Investigation into Agriculture in Byron Shire and Action Plan · Context Supply Side Challenges Supply Side Opportunities Demand Side Challenges Demand Side Opportunities Off farm

Investigation into Agriculture in Byron Shire and Action Plan

FARMING INDUSTRY CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

Prepared for: Byron Shire Council Economy and Sustainability Unit Prepared by: Rose Wright, Managing Director 27th July 2018

Regionality Pty Ltd © 2018. abn: 541 548 651 66e. [email protected] p. 0438 657 981

Image credit: Josh Hodge

2


Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FARMING INDUSTRY CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT [FINAL] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

DISCLAIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

APPENDICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this report is intended only to inform and should not be relied upon for future investment or other decisions. It is expected that any investment decisions made using these specific recommendations, will be fully analysed and appropriate due diligence undertaken prior to being made.

In the course of our preparation of this report, recommendations have been made using information and assumptions provided by many sources and from the methodology adopted. The authors and Byron Shire Council accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions or resultant consequences including any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information contained in this report.

3


Report Summary

Byron Shire Council engaged Regionality as the consultant to conduct further primary research as part of the Byron Shire agriculture and agribusiness action plan.

The research focused on local farmers; their needs, challenges and opportunities. This work included the development of a framework for regional collaboration and growth in the agricultural and agribusiness sector.

The engagement activities conducted by Regionality attracted healthy numbers of participants, indicating that farmers across the Byron Shire were eager to engage in research that highlighted their needs, challenges and possible future opportunities to continue to preserve and support agricultural practices.

Regionality engaged Byron Shire Council staff in the research process. This connectivity between Council and farmers aided in establishing a thorough understanding of issues faced by both parties. The engagement process with Byron Shire Council consisted of internal meetings and workshops. The engagement process with farmers consisted of an open forum, an industry survey, focus group sessions and one-on-one discussions.

The engagement process highlighted the industry support for the employment of Byron Shire Council’s Agriculture (Extension) Officer. Council has already identified this role in Phase 2 (Part A).

The establishment of an industry-based agricultural cluster group, identified by Council in Phase 1 (part D) was also highlighted and supported by industry at various times throughout the engagement process.

Throughout the engagement process, Regionality identified the challenge faced by Byron Shire Council in considering compliance applications for farmers looking at options to diversify on farm in addition to primary production. Regionality presented a multifunctional farming framework to Byron Shire Council and the Northern Rivers Joint Organisation planning members as a solution.

Regionality Pty Ltd would like to thank the 150 community members who contributed both their time and thoughts in the gathering of the information contained herein. Their contribution was invaluable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

4


Report Summary

Byron Shire Council resolved to undertake a multiphase approach to developing the agriculture and agribusiness sectors. Regionality was commissioned to undertake Part C of the project, which used the data and information collated in Part A and B of Phase One.

Part A provided context for subsequent phases and is summarised as follows:

Top Line Economic Facts:

• From 2010/11 to 2015/16 Byron Shire has dropped $9.6 million dollars worth of agricultural sales (from $112.7 million to $103.1 million).

• Top three industries to lose sales are:

- Nuts - just over $7 million

- Nurseries and cut flowers - almost $3 million

- Other fruit - almost $2 million.

• The only two industries to increase sales were milk and vegetables - almost $1 million each

• Byron Shire lost more agricultural businesses than any other industry between 2012-16

• Construction, Health Care & Social Assistance added 130 businesses for the same period

• Byron Shire has 3% fewer agricultural workers than our Northern Rivers neighbours

• Agriculture lost around 50 jobs in the sector between 2010/11 and 2015/16

• Key economic indicators for agriculture - jobs, businesses, sales and dollar value – all indicate a shrinking agricultural sector in Byron Shire

The aim of this research is to conduct primary research engaging with and focusing on the different types of farmers in Byron Shire, their needs, challenges and opportunities.

Output: Develop a framework for regional collaboration and growth in the agricultural and agribusiness sector and the production to consumption value chain. And to recruit and engage with a cross section of farmers and strategic partners, identify opportunities, challenges, and gaps in terms of achieving the strategic aims as identified in Council strategies.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH

5


Report Summary

Regionality designed an engagement process that recruited and engaged with a cross section of farmers and stakeholders to identify opportunities, challenges and issues that would assist in the development of a framework for regional collaboration and growth.

The discovery process aimed to:

• Better understand supply, demand and challenges and opportunities for agriculture and agribusiness sector

• Review options for a provenance framework and its role as a foundation

• Explore options for a framework for collaboration across the region and across the production to consumption value chain

• Identify clear goals and how to achieve them

• Identify what Council does well and what needs to improve.

The engagement process provided many options for stakeholders to interact, provide input and share ideas, concerns and stories that informed the report. These are outlined below:

What Who When

Inception Meeting Byron Shire Council planning and economy and sustainability staff

02 Feb 2018

Eureka Farmers Forum 55 farmers and agribusinesses 04 April 2018

Agriculture Survey 57 respondents 08 April 2018

Two focus group sessions 14 participants 26 April 2018

One on one discussions 10 farmers April/May 2018

Internal Byron Shire Council Workshop 5 staff 07 May 2018

Strategic Business panel presentation and workshop 09 May 2018

Finalise Report 31 May 2018

METHODOLOGY

6


Report Summary

The engagement with industry stakeholders was broad however the conversation was quite focused. The aim was to identify and explore the key challenges and opportunities faced by the sectors. Given the diversity of production in the region, the approach was directed at breaking down challenges and opportunities across the production to consumption value chain. The following is a summary table that highlights the challenges and opportunities, some of which stem from policy, process and regulation of government while others have arisen due to fragmentation and dysfunction across the farming system and market failure.

FINDINGS

Better understand supply, demand and challenges and opportunities for agriculture and agribusiness sector

Context Supply Side Challenges Supply Side Opportunities Demand Side Challenges Demand Side Opportunities

Off farm or external factors

Land use conflict impacting on agriculture productivity and farm management.

