Not only was it a group of farmers who were the first to set up an oil refinery picket line, but it was their decision to leave, when Britain had been bought to a virtual standstill, that signaled the end of the blockade

Traditionally British farmers have relied almost exclusively on the National Farmers' Union (NFU) to further their cause with the British and other governments. The NFU, however, distanced itself from this demonstration as it has from many others.

The lobbying position of the NFU was originally established by the 1947 Agriculture Act, which gave it "statutory rights of consultation." This it astutely cultivated by subjecting the annual agricultural reviews of those times to its own approval process. Its position was later reinforced by the board appointment process for the market check-off commodity organizations which have been set up since the late 1960's.

For government this has not been an undesirable state of affairs, as it has not had to run the political gambit of balancing the various farm commodity interests. And, as farmers have generally had confidence in their special relationship with the government, lobbying in Britain has until recently been less strident than in other countries.

This tidy arrangement, however, is beginning to tangle with three changes in the political environment bearing down on the NFU.

Since Britain joined the European Union more than 25 years ago, most important farm policy is made in Brussels and not Westminister. Hence the special relation with the British government now counts for less.

The structure of British agriculture has changed immensely over the last 50 years. Today most farmers are very dependent on a single commodity market. Increasingly the NFU finds itself in the very challenging position of advocating programs which favour one group of farmers at the expense of another. Disaffection is inevitable.

Finally, the current farm income situation has resulted in almost all sectors of the farm economy feeling wronged.

The emergence of fringe groups of farmers believing that traditional lobbying practices were not getting results came to the fore about a year ago with port blockades and other demonstrations following the failure of the French government to raise their blockade against British beef.

French farmers have, of course, practised direct action for many years and to good effect in both Paris and Brussels. As British farmers benefited from the resulting concession made by the European Union, the value of such activities were probably not lost on them. Also farmers have in recent years been on the receiving end of more than their fair share of such direct action by animal rights, anti-blood sports, rambling and a host of environmental activists.

While the demonstrations did not achieve their ultimate objective of getting the French to raise the ban, they did result in some very positive publicity which amongst other things resulted in the Prime Minister personally taking up the industries cause, through the NFU, of course, rather than the direct action groups.

The NFU, however, distanced itself from the recent oil refinery picketing by farmers who style themselves as Farmers For Action, even though it has itself been lobbying for lower fuel taxes. In truth it has good reason. If it was associated with any illegal picketing activity, it could have had its assets confiscated through a legal nicety designed to discourage illegal picketing activities by trades unions.

For the moment farmers have the use of the privileged access to government through the NFU, while at the same time pulling a punch of the Farmers for Action far in excess of their two percent of population. This is something of a velvet glove covering a fist of steel.

The danger is that farmers in desperate circumstances will tend to switch their support from the NFU to direct action activities. On issues of less general concern than fuel taxation, they are likely to be frustrated.

September 18, 2000