David Richardson will be arguing in his column in FW next week (Sept 2 issue) that there are too many separate organisations representing different sectors of the industry.

"They duplicate one another’s efforts, compete to neutralise one another’s statements, and the costs come out of farmer’s pockets," he says.

In particular, he highlights some of the crossover between the NFU, the TFA and the CLA...

Do you agree?

Tim.Relf:

David Richardson will be arguing

Now I have  a view about Richardson, and it started many years ago when he said that war was good for farming, that was the first Iraq war, I have not read him since. This is a shame really as I do share in common with him the fact that I am always moaning.

I suspect that if my historical facts are correct he will not be arguing, he will be opinioning from a certain set of facts with which he agrees on 100%, unlike Keynes who changed his mind when the facts changed.

The paradox here appears to be compounded by the notion that Richardson has been involved in many of these organisations and indeed was a founder memeber of LEAF when they could have just as easily worked with FWAG.

The marvel of farmer organisations is they way in which they expand in number.

I know the Blair government didn't know who to talk to about farming during the F&M crisis and found that there are upwards of 140 or more different farmer organisations to deal with. Likewise a farmer who seeks to diversify his business will have about 150 different NGO  and government bodies to deal with.

This is life in the industrialised society we have formed and the culture of everyone failing to take responsibility for themselves.

If in doubt blame healt and safety.

Organisations are run by those who like being in high office. The problem is, when the top table is full there is no room, so some wander off to form another organisation where they can occupy the top table.

In David Richardsons defence, Motley, it has long been the case that a war is good for agriculture, in much the same way that until recently farming always fared better under a Labour government, but that doesn't mean to say we want one! Times change though!!

I won't get my FW until the morning now, but if he has indeed been knocking the number of organisations without putting his hand up his own involvement in them, that is rather hypocritical.

Here's David Richardson's article in full:

It has annoyed me for years that we have, in this country, so many separate organisations representing different sectors of our industry.

They duplicate one another's efforts, compete to neutralise one another's statements, and the costs come out of farmer's pockets.

OK, I appreciate that many farmers have become specialists rather than generalists; that the genuine mixed farm with equal interests in crops and livestock is now something of a rarity; that a specialist pig farmer, for instance, has different priorities to those of a grain grower. Although whatever conflicts may exist over the price of feed ingredients and the like, they still have to rely on one another.

As these differences became more pronounced, some specialist operators felt it necessary to set up representation to concentrate on their sector alone. They doubted that the NFU - a body originally designed to cover the entire industry - could be focused enough to get the best deal for what they produced.

But the NFU has restructured itself into specialist boards since those days and it's my impression that, in some cases at least, these now work closely with the breakaway organisations to achieve mutually-desired results. Which begs the question as to why we still need both? I will leave that in the air while moving on to the latest initiative towards what looks like disunity.

The NFU announced last week that in November it is to set up a professional advice service for tenant farmers. It intends to recruit a team of land agents and valuers across the country to help tenants with such issues as rent reviews, succession, dilapidations and so on. Members of this team will be recommended to tenants in their locality.

In other words, the NFU is planning to create a carbon copy of the Tenant Farmers Association. And I ask myself - why do we need it? What will it do that the TFA does not already do? Can the industry afford it? And most pertinent of all - why was it not possible for the NFU and the TFA to join together to avoid repetition, add influence and control costs instead of competing with one another?

I heard rumours several months ago that the two organisations were talking. I hoped they would find ways to work together to start what I believe should be the aim - an umbrella organisation encompassing the CLA, the NFU and the TFA. That was what a number of us advocated some years ago when margins were even slimmer than they are now because we believed these separate bodies were a luxury we could not afford. But last week's announcement suggests that objective has taken a backward step.

Earlier this year I was in Denmark where they, too, used to have a bunch of representative bodies looking out for the interests of various sectors of their agriculture. Over the years they have gradually reduced the number and a couple of years ago finally merged into one powerful grouping. They are already finding the farming voice is being listened to more than before.

Here in the UK, the levy boards were forced to merge into the AHDB by government decree. It would probably never have happened otherwise. And there are signs that it is becoming a more relevant and effective force for good.

So, why can't the rest of us see the sense of it? Do we prize our independence so highly that we are blind to the potential benefits in influence and cost that united efforts would bring?

As the number of farmers declines 'n the scale 'n professionalism of the remaining farmers increases as does the "rented" land acreage; it is imperative that the antagonistic policies currently advocated by the existing CLA 'n TFA must be curtailed and replaced by much greater co-operation between the two parties for the benefit of the UK agriultural industry..

 

For the NFU the conflict of interests between the arable 'n livestock farmers remains a difficulty; tho' not unassailable. 

Similarly it is nigh on impossible for the NFU to be supportive of both normal 'n "organic" farming.

I see that the Farmers’ Union of Wales and Tenant Farmers Association have been meeting to discuss ways in which the two organisations can work more closely together in Wales.

Here's a letter from TFA national chairman Jeremy Walker that was published in the September 9 issue:

David Richardson (Farmers Weekly, 02 September 2011) comments upon the NFU’s recent announcement establishing a professional panel of agents to advise its members on tenanted matters in an apparent duplication of the activities of the Tenant Farmers Association.  Like David I am saddened that a more collegiate approach cannot be found.

The TFA this year celebrates 30 years of specialist advice information and support to the tenanted sector of agriculture in England and Wales and no other body is able to give the dedication and focus to farm tenancy issues that the TFA provides.  Every day we look at all issues through the eyes of the tenant farmer and ensure that tenants receive relevant advice and that policy makers understand the implications for tenants which arise from the decisions they make.

The TFA acknowledges the NFU’s status, broad strength and its ability to speak on behalf of the whole of the farming industry but we believe that the TFA and other specialist organisations can support it by providing a dedicated focus on sector specific issues.  Rather than trying to replicate what we do already, we should be looking at ways of working together which reduces duplication, saves costs and increases impact.

As David suggests there were some tentative discussions last year towards these ends.  In those discussions the TFA sought an agreement with the NFU which considered where we could avoid duplication, share services, save costs and recognised the strengths of both organisations however, discussions ended without conclusion.

The TFA continues to be keen to work more in tandem with the NFU to put in place something which will be of real benefit to the tenanted sector.  If such an arrangement is seen by both sides to be successful then it could potentially lead to further levels of co-operation in the future.

And here is a copy of a statement issued today by the Farmers Union of Wales and TFA:

 

For further information from the TFA, contact Jeremy Walker on 07773 345213 or the TFA’s Communications and Events Co-ordinator Larissa Harmsworth on 0118 930 6130 or 07887 777157.

I see that the two specialist organisations representing Scottish beef farmers - the Scottish Beef Cattle Association (SBCA) and the National Beef Association Scotland (NBAS) - are now talking about a merger.