Land access, tenure, cost - limiting scalability and therefore viability in tradition supply chain model. Regulation restricting innovation.

Infrastructure decline /gaps e.g. road access/transport.

Mobile & Internet coverage

Improved mapping and identification of various production and environmental zones

Access to consumption data and productive capacity information to inform productivity

Multifunctional farming opportunities to add value and better utilise spare capacity

Production – Seasonality, knowledge gap, information of what is grown and what can be grown, when, where and how it can be sourced or accessed

Consumer demand for products with Byron provenance. Tapping into these markets and creating a food system to support

On farm factors Access to labour. Farmers’ age.

Rural residential & non-farming land owners restricting farm operations

Limited housing to support workers

Increasing production to meet demand

Diversifying production/ extending seasons.

Share farming.

Utilising spare capacity.

Regional short supply chain development

No network or hub to access to farmers and produce. Trading and distribution across sectors is too hard!

Limited production and seasonality

Farm based experiences and sales Agritourism

7


Report SummaryReport Summary

Better understand supply, demand and challenges and opportunities for agriculture and agribusiness sector

Context Supply Side Challenges Supply Side Opportunities Demand Side Challenges Demand Side Opportunities

Collaborate & value chain Silo or sectoral approach.

Access to knowledge & information on what to grow, for whom and how to access the buyers. Better understanding how to collaborate outside their sector

Education & collaboration of farmers

Connectivity, technology, telecommunications, access, information, distribution

Gathering consumption data & regional demand

Developing consumer knowledge of local food

Limited market access and distribution

Cost of doing business in Byron Shire

Developing regional supply & distribution

Farm to Plate value chain development

Market access – Limited, distribution challenges, hub

Collaboration across value chain (leveraging consumer facing sectors): Digital technology / market place / physical hub. Value proposition / quality / fresher / better

No provenance/brand for Byron Shire to leverage return on investment (ROI) in reputation

High value products / Byron / Northern Rivers return on investment

Provenance system

Consumers – Awareness, ignorant

Provenance – Integrity, authenticity, brand, identifiable

Health & wellness, organics, vegan, ethical. Byron Brand /reputation & Provenance. Value added food

Storytelling to build Unique Selling Proposition.

Connecting to tourism / food experience

8


Report Summary

Review options for a provenance framework and its role as a foundation

Context Identification of a provenance framework

• Farmers questioned the integrity of the ‘Byron’ brand.• Opportunity to develop a provenance framework.• Accreditation and branding.• Consumer education to value local produce.• Preservation of agricultural land / valuing the farmer.

Context The role of provenance framework as a foundation

• Desire for the Byron Shire agri-food industry to drive their own industry network.• Ignite storytelling around food and farming.• Support young farmers and ageing farmers (mentorship).

Explore options for a framework for collaboration across the region and across the production to consumption value chain

Context Identification for a framework for collaboration across the region and the production to consumption value chain

• Desire to share physical and knowledge-based resources.• Consideration of cooperative models.• Reduction of food miles.• Byron Shire Council Agricultural Officer to be a link between Council and Industry.• Models for share farming agreements / lease tenure. Restrictions on local market accessibility.• Lack of understanding of what can and can’t be done on farm (clarity around secondary dwellings, ezones, development

application process etc)

Context Implementation of a collaboration framework

• Desire for a localised food system approach (i.e. cooperative / hub / collaborative model) including distribution chains.• Farmer to chef connectivity.• Education for consumers to support local.• Support for an industry-based networking/reference group.• Desire to liaise with Byron Shire Council’s Agricultural Officer.• Partner with Northern Rivers Joint Organisation to investigate a regional collaboration for the pilot and a planning reform options

paper for NSW Government following the pilot program

9


Report Summary

What do Byron Shire Council does well and what needs to improve?

Summary of key challenges for Byron Shire Council:Industry receives that there is poor communication, internal systems & processesRegulation is a challenge and the continual State v Local is exacerbated by Byron Shire Council interpretationByron Shire Council’s culture & language – attitude towards farming sectorThere is no long term vision – leadership/advocacy for agriculture within Byron Shire CouncilIn short, agriculture does not feel valued or have a voice within Byron Shire CouncilThey are frustrated by red tape and feel like there is a hidden agendaTourism and big agribusiness dominate the agenda and conversationThere is a lack of trust for Byron Shire Council as the rhetoric does not equate to action and each department approaches it differently

Positive Action Items for Byron Shire Council:

1. Change the narrative and language – recognize importance of agriculture in communication and in action and approach.

2. Invest in a dedicated role to advocate within and become a trusted conduit for agriculture sector

3. Create a formal conduit for communication between agriculture and Byron Shire Council

4. Review processes and strategies to secure future of agriculture

5. Protect agricultural land, ensure development is appropriate size and scale and LINKED to production. (Multifunctional Farming Policy and Planning Framework)

6. Improve the accuracy of land use and environmental mapping and engage with owners

7. Reform processes and systems to make it easier to do business with Byron Shire Council

What agricultural and agribusiness goals should we aspire to in Byron Shire and how would we achieve them?

