The emergence of a dissident candidate in the current National Farmers Union (NFU) of England and Wales presidential election was an unusual development. It is evidence that the NFU's dominant position in UK farm politics may be coming to an end.

The NFU is closing in on its centenary and has dominated UK farm politics for much of this time and particularly so over the last 50 years. The 1947 Agriculture Act which instituted a process of annual agriculture reviews by government afforded the NFU "statutory rights of consultation."

It astutely cultivated this arrangement by subjecting these reviews to its own approval process. During the early years the reviews were generally accepted. At the time farmers, mindful of the recessionary conditions that followed the First World War, were probably not very demanding. In any event they were able to develop the general perception that there was an element of negotiation involved.

For government this was not an entirely undesirable state of affairs as it meant they did not have to run the political gambit of balancing the various interests of the differing sectors of the agricultural economy. Farmer lobbying in Britain has been less strident than in other countries as farmers have generally had confidence in their special relationship with the government of the day.

The political position of the NFU was later reinforced when market levy commodity organizations were formed starting in the late 1960's. As these organizations were established with mandatory levies, which are technically taxes and, hence, the government and specifically the minister of agriculture, is responsible for how funds are expended and the governance of these organizations.

To ensure that they represented the interests of farmers, their boards are largely composed of farmers. And in turn to create the perception that they are independent of government, the directorships are generally nominated, directly or indirectly by the NFU but of course appointed by the minister.

This has tended to keep other farm commodity organizations on the sidelines of the political arena. And the market levy organizations generally have not openly developed political positions independent of the government or the NFU. With the most economic commodity issues such as research, market information and promotion being covered by these organizations, there has not been much room for independent lobby groups representing specific farm commodity interests.

This tidy arrangement is beginning to tangle. Three external influences are bearing down on the NFU, which currently has about 120,000 members, more than 70 percent of all full time farmers.

Since Britain joined the European Union more than 25 years ago, the focus for agricultural lobbying has shifted from Westminister to Brussels. The ability of the UK government to influence farm income directly or indirectly through the European Council is quite limited and the current government gives the impression of regarding this change as a convenience.

As importantly the structure of British agriculture has, of course, changed immensely over the last 50 years. After the Second World War and partly because of wartime farm policy, few farmers were dependent on a single farm commodity. A general farm organization suited their needs.

As farmers have sought economies of size, diversity has had to be sacrificed. Today most farmers are very dependent on a single commodity market. Increasingly the NFU finds its self in the very challenging position of advocating programs which favour one sector at the expense of another. To handle this, the NFU has a rather large and unwieldy structure of specific commodity and issue committees which develop positions. These are then amended or approved by a 92-member National Council before they become NFU policy.

The seriousness of the current farm income situation has resulted in a series of well-focused but uncharacteristic for Britain, farmer demonstrations, generally unsanctioned by the NFU. These have been successful in raising public and political awareness of the plight of the demonstrating farmers. They were probably particularly effective in the beef trade dispute with France.

Significantly they have also thrown up a grass-roots leader, Richard Haddock. Mr. Haddock was elected by Farmers' Weekly readers as 1999 Agricultural Personality of the Year and his cause has been championed by this farm magazine whose circulation probably exceeds the number of British farmers.

Haddock was nominated for the NFU's February presidential election in December. As voting is restricted to the National Council, the system favours the senior hierarchy. NFU leadership has been very stable with just eight presidents since 1945, including Ben Gill the current president elected in 1998. And the current election is believed to be the first to involve an incumbent president.

With the restriction on voting Haddock probably realizing that he stood little chance of unseating the president, and switched his nomination last week, to the deputy and vice presidential positions. Meanwhile the Farmers Weekly which has been critical of the NFU election system held a phone-in vote in which Haddock received more than 80 percent support.

This will surely hasten change in the structure of the NFU. The upcoming NFU annual general meeting will be the first at which rank and file members will be allowed to participate. There is also a motion on the agenda for postal as opposed to in-person voting in National Council elections.

What is more important for the NFU is a change in its relationships with the industry. There are areas where it can continue to play its traditional role in lobbying the British government. These include the environment, food safety, agrimoney and general rural issues which span specific commodity interests.

Else where it would be well advised to encourage the development of commodity organizations which can lobby Brussels directly with like organizations in other European member states. The NFU's role could well be one of providing a secretariat for such organizations with perhaps some form of federation of commodity organizations.

The challenge for the NFU will be implementing long needed reform at a time when it will surely view itself as being under siege.

February 1, 2000