The Haddock Phonomenon highlights the need for a change in role for the NFU. Reform may be difficult while it views itself as being under siege.

The 1947 Agriculture Act, which gave the NFU "statutory rights of consultation," which it astutely cultivated by subjecting the annual agricultural reviews to its own approval process, provided it with an unassailable position for many years.

For government this was not an entirely undesirable state of affairs as it meant it 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 in the past 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.

The market levy organizations have understandably not been inclined openly to develop 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 them, 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.

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 appears to regard this 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. The NFU's National Council, to give it its dues, has done a very creditable job of this, but increasingly not to all farmers' satisfaction.

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. They have been successful in raising public and political awareness of the plight of the demonstrating farmers. Farmers have learned that there are options to the NFU.

Significantly these demonstrations have also spawned a grass-roots leader, Richard Haddock. The popular support that he has engendered will be something that the NFU will find very difficult to ignore.

At the same time the Haddock phenomenon is a direct challenge to the hierarchy and stability of the NFU, which is necessary for its effective arbitration between the widely differing interests of farmers. It will surely hasten change in the structure of the NFU.

It is true, of course, that the NFU is beginning to respond to these pressures. It has opened up its annual general meeting to the rank and file and is considering a postal ballot for national council elections.

But what is more important to the NFU is a vision for its future role. If it is to become a more responsive organization, it position as arbitrator between sector interests will almost certainly become untenable.

There are areas where it can continue to play its traditional role in lobbying the British government. Many of these are very topical and include the environment, food safety, agrimoney and general countryside 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 these organizations.

The NFU has the expertise. Surely it would be more productive to use this in Brussels, rather than in National Council on Shaftesbury Avenue.

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 2, 2000