Develop a joint action plan for agriculture with Byron Shire Council to address challenges and opportunities

1. Establish a network for agriculture to access to drive implementation of the plan in partnership with Byron Shire Council

2. Develop innovation pathways / knowledge sharing and mentoring

3. Invest in value chain development and regional distribution to overcome silo sectoral approach

4. Develop a regional food system to crate new pathway to market

5. Facilitate and encourage access to productive land with viable tenure to support new farmers and expanding production

6. Owning, protecting and developing Byron Brand /Northern Rivers

7. Land use conflict matters

8. Work force issues

10


Report Summary

1 Improve Council’s approach to, understanding of and communication with the sector by employing an Agricultural Officer to act as a conduit between the sector and Council

1.1 Recruit an officer that is:

• Empathetic towards rural sector (this is not an academic, bureaucratic or agronomist role)

• Excellent communication and networking capacity

• Strategic thinker (able to make connections with all types of farmers throughout the Byron Shire)

• Facilitation, connectivity and translation role

1.2 Establish an agricultural reference group that is representative of local industry to work with the new Agricultural Officer (refer to 2.1.1 reference group members to be drawn from agricultural cluster group)

1.3 Identify a staff member within planning department that understands and specialises in agricultural sector to improve planning processes

1.4 Review internal policies and processes across relevant departments to ensure consistency in communication and support for agriculture

2 Encourage better Agriculture Industry collaboration and communication

2.1 Build upon the momentum and goodwill created through industry engagement during the development of this report by:

2.1.1 Supporting the establishment of an agricultural cluster group (ACG)/ network for Byron Shire

2.1.2 Assisting the ACG to develop terms of reference and to continue further engagement and industry buy-in

2.1.3 Work with the ACG to investigate further the development of a Byron brand and provenance framework

2.2 Ensure ongoing communication and collaboration between Council and the ACG to implement the Action Plan.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

11


Report Summary

3 Byron Shire Council (via the Agriculture Officer) to work with the industry sector to address challenges of local agriculture by:

3.1 Developing the Action Plan in partnership with the sector

3.2 Support programs and initiatives that improves:

3.2.1 Viability - by addressing factors caused through market failure by facilitating alternative pathways to market, value chain and short supply chain development

3.2.2 Sustainable use and reuse of land and other resources

3.2.3 Access to land and tenure arrangements through innovative programs to improve utilisation of the region’s spare productive capacity

3.2.4 Councils approach to collaboration with industry and community to create a regional food system that supports provenance, consumer awareness and access to regional food

3.2.5 Cross sectoral collaboration by working with other sectors to identify a commercial demand and distribution model to overcome market failure (3.3.1)

4 Establish a Multifunctional Farming Planning Reform Pilot to encourage better utilisation of prime agricultural land for primary production and appropriately scaled value adding activity to improve viability and return on investment for farmers

4.1 Partner with Northern Rivers Joint Organisation to investigate options for regional collaboration to pilot land use planning reforms. Commission an options paper for NSW Government following the pilot program

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

12


Report Summary

1. Regionality’s Multifunctional Farming Planning Reforms Discussion Paper

2. Inception meeting notes (02 February 2018)

3. Eureka Farmers Forum - 55 farmers and agribusinesses - 04 April 2018

4. Two focus group sessions - 14 participants - 26 April 2018

5. Internal Byron Shire Council workshop - 5 Staff - 07 May 2018

6. Strategic Business Panel presentation and workshop - 09 May 2018

7. Agriculture survey - 57 respondents - 08 April 2018

APPENDICIES

13


Report SummaryInception Meetings

Image credit: Josh Hodge


14


Report Summary

1. Inception Meeting: 02 February 2018

Discussions Key Themes

Supply Side Suggested examples to consider:The FarmShare Farming vs Farm Sharing (tax implications depending on structure)The Paddock Project (no approvals gained)Farmer owns the land and shares his land

The Flicks (Ewingsdale)

Leasing of Plots

Land Use planning to considerLand share models and equipment share models, ie coffee and macadamias, cane farmers in the Tweed in harvest timeLand ownership and leasing models

DPI doing some work on soil types and what can be grown in the Northern Rivers Alternative crop options

Distribution Casino Meat Works: transport cattle to Byron shire to fatten and then return

Demand Side Concern raised re: limited access to the regions farmers markets Restricted access to market

AgritourismMulti-Functional farmingWhat does the value-add concept look likeRetail - roadside stall, The Paddock Project

Range of experiences other than primary produceWhat are the options for value-add

Barriers and Regulations

Land use conflict Regionality’s proposed Multi-functional Farming Land Use Planning definition:• Agritourism - range of experiences• Manufacturing or value-adding - taking a primary product and

adding to it• Consolidation - co-operative or packhouse model• Retail - roadside stall, eg The Paddock Project• Size and scale provisions

Misconceptions of what can be done with your land Communication from Council to be more consumer friendly

15


Report Summary

2. Eureka Farmers Forum: 04 April 2018

Key Themes from Inception Meeting Discussions Key Themes

Supply Side Land UseLand Share

Land Access:• Security• Affordability• Suitability• Long Term Tenure

• Incentivise landholders of “lifestyle blocks” on prime agricultural land through reduced rates if long term leases are offered to farmers for primary production

• The development of a long-term lease template to assist farmers seeking suitable farmland

• Relaxation of secondary dwelling regulations to allow share/lease giving farmers the opportunity to live on the land they are farming

Alternative Crop Options Engagement with DPI The use of Wollongbar Ag Station as demonstration site

Distribution Restricted Access to Markets Market Access• Farmers Market• Wholesale Markets• On farm revenue (agri-tourism)

• Development of a local regional food distribution hub (possibly a virtual one) to link farmers

• Re visit farmers market policies to allow greater diversity of similar or same produce/product sold. Ensure vendors selling produce have grown the produce

• Ensure integrity of farmers markets is upheld by developing a regional identify brand ie. “Northern Rivers Produce”, “Byron Region Produce”

Demand Side Market Access:• Farmers Market• Wholesale Markets• On farm revenue (agri-tourism)

• Incentivise restaurants to buy local• Direct to consumer models such as on-farm sales and

Agritourism


Market Access:• On farm revenue

Agri-tourism

16


Report Summary

2. Eureka Farmers Forum: 04 April 2018



Land Use Conflict Protection of RU1 land Impact of lifestyle and inappropriate land use by non farming neighbours

Protection of RU1 landRight to farm

Communication from Council Councils communication is seen as contradictory, there is a gap between the rhetoric and actions on the group with limited consideration of Council’s actions on the farming sector. Agriculture feels it is not valued and not a priority for Council.

