Jane King's blog

Farmers Weekly's editor gives you an insight into how FW group works...
What can the NFU do better?

Some interesting comments have come in on my last blog post about NFU bias.  I don't think FW is biased towards the NFU and I tend to agree with Peter Wells when he says the NFU can do more to consult with its own members before entering talks with Government.  A more joined up approach is definitely needed with members and other agricultural organisations if the industry is to speak with one, unified and more powerful voice.   At times, not enough is done to reach agreements within the industry and so the politicians see internal squabbling and receive mixed messages.  Arguments and misunderstandings about the future of the new levy boards were a classic example.   I know the NFU is watching this blog with interest so here's an opportunity to direct your views at people who want to listen and can make a difference.    

I disagree with Peter Wells on his point about the scope of the NFU. He suggests Peter Kendall and his policy team should concentrate entirely on farmer needs and leave politicians to worry about the interests of the nation.  While the NFU's primary purpose is to represent UK agriculture, it cannot do this in a vacuum.  For too long, farmers produced food without thinking about the end customer and look where that got us. We've ended up with a poor public image and consumers are ill informed about the origins of their food and the challenges farmers face.  

Yes, we've got to talk more constructively to each other to find common ground but we've also got to do an awful lot more communicating beyond the industry.  We cannot afford to leave it to politicians and celebrity chefs to do our batting for us.     

 

            

Published 01 April 2008 09:43 by Jane King

Filed under: , ,

Comments

# re: What can the NFU do better?@ 01 April 2008 14:42

I perhaps am not qualified to comment on your NFU as I don't really have an idea what their position is on most things.  I can give a perspective of how I feel about our farm organizations in Kansas and some of their flaws.  

The first problem representing any group and especially farmers is the diversity of opinions within that group.  Often, the most level headed people just keep their mouths shut, when their opinion is probably the most needed.  When the word "farmer" is used that refers to a group of people who are doing very different things, I probably have little in common with a dairy farmer from Wisconsin or a citrus grower from Florida, yet all three of us are represented by the American Farm Bureau, the most powerful of our farm groups, along with perhaps the NFO and some state and commodity groups.  Even within the commodity groups there can be widespread conflict among the membership as is present in the US beef industry with the competition between R-CALF and the NCBA, and within our state the KLA and KCA.  Without drawing this out too far, the problem that your NFU faces is how to represent a group of people who do not agree with each other on many issues?  One member one vote and going with majority rule would seem to be the answer, until you get into some of these 50-50 splits, then you run the risk of a group fracturing into two seperate entities. I favor each person having a vote in all organizations, but that also brings its own set of issues and won't solve all the problems, but seems to me to be the right way to run things.

To boil this problem down further,on my own farm their are really 4 principal stakeholders, myself, my wife, my father and my mother, with a brother and an uncle as owners of part of the land.  At 68, all that really concerns my father is the next 5 years, as he intends to retire at some point.  Spiraling land prices make him smile as he sees more money for his retirement.  More regulation doesn't worry him if it can be put off for several years.  The cost of machinery is not an issue as he isn't going to buy any.  For myself, I hope to go 25 or 30 more years and I don't like land prices this high, do plan on buying more machinery, and will have to deal with more regulation.  I raise mostly cattle, dad gets most of his income from crops.  High grain helps him much more than it does me, so he can support biofuels without hesitation, while for me the impact on the price of livestock is a concern. My uncle is only concerned with the preservation of the land, there is no economic consideration at all, he will clearly state that.  My brother wants a return from his land, but owns it because of sentimental reasons. My wife is here because I am but has stated that she wonders what the point is of working so hard for so little return is. My mother echos that, and has very little overall idea what goes on day to day,but still wants input into the operation.  As I am sure anyone reading this who farms with family members can tell you, within our family farm system some conflicts can result in shouting matches between us and we are family, we can't quit each other..........now add and multiply our diverse views by the number of farmers and ranchers represented by any farm organization and you find the very first root problem in any farm organization in any country, state or county in the world, how do you represent the interests of such a diverse occupation?  To me that is the stumbling block that has to first be dealt with in our nation and probably in yours, do I know how to do it??  Probably not.

kansasfarmer

# re: What can the NFU do better?@ 01 April 2008 16:58

Soil Association represents a tiny fraction of our farmland, yet somehow its views and lobbying get results. NFU represents vast swathes of land and production but really doesnt do anything concrete. Perhaps it is inevitable:

1) UK farmers are unable to co-operate on any level. We dont share kit, knowledge etc. Very much a friendly chat to the neighbour but secretly wanting them to die so they can buy their land.

2) NFU bosses are perceived to not be involved with farming. Oh so maybe their grandad was a farmer, but they are really more of the green-wellied, clean dog, "equestrian interests" southern counties set. They are never going to put any pressure on the big hitters, as they are probably all masons together anyway.

Fact is that fundamental farming policy is dictated by the EU. The NFU should act to ensure that there is a level playing field, and that EU dictats are not "gold plated" - read buggered about with by or lot.

We need a bit of militancy. To be able to say "this adding layers of paperwork or tape is more than other EU nations. Our members will as a block refuse to do it." Grow a pair for goodness sakes - merge with a French union!

The other factor is in naming. The Soil Association doesnt say farmers in its title. The UK nation hates farmers. Having Farmers in the title instantly puts peoples back up. True, the CLA have a worse position, but how about a name change?

Finally, dont shout about the great things you have done. Most are trite at best. The NFU 'victory' on sugar beet is an example of a waste of time. We are a market economy and if the beet price is too low, then we dont grow. There is no penalty now quota is effectivly free. Instead spend you time getting rid of market distortions, levelling the field of EU competition, crack on with some good farming PR for schools, and encourage us to work together.

TeslaCoils