughts, allowing them to guide the narrative. The interviews were examined using TA, a “foundational method for qualitative analysis” which lends itself to interview analysis as it helps pinpoint, examine, and records pattern—or “themes”—in a dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 78). Theme development was directed by the hybrid deductive–inductive approach. Existing concepts and theories were identified during a literature review and then refined during the familiarisation and operationalisation processes (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). After transcription, interviews were read through several times by both coders as a process of familiarisation. During this process, the already identified themes and their subthemes were noted, as were any other emerging themes or different ways of categorisation. Following this process, the two coders discussed the various identified themes and operationalised these using the informed understanding gained through the literature review and familiarisation process. Then the parameters of each theme were outlined, with a specific focus on ensuring the themes were relatively coherent, mutually exclusive in scope, and well-defined. These parameters and the subthemes will be provided briefly at the beginning of the relevant sections below. After operationalisation, both coders coded one interview and then compared the results to ensure the themes had been applied consistently. While the five themes were confirmed as the most useful and accurate by both coders, there were changes in the parameters of each. After several minor issues were clarified, the two coders both coded the 13 interviews.

Operationalising the themes for coding provided useful insights and a number of decisions were made. First, to be coded as an enabler or constraint all the interviewee needed to do was name or identify the theme. While not common, this could be a single word. Second, each reference to an enabler or constraint was counted once, no matter whether it was a single word, sentence, or paragraph, but if the interviewee mentioned the issue more than once during the interview, they were counted each time. Third, if the degree of enabling or constraining was negligible, the reference was not coded. Fourth, any reference to a historical constraint that was connected with a current enabler—or vice versa—was coded for both, though a relatively arbitrary cut off line for historic issues was made. If the point was focused on anything before the 21st century, it was excluded, or if the individual responsible was not the interviewee or the previous occupant of their role, it was also excluded. Fifth, not all subthemes could be included in the article, the decision to include or exclude was based primarily on frequency of use.

Analysis

Results table.

	Whakaritenga	Huamoni	Matatau	Whakawhānaungatanga	Whakatairanga
Enabler	0	18	61	38	42
Constraint	21	8	30	43	17

Whakaritenga (legislative framework)

Whakaritenga focuses on the way the TTWMA and the MLC constrain and enable MALITs in governance, shareholding and operations, and included subthemes of share fragmentation, lease rules, stagnant legislation, administration costs, and court authority and capability. There were zero references to TTWMA and MLC as enablers and 21 references to them as constraints.

Constraints: The TTWMA was identified as a constraint 12 times by eight participants, who believed that increasing fragmentation of ownership was going to reduce ownership stakes to insignificance while increasing administration time and expense. One interviewee noted that the TTWMA was “increasingly an inhibitor. It is going to become our Achilles’ heel if we’re not careful. Simply because everyone will own nothing.”² Another explained that the “. . . biggest constraint . . . moving forward is the fragmentation of shares. It’s an administrative nightmare.”³ The TTWMA was also seen as being out of date and out of step with contemporary farming and MALIT issues by several participants. Two also said that the rules around leases were a constraint for trusts, often inhibiting infrastructure expenditure and causing bureaucratic and legal delays. One mentioned how they had to “change our structure because trying to do business under the TTWMA, it always had its limitations” to get around the legislation.⁴ Others spoke of how they had developed a refined understanding of the legislation and what it meant for them. Generally, while it was seen as constraining by many, most had managed to overcome or at least deal with the issues.

The nine criticisms of the MLC, from six participants, were more vociferous, with a number having no respect for the Court or the judges. As one explained, the MLC was “not something you want to fight against because . . . [the] bloody judges can be pig-headed.”⁵ Some saw the Court’s mandate as being far too broad and criticised the judges for their lack of knowledge of farming and the issues MALITs faced. Another thought the MLC was “obviously not resourced enough to keep up to scale.”⁶ A third told us

the Māori Land Court are the Māori Land Court but there’s some stuff in there that it’s just not logical in this day and age. You know we struggle to get a quorum. Now trying to change the quorum number on a trust order we’ve gotta get a bigger quorum to change one for a quorum that we can’t get anyway.⁷

As with the TTWMA, several noted they had learned how to deal with the MLC’s constraints by limiting interaction and understanding processes. It is somewhat unsurprising that the MLC drew greater ire due to its history and role in Māori land alienation.