Create a representative role in council “Agriculture Officer” to better serve the needs of the agriculture industry

17


Report Summary

3. Focus Group Notes: 26 April 2018


Supply Side Land UseLand ShareLong term leases

Use of shared resources / infrastructure, landCo-farming ModelLack of data on productive capacity and commercial demand

Identified potential for diversification and expansion of agriculture with using spare capacity through land share, co-farming and short supply chain models.

Agritourism is ok but should not undermine core agricultural activity.Weddings are a challenge for the agricultural sector

Protection of RU1 land and right to farm

Distribution Alternative Crop Options Northern Rivers can grow an immense variety of produce (fruits, vegetables, bushfoods, exotic fruits etc)

Education and extension required to support on farm innovation and development of short supply chains.

Collaboration across the value chain / bringing the farming community together• Training & support for young farmers• Mentoring systems

Cluster Groups (growers/restaurants/consumers) that come together to support each otherLinking & educating to inform production

Demand Side Local Regional Food distribution hub

Limited distribution transport system Local Regional Food distribution hub


Provenance and brand Critical to maintain provenance through the distribution system

Value-add Options On farm processing is difficult due to planning limitations. eg Huonbrook Valley

Consider options for Artisan Food and Drink Industry/Multifunctional farming

18


Report Summary




Market Access The food story has been isolated to the farmers markets so no opportunity for farmers to tell their story direct to consumers.

Creation of regional brand with provenance and value chain approach.Regional distribution to ensure provenance is maintained.

Local food hub/co-operative Farmers Market model is limited in its appeal. A more consistent and cost effective local food retail/wholesale outlet is required.

Regional Identity Brand Development of an accredited brand High quality produce, High regard for organic

Brand and the grower/producer accountable Brand / provenance - trademarking and protection required to retain value in brand developments from potential misuse.

Incentivise Restaurants to buy local

Education of chefs to work with seasonal menu’s and understand supply issues associated with weather

Greater empathy and awareness of seasonality by chefs through focussed relationship building activities between chefs and farmers on farm.

Farmers Market Integrity Restriction of farmers markets access Develop alternative options to farmers markets. Short supply value chain development.

Cluster Groups (growers/restaurants/consumers) that come together to support each other

Linking & educating to inform production

Land Use Planning Different departments of Council don’t know how to engage or communicate with farmers and vice versa, this is a significant barrier and results in regulatory challenges

Agricultural Officer and agricultural specialist in planning critical interface between Council and industry.Multifunctional farming

19


Report Summary




Communication from Council / Agriculture Officer

Desire within farming community to support an Agriculture Officer

Develop a register of farmers & use of land

Need a framework/tools for lease agreements, security with tenure

A key person that advocates for the farming community

No agricultural strategy, no future direction and mixed messages from Council’s actions

Disparity between words and actions.Lack of trust for Council.Agriculture feels disempowered by Councils processes and communication.The focus appears to be on agri-business rather than agriculture.

20


Report Summary

4. Strategic Business Panel presentation and workshop: 9 May 2018


Land UseLand ShareLong Term LeasesAlternative Crop Options

Information and knowledge on how to navigate the regulatory and planning system.Lifestyle lots have limited access to agricultural land for production. Cost of land is very high, tenure if very short.

As land prices increase real farmers will struggle with rate hikes

Land use planning reform to improve on farm innovation without compromising productive capacity. Minimise conflict and protect RU1 and greater flexibility on RU2.

Co-farming collaboratives and support for young farmers to get greater access to arable land is critical for crop diversification.

Investigate options for capping rates to support agricultural community.

Consider options for Artisan Food and Drink Industry/Multifunctional farming

Cluster Groups - Linking & educating to inform production

Industry needs to drive an agricultural focussed group that brings all sectors together and work with a conduit in Council who understands agriculture.

Formation of a agricultural cluster group and employment of an Agriculture Officer within Council.

Local Regional Food distribution hub

Needs to be a focus on connectivity and transport Value chain development, working with existing local businesses creating local distribution system.Facilitate collaboration across sectors.

Branding & Provenance Branding hierarchy needs to consider product brands, regional brands and national brands.

“Born in Byron” made in the Northern Rivers

Branding and provenance framework that protects the integrity of Byron producers and value adders using local ingredients.

Develop a brand and provenance strategy.

Byron has limited capacity for growth. Byron is an incubator and as businesses grow they will relocate to other parts of the region.

Multi-functional farming Land use planning is very complicated and costly Need an approach that reflects the concept of multifunctional farming

21


Report Summary

4. Strategic Business Panel presentation and workshop: 9 May 2018


Land Use Conflict Focussed development around villages rather than on agricultural land

Minimise land use conflict though better community planning.

Communication from Council Communication piece, ie. use of green waste and storytelling around the good work that farmers are doing.

Council needs to improve its communication and connection with industry and start celebrating farmers in the public domain.

Greater need for collaboration and knowledge sharing, there are limited networks across sectors, need more educational/field days for farmers

Knowledge and Networking. Commitment by industry to establish an agricultural cluster group. They require terms of reference, professional facilitation, representative of the agricultural community, attract key industry representatives eg. Coffee, cane, Macca’s etc. Consider connections to DPI.

