Pastures Australia Review

Summary

As Pastures Australia (PA) enters the final year of its first cycle (2006 – 2010) the Pastures Australia partners sought to undertake a review of the programs progress and performance and to assess and identify if there was a need for change and if so what would that change look like.
The review was underpinned by:
i) Background PA documents;
ii) Interviews with RDC stakeholders (8),
iii) Interviews with industry representatives (4) and, a Pasture industry stakeholder survey (54).
The review was undertaken within the context of an industry which lacks agreement by its participants as to what the pasture industry represents. Currently, it is an array of industry sectors which are characterized as being diverse in terms of their geographical distribution, production activities, products and markets.
The only sector which clearly identifies that the pasture industry exists are those supply chain participants which are directly engaged in plant breeding, seed production, processing and marketing, and participants engaged in pasture management systems (e.g. fertilizer and machinery). Even within this sector there are competing principles (e.g. commercial drivers versus public good) which causes divergence and a lack of continuity. Many of the participants outside of the pasture sector identified themselves more as participants undertaking activities associated within ‘silo’s” namely sheep, beef, dairy and fodder production.
The review identified that this dichotomy of views failed to recognize that the primary driver for all participants is the pasture and hence the various participants and sectors were all part of the one industry driving outcomes from a common base.
It became evident to the review panel during the collection, collation and review of inputs to the PA review that of the objectives established for the review panel the most significant in terms of delivering a meaningful outcome to the PA investors would be to focus on what changes would be required to make PA successful going forward in terms of delivering value to the pasture industry. Given that the majority of information contributed to the review by participants acknowledged that PA had a significant role in the pasture industry going forward, however change was required to occur in PA if this support was to be harnessed.
The review identified that PA’s major strength was associated with its role in providing a central focus for the supply chain participants and stakeholders within the pasture industry to communicate and coordinate pasture related R, D & E activities. Conversely, the review established that PA’s major weakness was associated with it its inability to execute a strategy which delivered on its key strength.
In terms of the value generated from PA’s investment into various activities undertaken to date, the review identified that while it had invested in a diverse range of R, D & E related projects the investments were still to generate value to the industry from the majority of these projects. This is primarily due to the poor execution of the “Extension” component of the overall PA R, D & E strategy for delivering value to pasture industry stakeholders.​

As a result the review identified that PA has been unable to achieve all its stated objectives to date and is unlikely to deliver on either its 2010 or 2015 objectives unless there is an increased focus on the delivery of these project outcomes. For example, in relation to future RDC and PA investment in R, D & E the review identified that the key areas of investment focus should be as follows:
a. Climate Change.
b. Improved Value of Pastures.
c. Increased Adoption of Pasture Improvement Strategies.
d. Re-establishing the role of Legumes in Permanent Pastures and Crop Rotations.
e. Sustainable Pasture Management Systems for Mixed Farming Enterprises.
The review established that there is a fundamental difference in alignment between the pasture industry stakeholders and RDC’s interpretation and perception of why PA was established. Despite the high level of awareness and the positive outcomes identified by the review, in general PA’s performance has been perceived as not being very effective because of its lack of execution and delivery on its initial objectives.
Despite the range of views regarding the viability or not of the current PA model it was agreed by the review panel that there is nevertheless, surprising and overwhelming support and good will from pasture industry stakeholders and the RDC’s towards Pastures Australia. As an industry they fully support continuance of PA albeit that it needs some critical adjustments.
The review panel identified that without change, the current static PA model will not be well placed to deliver on its current objectives or those of its RDC and pasture industry stakeholders. Therefore, for PA to be successful, it will need a change in paradigm and realign its charter/objectives.
PA will need to transition into a future model which can facilitate and execute on delivering its objectives in a more proactive “whole of industry” approach which incorporates supply chain participants who represent a key part of the information and knowledge transfer process in the adoption of pasture improvement technologies and practices.