Huamoni (finance)

Huamoni is focused on access to or inability to access finance and covers the subthemes of capital through savings, bank loans and other sources, and profitability, though the main subtheme is the ability to obtain and utilise working capital. There were 18 references to finance as an enabler and eight as a constraint, suggesting that the MALITs interviewed do not have as many issues with finance as has been noted in the past.

Enablers: Ten interviewees explained that they have access to capital currently, though a number explained that historically banks had been reluctant to lend. One told us they had many millions in operating capital and that “we have no debt . . . cash is not a problem.”⁸ Mirroring six other participants, one explained that they had reduced their debt by nine-tenths in the last decade and in “another couple of years that will all be gone and there will be some tidy cash surpluses.”⁹ This suggests that something has changed in the last decade, as the MALITs have transitioned from debt to liquidity. Many respondents noted they had savings they can draw on and do not struggle to access loans through banks and other institutions. Such a significant shift, with major financial institutions keen to lend to MALITs, may be directly attributed to a combination of the growing success of this sector of the agribusiness economy and increased understanding of Māori land among the financial sector. As one said, “the capital markets [are] probably reshaping a little bit to be a bit more accommodating towards Māori.”¹⁰ Most references to current debt were connected to recent land purchases or infrastructure improvements rather than due to operational losses, with MALITs using the equity in their assets to purchase property or update or expand infrastructure. One crucial point made by six interviewees was that profitability, and the working capital this delivers, is key to achieving positive outcomes in many of the other themes, such as relationships with shareholders, ability to act on diversification strategies and overcoming legislative hurdles. One explained, “we’re fortunate that we are substantially pretty successful organisation . . . [meaning] you can get through those barriers a lot easier.”¹¹ Another mentioned that he saw a time when whakapapa networks could help with finance: “I think most of us are big enough and got enough cash in the bank that if other banking institutes don’t wanna lend money to Māori farms then I think we should be doing it.”¹²

Constraints: There were two farms that were not as successful financially and this limited their ability to access loans through the normal channels. One noted that “our block is quite small and the economics of it is quite challenging. It’s been primarily a leasehold block for a wee while now, so our ability to raise capital is constrained by the lease income that we get.”¹³ Another participant explained how this constrained their ability to develop and sustain relationships with whānau (extended family), demonstrating the importance of profitability and working capital for maintaining and sustaining connections and relationships between landowners.

Matatau (capabilities)

Matatau covers the possession, drive to acquire, or lack of the necessary skills and knowledge at the governance level, as well as capabilities at the staff levels. The main subthemes are governance, upskilling, use of consultants and metrics, and availability for staff. This theme also had the highest number of enablers and the largest gap between enablers and constraints, with 61 references to capabilities as enablers and 30 references to capabilities as constraints.

Enablers: The three most discussed enablers were governance skills (seven participants), external consultants (seven participants), and the use of performance metrics (six participants). Regarding governance, one told us they have worked on their capacity to deliberate constructively, so now their board have “robust discussions but at the end of the day the consensus rules and if someone disagrees they agree to be on the waka paddling a hundred percent of the support.”¹⁴ Another noted,

something we as a board are gonna look at is personal development plans and then how much of that time, how much money the trust can actually afford to develop you personally and of what value is it gonna be to the trust.¹⁵

Regarding consultants, one explained that the

farm consultant to an extent is there to paper over the cracks of lack of expertise around the board table . . . this is one of the big myths of governance is you actually need to understand where you need to have advice.¹⁶

He went on to explain they use their consultant to “get some science behind some of the things that we’re doing . . . and that’s working pretty well.”¹⁷ Another participant, talking about both consultants and metrics, outlined that

because of the issues that the board’s had over the last five to eight years [the consultant was] brought in to be a lot more than just a technical advisor, [now he] just runs numbers, really looking at what can drive our performance and then how we make our environmental plan work . . . how we utilise surpluses and how we fill deficits from a cash point of view.¹⁸

Regarding metrics, another told us they

set an operational plan each year, we set some KPIs around our expectations, we measure them against what we’ve done in the past and what we’ve done in the future . . . [then] at the end of the year we do a benchmarking process.¹⁹

Many of the MALITs have been actively working on building governance capability, with both consultants and metrics being used to supplement, guide, and improve governance.