Volunteers for steering group was Joel, Johnno, Johan, Steve, Mark and Rex

22


Report Summary

KEY FINDINGS - Communication - No pathways to innovate - Agriculture community lacks a voice & is dominated by producers - Lack of trust for Council - Lack of future direction - Lack of clarity of processes - Conflict between ways to manage enquiries internally - Lack of understanding of issues at local & state level

FEEDBACK - Lack of presence of DPI & Planners (addressed in next steps: Wednesday with

Councillors) - Fear that the tourism message is louder than agriculture

NOTES - An industry association / cluster needed to be recognised & endorsed by

Council (Industry reference group, representative of key industries, terms of reference required)

- Website to elevate rural / agriculture / food messaging - Clarity of what farmers can & can’t do i.e. verges - Ezones - Data on turn-over of farms (Ag Officer needed for assistance & guidance,

collaborative options, template / agreements) - Inaccuracy of mapping & meaning (understanding of regulations) - Secondary dwelling on rural land (more info / communication needed) - Support for new farmers leads to maintaining farm land rather than owners

looking at alternate options such as Airbnb. Plus provides pathways to market

COMMUNICATION STRATEGYHow best to communicate to the agricultural community.. - New info / field day / fact sheet / Q&A

COUNCIL - Communication plan (agri-food overlay) - Systems / processes - Regulation at local and state levels (interpretation needed, language used,

demystify) - Action Plan (will determine the skill set needed for the Agricultural Officer) - Agriculture Officer - Cross-referencing of reports - Inform participants when report goes to Council - Action Plan / Land Use Strategy … implementation - Comms around pre-lodgement advice (through Agricultural Officer)

IDEALLY, WITH ALL STEPS IN PLACE (Agricultural Officer / Action Plan / Clusters) - Linked to producers (i.e. processing plant, food hub etc) - Size & scale parameters - Communication with clarity around permissibility - Multi-functional farming

INTERNAL BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL WORKSHOP NOTES (7 MAY 2018)

23


Report Summary

INFRASTRUCTURE - Verge maintenance / rural areas / routes - Communicated through farming cluster

DRAFT STEERING GROUP - Terms of reference - Proactive approachDifferentiation between food/fibre (FARMING) and value-addersFundamental to start with a Farming Cluster

MULTIFUNCTIONAL FARMING

Pilot MFF .. To be presented at Northern Rivers Joint Organisation Tuesday 22nd May 2018Key Outcomes- Communication- Action Plan- Agriculture Officer

INTERNAL BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL WORKSHOP NOTES (7 MAY 2018)

Mirco/ Small Medium Large

Agricultural Production

Sales

Agritourism

Consolidation

Value Adding

Licensing – renewal and compliance

Provenance

24


Report Summary

APPENDIX 6AGRICULTURE SURVEY

1Survey Summary

Byron Agriculture & Agribusiness Survey

2Survey Summary

Total respondents in this section: 37

AT A GLANCE:

• Over 75% older than 46

• Males outnumber females by almost 3:1

• Over half have been farming for more than 20 years

• ‘First generation farmer’ most significant segment. Just ahead of ‘Traditional farmer’

• 44 farms across spread over 18 locations. Standout is the ‘greater’ Mullumbimby area

• Almost three-quarters only farm in one location in the Byron Shire & only 8% also farm outside the Byron Shire

• Just over half 51-100 hectares; almost 20% over 100 hectares

• A majority use at least three-quarters of their land already but there is scope to increase this

• Almost six out of 10 have a dwelling on their farm.

• Just over a third also use their land for ‘tourism’ purposes and around one-quarter have long term rental accommodation.

• Meat, vegetables, fruit and nuts dominate

• Just under 30% describe their farming practices as ‘conventional’. Only 19% certified organic but 30% organic (not certified).

• Over half are have diversified/value-added or exploring options to do so. Just under 20% considering doing so but didn’t go ahead. Just below one-quarter have not considered it.

• Almost one-third say they will definitely diversify in the next five years and a further 22% say the probably will.

• Just over one-third sell at local/farmers markets and just over one-quarter see direct to restaurants.

• 78% say who they sell to hasn’t changed in the last five years.

• 86% say they have faced significant challenges. Climatic variability is the most common but this is followed by local planning/development issues. Market volatility and regulations/compliance are the next most common.

• 30% say they will expand their operations in the next five years and almost 40% say they probably will.

• Half have engaged with Byron Shire Council for a relatively limited range of reasons.

Survey Summary

1. CURRENT FARMERS ON OWNED OR LEASED LAND

OVERALL RESPONDENT PROFILE:

I farm or produce on my own land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.9%

I farm or produce on leased or shared land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7%

I have land that I’d like to farm or produce on, or further develop . . . . . . . . . 7.1%

I’d like to produce or farm but I don’t have suitable land to do so . . . . . . . . 5.4%

I do not farm but have an agribusiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0%

I do not have a farm or agribusiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9%

Other (please specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9%

3Survey SummarySurvey Summary

AGE RANGE:

25 or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

26-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%

36-45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

46-55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%

56-65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%

66-75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

76 or older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Prefer not to say . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

GENDER:

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

HOW LONG FARMING:

Less than 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

6-10 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

11-20 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%

Longer than 20 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%

BYRON SHIRE FARMING LOCATION NUMBER:

1 Byron Shire location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%

2 Byron Shire locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

3 Byron Shire locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

More than 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

FARMER DESCRIPTION:

Young farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

First-generation farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%

Traditional farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%

Hobby farmer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Other (please specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%


LOCATION NAMES:

LOCATION NAMES:

OTHER FARMING LOCATIONS:

• Monaltrie• Eltham• Tuckombil• Linwood• Dalwood

West Byron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Upper Main Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Tyagarah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Pocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Nashua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Myocum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Mullumbimby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Montecollom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Main Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Huonbrook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Hayters Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Goonengerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Ewingsdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Broken Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Binna Burra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Billinudgel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Bangalow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Under 2 hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%

2-5 hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

6-10 hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

11-50 hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

51 – 100 hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

more than 100 hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

• Total 44 farms across 18 locations

• 92% farm within the Byron Shire only


PERCENTAGE OF LAND USED FOR FARMING:

CURRENT AMOUNT OF LAND FARMED VS POTENTIAL:

25% or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

26-50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

51-75% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

>75% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Average: 66%Median: 71%

Current Potential GAP

Average: 66% 78% 12%

Median: 71% 88% 17%

OTHER CURRENT USES:

