--------------------------------------------- 
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy 
    and related agricultural issues. 
    --------------------------------------------- 
  
  * The Dilemma For The Activists Is That The More Successful They  
    Are, The More They Will Alienate Mainstream Environmental Groups  
  
  
    By David Walker, agricultural economist 
    BridgeNews 
    Norwich, England--The British jury verdict last week that 28 members 
of the environmental group Greenpeace were not guilty of criminal damage 
to a genetically modified maize crop may have wide implications for 
activists' direct action. 
  
    It is, however, unlikely to have much of an impact on the 
environmental trials that were being targeted. The activists did not deny 
they trashed the crop in 1999, but rather claimed "lawful excuse." The 
jury accepted that the Greenpeace 28 genuinely and reasonably believed 
their direct action would prevent pollution of the local environment. 
  
    Whether this belief was well-founded was not at issue. The major 
question on which the jury was persuaded was that Greenpeace did it for 
perceived direct environmental reasons rather than publicity. 
  
    In the narrow context of the field trials, which are, of course,  
opposed by Greenpeace and other activist environmental groups, the jury 
verdict is generally seen as a setback. 
  
    It's anticipated the activists will regard next summer as "open 
season" for these trials. The activists' strategy has been to discourage 
farmers from hosting these trials through intimidation and physical 
destruction of those trials that are held. 
  
    To date this strategy has received a great deal of publicity, but has 
not been overly successful. The thinking is that, without the implicit 
protection of the law, farmers will be less inclined to host these field 
trials. 
  
    This seems reasonable. Some would even suggest every crop sprayer and 
fertilizer spreader in Britain is now a legitimate target for direct 
action by anybody who "genuinely" believes in the environmental benefits 
for organic food production. 
  
    The majority of farmers, however, almost certainly support genetic 
engineering technology and are waiting quietly on the sidelines for the 
green light of environmental approval. 
  
    The prospect this green light may be postponed or even canceled as an 
indirect result of the jury verdict, which these farmers will almost 
certainly view as unjust, is likely to attract more potential hosts for 
the trials than it deters. 
  
    To date the activists have been regarded as a nuisance. The not-guilty 
verdict raises their status to a threat. Many farmers will now feel the 
need to be more actively involved.  
  
    Those promoting the trials, both within government and from the 
industry, have indicated they plan to continue, and the police intend to 
continue prosecuting. It is, therefore, possible there will be lots of 
action next summer. However, there's no certainty that the activists will 
be able to organize enough support to have a material impact on the 
trials. 
  
    If the background of the Greenpeace 28 is anything to go by, it would 
seem Greenpeace will have difficulty in sustaining any sort of volunteer 
direct action campaign. Nearly half were employees, and there was no 
meaningful local participation.  
  
    This summer, while Greenpeace was sidelined by the pending trial,  
other activist organizations were not able to muster many eco-warriors.  
Some of the activists are well-financed and could possibly hire 
demonstrators, but eco-mercenaries could hardly claim "lawful excuse."  
  
    More important, the activists need not only to halt the trials, but 
also to convince government to pass legislation banning the growing of 
genetically modified crops. 
  
    If they are successful in the former and not the latter, paradoxically 
they may hasten the commercialization of this technology. It is currently 
perfectly legal for farmers to grow, harvest and sell genetically modified 
crops. The reason they have not done so to date is an agreement between 
the industry and government for a three-year moratorium to allow further 
environmental tests. 
  
    This is an arrangement supported by all parties, including mainline 
environment groups but not the activists. The dilemma for the activists 
here is that the more successful they are, the more they will alienate the 
mainstream environmental groups genuinely interested in getting answers to 
environmental questions.  
  
    In reality, the best hope for those opposing genetically modified 
crops are unfavorable reports from the field trials. Their motivation for 
attacking the trials is, therefore, ambiguous.  
  
    Their next best hope is to persuade the British government to abandon 
its science-based policy and hence the environmental trials. Their chance 
here may be seen as improving. 
  
    The British government is approaching an election and its opinion poll 
ratings are slipping. Recently the government's popularity suffered 
dramatically from being on the wrong side of public opinion recently on 
the fuel taxation issue. It will surely want to avoid a repeat. 
  
    But this issue is unlikely to have a broad enough interest base to 
worry the government. Conspicuously, the government's environmental 
argument for high fuel taxation did not hold much sway with the British 
public. 
  
    Further, if the activists do pursue their apparent advantage the jury 
verdict seems to provide them, they are likely to antagonize the public in 
short order. 
  
    Some activists may appreciate this, but discipline is not a long suit 
for others. The jury decision may prove to provide them with enough rope 
for them to hang them with.  End 
  
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm  
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London  
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director 
of the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. He also maintains a Web site at 
http://www.openi.co.uk/. His views are not necessarily those of BridgeNews, whose 
ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/. 
  
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send 
submissions to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, BridgeNews, 3 World 
Financial Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009.  
You may also call (212) 372-7510, fax (212)  372-2707 or send e-mail to 
opinion@bridge.com. 
  
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo 
Service.