Two participants also referred to increased capability through whakapapa networks. One interviewee mentioned they had joined forces with neighbouring trusts to create an in-house accounting service, noted “that’s our biggest strategy so far is just working with our neighbouring trusts a lot more, and increasing our capacity.”²⁰ This same interviewee, after discussing the difficulties of individual MALITs engaging with the state sector, explained that a “better way of connecting is through those collectives.”²¹ The interviewee also noted their collective had developed a set of key performance indicators that suited MALITs, providing “peer group performance comparisons across ourselves. Otherwise, your comparisons, there’s no use comparing us with a [local non-Māori] farm” as well as “developing tools on whether the people are happy or not.”²² A second participant explained how Māori values not only drove the creation of the whakapapa network but also aided innovation and capacity building:

We’ve got a set of values . . . that are paramount to how we operate and those values are whakapapa, so it’s about trust and integrity and transparency and respect . . . [and] there’s whaunaungatanga which is about out connectivity to and our relationships . . . We expect them to be in our relationships with others. And when we’ve got tauwhirowhiro, which is around a value . . . [of] innovation. We try to interpret it in a way innovation sort of shooting for the stars, forward thinking, due diligence and inquiring; having all those characteristics that a good business should do if they’re looking at something . . . looking at a proposal [it’s] gotta pass through the values first: do these people fit? Do they have similar values?²³

Constraints: The single biggest constraint, highlighted by seven participants 11 times, was the difficulty of finding capable staff, both among shareholders or the wider population. One put it simply, finding skilled workers was the “biggest operational issue we have.”²⁴ Another explained, “it’s difficult to access skilled workers, full-stop, not necessarily just Māori, it’s difficult.”²⁵ Outlining the issues, one told us that

what we found with our whanaunga is—and I will be quite blunt—(1) a lot of them don’t like hard work; (2) they don’t like getting up early; and (3) they understand that their normal social life just doesn’t exist if you want to be a dairy farmer.²⁶

The other main constraints dovetail into two of the enablers outlined above, showing that these subthemes are not easily divided into positives and negatives but rather have a variety of different components that are good and bad. Four participants mentioned a lack of capability at board level with regard to knowledge regarding governance or business skills, which often meant there was either a paralysis of decision-making or increased risk aversion. As one explained,

we have plenty of advisors and technical advisors but some of our trustees don’t like it when you broach the subject of ‘let’s do it now,’ we’re all agreed, we’ve got the numbers, they always continuously wanna go back and get more—get more, get more—they’re just not confident to make a decision.²⁷

Also, while many explained that those in governance roles do not need to have operational knowledge of farming, there is also recognition from interviewees that modern farming was becoming so technically complex that boards struggle to make informed strategic decisions, which leads to the consequent belief that there did need to be improvement in the general knowledge of board members relating to both on-farm operations and the wider value chain. Another constraint that several discussed was the issues with communicating with shareholders/owners/whānau, particularly either not getting the right information from the board or not getting enough information needed for shareholders to understand the status and direction of the trust/incorporation and farm.

Whakawhānaungatanga (relationships)

The focus of whakawhānaungatanga is on MALITs’ key internal and external relationships. The subthemes are the nature of the relationship, levels of social capital, trust and utility, and differing expectations with councils, other MALITs, and shareholders. The TA found 38 references to relationships as enablers and 43 references to them as constraints.

Enablers: There were two key positive relationships mentioned the most in the interviews with councils (seven participants) and with other MALITs (six participants). The interviewees had generally positive relationships with councils, which was somewhat unexpected as historically speaking there has been mistrust between MALITs and councils. Echoing several participants, one said “we’ve got a reasonably good relationship with local councils.”²⁸ Another stated they were a “model farm” for the regional council.²⁹ A third that they had “great support” from their regional council.³⁰ The positive relationships with other MALITs can be seen as providing the glue that binds whakapapa networks. As one, indicating the benefits of working in a whakapapa network, told us: “the majority of the [collective] group have got the same long-term vision, so it’s about putting it into play.”³¹ Similarly, another outlined how

our biggest strategy so far is just working with our neighbouring trusts a lot more, and increasing our capacity, but with that is the environmental cultural objectives as well; we’ve all got to buy into the same values and same objectives . . . [I] can’t emphasise enough [how important] bringing these cultural values into our businesses, and keeping them applicable [is].³²

Another explained how they felt an obligation to act as tuakana (senior mentor) to teina (junior student) MALITs, a key relationship in Māori culture. As he stated,