Tourism/temporary accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%

Long-term rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%

Conservation/regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68%

Dwelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%

Private scenic amenity/Lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%

Animal grazing ie: horses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%

Timber/forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%


FARMED/PRODUCED:

Nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%

Fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%

Berries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%

Meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%

Dairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%

Timber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

Sugar cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%

Other (please specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%


‘Other’ details:

• Honey x2• Shitake

mushrooms x1• Garlic x 2

• Ginger x 2• Galangal x 1• Bamboo root x 1• Tumeric x 1

• Root Crops x 2• Soybean x 1• Bushfoods x 2• Coffee x1

• Sheep x1• Tea Tree oil x1

‘Other’ details:

• Blend of traditional, organic and permaculture practices• Regenerative• Biodynamic and conventional

Open ended other information option:

DESCRIPTION OF FARMING PRACTICE:

Conventional farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

Certified organic farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Transitioning to organic certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Organic practice but not certified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30%

Biological farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%


CONSIDERED VALUE-ADDING OR DIVERSIFYING?

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%

Considered but did not proceed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Currently doing so . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%

Currently exploring options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%

• Investigated eco-tourism and garlic/tumeric growing - time and $ cost of meeting council compliance requirements for eco-tourism is prohibitive. Local infrastructure (road and causeway conditions predominantly) prevent growth into other agriculture areas.

• We are setting up a conference/wedding venue on one property.• Quiet cattle for small holdings• I am currently direct marketing• Stage one was building scale of primary production to justify value-adding and commercial opportunity - for some

crops this will be 2019.• Not worth the hassle of dealing with Byron Shire Council• On leased land access to commercial food preparation facilities is prohibitive• “Paddock to glass (beverages) and plate(restaurant).• Products (e.g. chutney) and use of local producers also to complement what we do not have.• Plans for cooking classes and detox - accommodation / retreats.”• I need to diversify/value add to be acceptable profitable. I am still exploring options for what to value add and the

associated logistics.• Brookfarm - value adding to macadamias- granolas, mueslis, snacks etc• Cape Byron Distillery - creating Distilled spirits from Rainforest Botanicals”• We sell primary produce at the Byron Farmers’ Market where we also sell a turmeric / ginger refresher. We

have made and sold chutneys, jams and pickled ginger using organic ingredients including our own ginger. We discontinued the latter because of time restraints, competition with other value added products and financial viability

• Cottage industry diversified products


HOW LIKELY TO DIVERSIFY OR VALUE ADD IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS?

WHERE SOLD?

Definitely won’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Probably won’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Probably will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Definitely will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%

Processer or manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%

Central markets or produce agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Wholesale customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%

Direct to restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

Farmers & local markets (indicate which in ‘other’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%

Elsewhere in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Overseas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%


• So over half (54%) plan to value add or diversify in next five years

Valid answers to ‘other’:

• Cattle are sent to market, fruit to Farmer’s markets• Local small holders• Direct to local retailers• Trade for other goods and services “• Mullum farmers market• Local shops (retail).• We also supply 2 veggie box businesses that deliver in Byron Shire with our leafy greens and other produce.• Onsite to restaurant and bakery• Sugar milling cooperative• Australian Macadamia Pool


HAS THE WAY YOU SELL YOUR PRODUCT CHANGED IN THE PAST 5 YEARS?

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Reasons why:

• Direct to co op meatworks instead of saleyards

• Currently moving from selling what was produced to producing for customers -and meeting their specific requirements.

• For 10 years we supplied Brisbane markets - not financially viable. Needed to bypass the middle-man (direct to retailers), road-side stall, markets and to value add to increase margin.

• Saleyards taking advantage given low volumes, so we stopped using them and will be butchering and using our own organically raised grass fed meat.

• When we first started a farm in Mullumbimby growing affordable, organic produce we thought that local businesses would support us by choosing to purchase our product over that which comes from the local wholesalers, which comes from Rocklea Markets. We think this is crazy that Byron Shire imports the vast majority of its produce, when there is an enormous opportunity to be a region that exports produce.

• Unfortunately, we could not sell our Mullumbimby grown un-certified (spray -free) produce locally to the local businesses, as they prefer to order everything from the local wholesaler and have it delivered every day, which naturally as a small farm we cannot match as we have no way to distribute our produce locally. We then became certified organic, as many of the health food stores and other shops will stock our produce only once we are certified. We now sell 100% of our produce - food and flowers within Byron Shire.

• Increased exports

• Increased online sales

• Changes to traditional distributor model by creating our own sales team

• Wholesale markets are continually changing and our emphasis over the years is also shifting

• We added processors to our original list and we constantly adapt to the unpredictability of the open market because of competition

• Initially we sold directly to the meatworks, now we part sell to a local business who supplied local restaurants and also direct sell beef to the public online. See: http://www.byrongrassfed.com.au


SIGNIFICANT EXTERNAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL FARMING CHALLENGES:

No significant challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Had significant challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86%

Challenges noted:

Climatic variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46%

Local planning/development issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%

Market volatility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30%

Regulations/compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Irrigation (access to water) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Viability due to scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Neighbours complaints about farming practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Changes in consumer preference and/ or behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Competition from elsewhere in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Local competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Competition from overseas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

Viability due prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

Property access (in and out of your property) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Attracting and keeping good workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Access to new markets or buyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Limited capacity to value add or diversify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%

Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Access to information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%


Optional further information:

• Natural disasters (flooding) in the area. on-going issues with the poor condition of roads and causeways

• High electricity costs

• Byron Councils dramatic reduction in roadside slashing and consequent weed proliferation has led to much more weed seed and in addition encouraged a slack attitude to weed control by new settlers

• Inability/unpreparedness of BCS to maintain bridge access to our farm.