[our collective is] a great concept, I like the whole collaboration thing. One thing about us at [our MALIT,] we’ve been involved in all sorts of collaborations, we’re more than happy to be involved in them. And because are a larger incorporation we do feel it is inherent to us that we should be helping the others, so the smaller ones so people can use our scale to gain some value.³³

While the term “whakapapa networks” suggests direct whakapapa, one interviewee provided a more flexible approach. First he outlined how their diversification strategies “focused on collaboration with our neighbouring Māori land holdings . . . all this development is around collaboration with our other whanaunga.” Then he explained that “I call it my whanaunga, because even if they come to me as a group that I can’t whakapapa into, at the end they become my whanaunga.”³⁴ Another explained that they were “leasing other farm trusts with the idea of becoming partners,” showing one path towards a more formal agreement.³⁵

Constraints: The single biggest constraining relationship was with shareholders, with six participants referencing it 18 times. This was not universal as some respondents said they had few problems with their shareholders; however, often the reason for this was due to governance capability and general success of the operation. There were several components to this negative relationship. The first was what was perceived to be a growing disconnection between shareholders and their land, often both a physical and spiritual disconnection. One interviewee explained, “one of the major problems that we have now with Māori land is a disconnect between owners . . . the younger people, people today, don’t have the same affiliation to the land as what we did.”³⁶ The other major issue noted, which can be related to the first problem, was that shareholders had unrealistic expectations of MALIT governance and its farming operation. Some interviewees noted that many shareholders were primarily focused on personal financial benefits. One explained, the “shareholders were only focused on one thing: what they were going to get paid out.”³⁷ Conversely, others thought shareholders had unrealistic expectations about environmental standards. As one noted, “we had some shareholders jumping up and down and screaming, you know, you gotta put it all back into bush and everything else, let it all go.”³⁸ Another issue raised by an interviewee was that many shareholders felt they had a right to access the land whenever they want without notifying the management.

Whakatairanga (paths to market)

The whakatairanga theme focused on the trust’s connection to and control or influence of their supply chain. The subthemes were access to processors and consumers and marketing and branding, which includes provenance and authentication, collective action among MALITs, and the utility of the various industry bodies with regard to providing support or creating these paths to market. There is some potential crossover with the relationships theme when considering collaboratives and industry bodies, but to be coded in this theme, the reference had to be to how these entities enabled or constrained paths to market. The TA found that there were 42 references to paths to market as an enabler and 17 references to paths to market as a constraint.

Enablers: There was one dominant enabler mentioned with regard to paths to market—whakapapa networks. Working collaboratively, whether under formal or informal agreements, was referenced 23 times by six participants with regard to paths to market. Many interviewees explained that these whakapapa networks provided essential scales of economy, diversity of land types, and the influence and scale needed to integrate the supply chain and effectively brand and market. Scale is critical, but as many noted, so too is shared values and situation—one explained that “I’ve always been a fan of Māori working with Māori . . . unless you’ve got a big incorporation . . . then farms like ours need to be joining up with other smaller units.”³⁹ As the participants explained, working collectively is congruent with core Māori values and makes sense practically as they share both these values and wider contexts.

There were two key practical aspects of collective scale the interviewees saw as enabling. One was the ability to brand and market products, providing a means to add value. Most of the participants who discussed this benefit were in the developmental stages but saw their whakapapa network as an essential enabler as it gave them the scale and reliability to be able to deliver enough product to capture the degree of market share needed and to create a brand and effectively market this brand. The second was the ability to gain both production scale and a diversity of land types that help increase access to processors. One interviewee encapsulated both of these, explaining that

I could see that there was opportunity for Māori to actually collaborate and with a little bit of scale there was a long-term . . . opportunity of . . . getting into an integrated supply chain . . . [with our collective] we actually added value to our own enterprise and we started looking for a finishing operation . . . as a group we’re pretty united in terms of looking at branding and marketing product . . . [international partners] are keen to sort of engage with us because of our story and our indigenous long-term thinking around guardianship and kaitiaki, and the land.⁴⁰

Another explained that there was an “opportunity there to do something that is uniquely Māori, in terms of the supply chain.”⁴¹

Constraints: There were two major constraints noted by participants, processors (five participants) and industry bodies (six participants). A number of participants discussed problems they had experienced with their processor, with common problems being access and contracts. Because of the geographical proximity of most participants, there was one processor that had caused problems and this might mean that this is not a representative constraint. As one interviewee outlined,

there was a group set up locally a number of years ago . . . and it was going to be the bee’s knees. You know, we were going to sell all our stock through it, we were going to get all out inputs dirt cheap. It seemed to work for two or three years, and then it just all fell to bits . . . then they wanted to go the next step and build the meat works. We all piled in money and lost it all, so from that sort of experience, we’re probably pretty weary.⁴²

With regard to industry bodies, six participants said they were of little to no value. As an interviewee said,

If we could pull out of paying Beef + Lamb levies [we would], I’ve already broached the idea with the trustees that we actually go to the government and pull our Beef + Lamb levies out. We get no value from Beef + Lamb at all. Those industry body goods they keep repeating the same crap that was done 15 years ago . . . there’s quite a bit of mamae [anger] at our trust table anyway when we saw Beef + Lamb’s new Taste Pure video, which doesn’t include Māori. They said they consulted with Māori, but we never heard anything from them . . . . [and] we won’t pay Federated Farmers next year, it’s just a waste of time, waste of money.⁴³

When asked if he had received any help from an industry body, a second said “I think we’re the wrong colour for that.”⁴⁴ It needs to be noted that several participants did express that they had experienced positive outcomes with regards to monitoring by industry bodies, but in terms of paths to market, the experiences were unanimously negative.

Conclusion

Rather than covering all the themes in depth, the conclusion will focus on the preliminary findings regarding whakapapa networks, whose potentially positive effect could be discerned across all themes except for legal framework. This omission was probably due to the nature of the study and the emergence of these networks as key after the interviews. Belonging to a whakapapa network would likely help MALITs overcome whakaritenga constraints through capability support overcoming issues and limiting engagement.

Briefly with regard to the themes, the ability to overcome, or at least mitigate, the constraints posed by the TTWMA and MLC and access finance seems to be driven by improvements in governance—driven by well-utilised consultants and metrics as well as board upskilling. While good governance is essential in any business, for governance-heavy MALITs, it is even more important, and it appears that the leading fifth of MALITs have been able to turn what had traditionally been a disadvantage into an asset. In turn, this increased governance capacity also seems to have provided part of the foundation for the invigoration (or reinvigoration) of whakapapa networks. This would suggest that the “under-performing” 40% of MALITs need to focus on increasing governance capability, though drawing such a simplistic conclusion is problematic considering all of the potential parameters. The tool developed during the authors’ OLW project can help MALITs to determine where their deficiencies lie across the themes, enabling them to hone in on problem areas, and this tailored approach is endorsed over any blanket focus on governance.⁴⁵

It was in the relational theme where the drivers of the whakapapa network emerge. MALITs share long-term vision and values. They work together not just because it is good for them individually but because it builds them up as a group. They appear to be driven as much by manaaki and whānaungatanga as by financial gain. The shared values sets whakapapa networks apart from more general collaborations. Whakapapa networks are facilitated by good governance but they are built on a common set of values and goals and this may help explain why some MALITs can form them with groups they do not directly whakapapa with—it is the shared values and goals that bind them. Belonging to a whakapapa network provides MALITs with a way to increase capability, including in-house accounting, collective engagement with the state sector, and the incorporation of key Māori values into the modus operandi of the business, as well as the ability to measure capability in a way that is culturally congruent. This benefit is particularly pertinent for those under-performing 40% of MALITs who share these values, providing a good foundation to join these networks, from which they can potentially access finance, build capability (including in overcoming legal constraints), grow relationships, and develop paths to market. And because the leading fifth are partly driven by manaaki and whānaungatanga, they are more likely to work with under-performing operations than other horizontal collectives, reducing the entry threshold.

Whakapapa networks do not just provide a way of implementing and measuring standard agricultural best practices but they also expand the scope of enablers, from alternative finance to indigenous branding. There is the potential for these whakapapa networks to provide finance to MALITs where mainstream options have failed. These alternative finance options could not only help the under-performing 40% but could also be a pathway into a whakapapa network, with lender and borrower forging connections. And finally, these whakapapa networks provide a clearer and more valuable path-to-market by providing the scale and land use diversity required to vertically integrate the supply chain and deliver enough product to both secure a favourable processor contract and retain the degree of market share required to maintain a brand. The whakapapa networks, leveraging on their collective identity, also saw the ability to do something uniquely Māori both in terms of on-farm operations and off-farm supply chain, marketing, and retail.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [Contract Number 17-05023].