• Imposition of unrealistic load limits without consultation or due notice that prevent bulk deliveries to our farm & have significantly impacted its viability.

• Lack of understanding or empathy from BCS representatives to impacts caused.

• Both lack of communication & the provision of misleading information on bridge replacement priorities.

• Lack of road maintenance.

• Continual take-up of Life Style owner of agricultural land and thus the escalation of land values resulting in huge rises in Council Rates

• Farmers markets are closed to new farmers

• The honesty box will go well for a period then we suspect someone new moves into the area and produce, products and money are stolen...common problem with locals who also have honesty boxes...so the solution is farm-gate sales, but...to sell to public, the LEP requires: Disabled Toilet, replacement of sewerage treatment (increase in load), disabled Car-Park, Public Car-Park, public water supply (NSW health). We understand why, but this essentially kills the viability of farm-gate sales.

• Council diverted the water from the road through our orchard (without consulting) and killed our Lychee trees and many avocados due to change in soil moisture and Ph. We lost a regular income in a matter of months, and simply had to suck it up. So we pulled out the dead trees and planted Davo plums that like wet feet. Incidentally, we believe we have found a cure for phytophthora (root fungus that kills trees in wet soil) through companion planting with a native tree, which could re-establish an Avo industry on the Northern rivers. :-)

• Suspect that a few shady characters don’t want any traffic in the area as it has the potential to draw attention to their ‘farming’, so our signs keep getting torn down. We’ve probably had every local who has lived here for a few years or more as customers (we know most of them), they are all very supportive and are collectively on the look-out for the sign thief. Problem is, that when signs are stolen, people think we are closed (because we are so remote) and revenue drops 50%.

• Kiwi fruit cheaper from Italy than can be done locally.

• Council issued a tender for ethical catering wanting organic and local. We tendered prices based on organic and local, but understand we are not considered because we are more expensive than our non-organic competitors who shop from a National supermarket chain...we feel Council need to walk the talk and actually support local.

• Limited domestic market for Finger Limes. Market is overseas.

• We have an ethical issue with plastic bottles, so have not used our water license. Health regulations prevents us from doing the old ‘swap the milk bottle’ model. Many people want healthy ‘bottled’ water that is ethical.

• Council challenges were the worst of all, but toward the end of the DA process matters greatly improved as staff changed. Prior issues: 3 - 6 month response times, haemorrhaging cash and not being able to plan or move forward given uncertainty during response times, matters outside of jurisdiction (e.g. Council asking ACO to prove their Organic process was adequate), Council (our certifying authority) were the only party to object when the Community, police and NSW DoJ issued not one objection. Inconsistency and unreasonableness in enforcement - not risk based (but now is more so). “

• “In 2017 in Mullumbimby on our farm we had an extreme summer of temperatures of 40C followed by a cyclone, 3 floods and a 3 month drought....it was tough...


Optional further information:

Membership details:

• The main challenge for us has been the way that the local food system works in Byron Shire :(

• We are locked out of all the farmers markets by their illegal and anti-competitive policies. I am from England and throughout Europe local farmers are always allowed entry to local markets to support diversity in the local region, and entry into farming, as farmers markets are a great place for a new farmers to begin. Many of the farmers that have stalls in Byron Shire are not growing produce in the shire, but are travelling from other regions. This presents a significant entry level challenge, as there are few other sales channels available in the Shire. Many of the restaurants and cafes are relatively small requiring frequent delivery...however it just isn’t profitable for us to service small orders around the shire, as we prefer to spend our time farming rather than driving...

• Many business’s in the shire say that they support local farmers but in reality they buy from the wholesalers rather than from the farmers as it is far more convenient to them to order everything they need from one place that delivers daily on one invoice, rather than deal with sourcing produce from several farmers. We have supplied cafe’s and restaurants in the shire for short periods of time then they need the convenience of ordering from the wholesaler...however, they keep telling their clientele that they purchase from local farmers. It would be really great if a “”Buy locally grown food”” scheme could be launched, and business’s that buy from local farmers could be easily recognised and distinguished from those that don’t.”

• “Biggest challenge is that Council does not have a clear strategy 20 years ahead that can be implemented with clear goals and outcomes YOY

• Compliance looks at what is wrong less than what is right

• We have good part time workers but seasonally at harvest we need workers for a short duration finding keen and able workers for the seasonal harvest is challenging

• Competition occurs primarily because some individuals starting out copy what they think of as being successful for others this sometimes over supplies the local and Australian wholesale market

• Council allowing noncompliant and inappropriate development into rural zones and next door.

• Council raising the water table on our land with treated effluent.

• Neighbouring property drained water table limiting access to drip irrigation bore water.

• Australian Macadamia Society x 2

• Byron Farmers Market Inc.

• Byron Rural agricultural action group.

• Farmers Association

• Farmers for climate change.

• Landcare

• Mullum Rural Co-Op x 4

• Northern Meat Company Casino.

• Northern Rivers Biodynamics

• Northern Rivers Food Growers/Producers x 6

• Northern Rivers Young Farmers

• NSW sugar milling Cooperative

• Soilcare Inc ,

• Tweed Richmond Organic Producers x2

MEMBERSHIP OF FARMING, FOOD INDUSTRY GROUPS, NETWORKS OR COOPERATIVES IN THE BYRON SHIRE:

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%

Yes (please specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49%


HAVE YOU ENGAGED WITH BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL?

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Additional details if ‘YES’:

• I lease land from BSC and manage the land with cattle through a grazing program, I monitor the biological processes and the diversity of plants, insects and animals before and after the grazing, also through soil tests the increase of organic carbon over the past five year. I was also spreading biosolids for Council with amazing pasture results. I do believe that there is more that can be achieved if council were to show more interest in what some farmers are doing to modify and improve their enterprises. My engagement experience with Council is that I am held back or rather we as farmers are held back and council management from moving forward because of fear of public perception.

• Discussions regarding council requirements for conversion of existing building to a cabin for eco-tourism and re-zoning current ‘residential’ rating of property to agriculture. Engagement experience was OK but the bureaucracy involved was mind boggling. We have a DA for the development for the venue.

• Reclaimed Water Project ???

• Advised Council that 40ha is prime agricultural land and 5ha is not as it applies to bridge (& road) access

• Due to blatant rezoning of State Significant Farmland (SSF) to environmental protection. Overlaying half of the property to a Wild Life corridor to nowhere. Council wanting to overlay SSF with buffer zones of 60,000 of our own Rainforest plantings.

• Needed Das ?? Recent experience has been excellent. The first few years were incredibly painful...see above point 17. We would like to see more support from Council...supporting locals.

• Because farmers are being priced out of our region because of reality prices and holiday rentals

• DA for Distillery….We don’t appear to fit with current planning concepts…We are open for ticketed private tours- not to the public- Council doesn’t understand that we successfully reconfigured our original 3 titles and through development consent were able to create 2 small lifestyle blocks and maintain the larger acreage as a farm…..our experience is one of frustration and unnecessary costs Council planners gave much importance to neighbour concerns which were not substantiated

• application of DA’s and compliance action

• Questions concerning DA and permissible activities.

• In regards to development next door. And effluent run off. It is evident that council values tourism more than agriculture.

• Rural rating evidence - accepted

• Provision of compost from council recycling -finally successful ?

• Member of BSC Sustainable Agriculture Roundtable and Strategy -no action by BSC

• Yes, we currently lease land from Council. The process of procuring the lease took years!

• Previously did boundary adjustment/sub division of 2 acres off property. Have been enquiring about possibility of further subdivision/development.


ALL THINGS CONSIDERED HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO INCREASE YOUR FARMING/GROWING ACTIVITY IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS?

FURTHER RESEARCH?

Definitely won’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Probably won’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Probably will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%

Definitely will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30%

Small group discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%

Individual meeting with researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%

Phone conversations with researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%

Email with researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Sorry - not interested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%


Respondents in this section: 4

Gender: All male

2. WOULD LIKE TO FARM ON LAND OWNED OR LEASED

AGE PROFILE:

25 or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

26-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

36-45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

46-55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

56-65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

66-75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

76 or older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Other: Would like to conduct farming enterprise however I would like to sell a portion of my land to raise capital as has been done previously in the Byron Shire.

STAGE IN THE PROCESS

Still just an idea – no research or planning yet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

I don’t know where to or can’t find information I need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Done a little research but no planning as yet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Commenced planning but a long way to go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Done quite a lot of planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Well advanced in my planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%


FARMING INTENTION TIMEFRAME:

Within the year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

2-3 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

3-5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

6-10 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Longer than 10 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

LAND SIZE:

PROPORTION OF THIS LAND SUITABLE FOR FARMING OR GROWING:

All respondents had land in the 11-50 hectare range.

Average: 61%Median: 66%


SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED:

Other: “Cropping”

WHAT THINGS HAVE YOU CONSIDERED FARMING OR GROWING?

Nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Fruit/berries etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%

Meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Dairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Sugar Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Timber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

• Experts in the field• DPI

• Council• Internet farming networks

ABLE TO FIND MOST OF THE INFORMATION NEEDED?All respondents answered YES.

SALES OF FARM OUTPUT:

Processer or manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Central markets or produce agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Wholesale customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Direct to restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Farmers & local markets (indicate which in ‘other’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Elsewhere in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Overseas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%


EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES OR OBSTACLES THAT WOULD DECREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF GOING AHEAD WITH FARMING/GROWING PLANS:

No – none that would have that impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Some but not significant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%

Yes (please elaborate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Yes additional information:

The underground water I used to water my produce with was drained into the Mullum creek by the neighboring school leaving my farm and family destitute and unable to continue as the losses we suffered broke us. We received no support from any government agency local or federal.


ENGAGED WITH BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL RE ZONING AND LAND USE?

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

FURTHER RESEARCH?

Small group discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%

Individual meeting with researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%

Phone conversations with researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%

Email with researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%

Sorry - not interested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%


Respondents in this section: 2

Age Profile: 26-35 x 1; 46-55 x 2

Gender: Male x 1; Female x 1

3. WOULD LIKE TO FARM BUT NO LAND

Experience: <1 year x 1; >10 years x 1

How long wanted to farm: 2-5 years x 1; >10 years x 1

Size of land would like to farm: 2-5 ha x 1; 51-100 ha x 1

What: Fruit, Vegetables, Beef, Native produce

Land search efforts: “Not much yet, keeping an eye on websites listing opportunites”

“Farming groups /lease land”

Where to be sold

Likelihood of farming next 5 years Quite unlikely x 1; Unsure x 1;

Ideas to help others gain access to land

“I think council can support access to land through relaxation of DA to support leasing and use of unused land for ethical farming.”

“Purchase land elsewhere to obtain income to support buying farm land back in the region one day”

Further research

Telephone x 1

Small group x 2

Email x 2

Processer or manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%

Central markets or produce agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Wholesale customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Direct to restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%

Farmers & local markets (indicate which in ‘other’) . . 100%

Elsewhere in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%

Overseas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this report is intended only to inform and should not be relied upon for future investment or other decisions. It is expected that any investment decisions made using these specific recommendations, will be fully analysed and appropriate due diligence undertaken prior to being made.

In the course of our preparation of this report, recommendations have been made using information and assumptions provided by many sources and from the methodology adopted. The authors and Byron Shire Council accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions or resultant consequences including any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information contained in this report.

Documents

Investigation into Agriculture in Byron Shire and Action Plan · Context Supply Side Challenges Supply Side Opportunities Demand Side Challenges Demand Side Opportunities Off farm