ORCID iD

Matthew Rout

Notes

References

Barrett-Ohia

(2010). Communication, governance and multiply-owned Maori lands. AFBM Journal, 6(2), 89–96.

Bennion

(2013, May 17). Review of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993—Discussion document. Māori Law Review, 5. http://maorilawreview.co.nz/2013/05/review-of-te-ture-whenua-maori-act-1993-discussion-document/

Bensemann

(2016). Defining our Kaupapa: New Zealand’s role in the future of global agriculture [Nuffield New Zealand report]. https://ruralleaders.co.nz/defining-our-kaupapa-new-zealands-role-in-the-future-of-global-agriculture-jessica-bensemann/

Brakenridge

(2016). Why are we wasting a good crisis? The value shift our primary sector needs. In Massey

(Ed.), The New Zealand land & food annual: Why are we wasting a good crisis? (pp. 27–36). Massey University Press.

Braun

Clarke

(n.d.). Thematic analysis—a reflexive approach. https://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/our-research/research-groups/thematic-analysis/about-thematic-analysis.html

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Cottrell

R. V.

(2016). The opportunities and challenges of Māori agribusiness in hill farming. Hill Country, 16, 21–24.

Dell

(2017). Te hokinga ki te ūkaipō: Disrupted Māori management theory—Harmonising whānau conflict in the Māori land trust [Doctoral thesis]. Auckland University.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

10.

Heron

R. L.

Penny

Paine

Sheath

Pedersen

Botha

(2001). Global supply chains and networking: A critical perspective on learning challenges in the New Zealand dairy and sheepmeat commodity chains. Journal of Economic Geography, 1(4), 439–456.

11.

Hitchcock

(2008). Financing Maori land development: The difficulties faced by owners of Maori land in accessing finance for development and a framework for the solution. Auckland University Law Review, 14, 217.

12.

Jay

(1999). Rugged Individualism versus co-operative enterprise: Different responses by New Zealand pastoral farmers to agricultural change. Development Bulletin, 49. https://core.ac.uk/reader/29195346

13.

Kawharu

(2018). Reinterpreting the value chain in an indigenous community enterprise context. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 13(3), 242–262.

14.

Keeys

(2015). The key to unlock the potential in Maori agribusiness. In Bond

Morgan

Speedy

(Eds.), Agribusiness: Unlocking New Zealand’s future (p. 304). Agribusiness.

15.

Kingi

T. T.

(2008). Māori landownership and land management in New Zealand: Making land work. AusAID.

16.

Kingi

T. T.

(2013, September 15–19). Cultural bastions, farm optimisation and tribal agriculture in Aotearoa (New Zealand) [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 22nd International Grassland Congress, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

17.

Ministry of Primary Industries. (2014). Māori agribusiness in New Zealand: A study of the Māori freehold land resource. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

18.

New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. (2003). Māori economic development: Te ōhanga whanaketanga Māori. https://nzier.org.nz/static/media/filer_public/de/31/de315bcb-3188-4760-b21d-348382149aa0/maori_economic_development.pdf

19.

Office of the Auditor General. (2004). Māori land administration: Client service performance of the Māori land court unit and the Māori trustee. https://www.oag.govt.nz/2004/maori-land-court/

20.

Parsons

(2008). The new industry transformation. How to redesign New Zealand’s red meat and wool supply chains. New Zealand Nuffield Farming Scholarship Trust. http://nuffieldinternational.org/live/Report/NZ/2008/james-parsons

21.

Phillips

Woods

Lythberg

(2014). Māori farming trusts—A preliminary scoping investigation into the governance and management of large dairy farm businesses. DairyNZ; Ministry of Primary Industry. https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/10701/Maori%20Farming%20Trusts%20_Final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

22.

Reid

J. D.

(2011). Maori land: A strategy for overcoming constraints on development (Doctoral dissertation, Lincoln University).

23.

Te Puni Kokiri. (2014). Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 review.

24.

Turner

J. A.

Klerkx

Rijswijk

Williams

Barnard

(2016). Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 76, 99–112.

25.

Waitangi Tribunal. (2016). Initiation, consultation and consent: Chapter 3 of report into claims concerning proposed reforms to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.