News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Splinter groups threaten farm lobbying 

Splinter groups threaten farm lobbying

11 May, 2010 01:06 PM
THE splintering of farmers into special interest groups is depriving them of the unity necessary to tackle the big issues of our time, Piet Vanthemsche believes.

The president of Boerenbond, the Belgian farmers union, Mr Vanthemsche was talking about Belgium, but his address to the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists in Ghent had relevance for Australia.

“We are faced with a movement toward single issue farmers groups,” Mr Vanthemsche told the IFAJ.

“It is much easier to defend the interests of one sector, because you don’t have to take into account the interests of the other sector.”

“I think the development is very worrying. Single issue farmers organisations get a lot of media attention, and they are very keen and clever at using media.

“This for us is a new development - a development that is used by our opponents. We are a small part of our community. In Flanders, farmers are one or two percent of the population. When the Boerenbond was created, one half of the population produced food for the other half.

“When this two per cent defends its interests, we have to unite.”

Mr Vanthemsche related how he when he was director of the Belgian food safety agency, and later chief of staff for the country’s agriculture minister, he liked to see the farming lobby divided.

“When they were divided, I always won. When they were united, it was very difficult.”

“We have to ... take one position on the future of our farming community and bring that one position to politics and society.”

Farmers’ interests can be difficult to defend against countering opinions in society, he said.

He referred to “the climate discussion” and how the anti-meat lobby had spun climate change into an argument against livestock farming.

“Some people in our western societies want to go back in time. They want to take valuable farmland and turn it into nature. We will need every acre of farmland in Western Europe and the rest of the world to meet the food crisis.

“We must be prepared to change. The way we will farm today will change: with the climate debate, we will farm in a different way. We know that. We must help our farmers transition to a different model of farming, and therefore we need unity in our farming community.”

Mr Vanthemsche also urged farmers to get on the front foot in addressing the issues that confront them.

“When we are reactive, we are always in a defensive position,” he said.

“We have to be proactive in solving our problems. We must see the signals that come from society. If we don’t solve our own problems, others will try and solve them. And that’s always worse than if we do it ourselves.”

“But it’s not easy to be critical of ourselves.”

* Matthew Cawood was in Belgium courtesy of NSW Farm Writers.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
This mob will end up like the Wilderness Society, eating themselves alive!
Posted by tigerdicky, 11/05/2010 1:14:27 PM
What great story. This is exactly why we need national co-ordinated advocacy that has farmers driving it rather than poiticians. It would be good if the blokes driving Grain Producers could get their model up because then grains would be able to manage some of the divisive nature of the industry and the poltics to present a single voice for grain growers to government, industry and consumers.
Posted by folf, 12/05/2010 7:35:56 AM
In the cattle side of things in Australia if you are not in Agforce you can't get a look in, a hand full of them just keep swapping between Cattle Council & Mla jobs. You don't get new blood to get different ideas.
Posted by les, 12/05/2010 9:33:52 AM
The main reason splinter groups form is because the main so called "peak body" groups do not listen to grass roots members any more. They are just plants for the government and push their agenda and wait for the "rewards that will come if they deliver".
Posted by jaycee, 12/05/2010 10:05:14 AM
What a good idea. Single representative parties worked very well in Russia until 1989, Germany until 1945, Cambodia until....
Posted by Maverick, 12/05/2010 10:11:34 AM
I'm not for unionising agricultural enterprise - and it wouldn't happen in this country in a hundred years, but "the FARMERS, UNITED, might never be defeated". It's worked well for for the trades, and it's working well for farming in other countries.
Posted by AJ, 12/05/2010 10:11:34 AM
This dude assumes that the one united group actually does something worthwhile. Note also that he is a former bureaucrat who is furthering his career with a stint in farmer's lobbying. These kind of people have been absolute disasters for Australian farmers for the simple reason that they never have a line that they will not allow the enemy to cross. They will casually negotiate away every last property right of the people they claim to represent in the interests of maintaining their career options. And anyone who would go into battle with only one strategy option exhibits the strategic nous of Walter Mitty. Have they never heard of "good cop/bad cop"? Have they never heard of battlfield initiative, patrolling in depth, feints, decoys, fire and movement and vital asset targeting? Nope. All they can think of is one big, dumb, static target with only one standardised, cumbersome manouvre that has consistently proven to fail. And what will it be next, boys, kick the football out in front of the machine guns in broad daylight and chase it?
Posted by Ian Mott, 12/05/2010 10:20:33 AM
This guy makes so much sense. It is logical we must all unite and it is so important that just because a group lose an argument they don't leave the tent and put up a new one. Which is what happens. Democracy is what it is, and it is important we realise that maybe your position isn't the position of the majority. It is also a problem for the people in official positions, what do you do when 51% of your constituents are one way and 49% are the other way. Les, I think it is a while since you had a look at CCA. From what I know the majority of councillors are actual producers and I think 4 of them have served less than 3 years and as far as I know haven't had an MLA job! Our problem is we don't have the population in rural areas to influence so we need to help each other achieve not only common goals but satisfy individual requirements for industry. This will not always be achievable but it is what we need to do where ever possible. Argriculture needs have its fights in the kitchen not on the front lawn!
Posted by Sam, 12/05/2010 11:44:35 AM
Hi all, I see it like this: If you have an excellent business in a town that is only big enough for one like business, then you will get no competition starting up against it. If the same situation occurs, but that business does not provide great service, then you will get competition starting up as it will have ready made dissatisfied clients. I ask what has the farm lobby sector done for the Australian farmer? From where I sit, outside looking in, I see a 2% decline in terms of trade every year, where all other businesses and workers get at least a “0” average or a increase. I think it is time for the agriculture lobby group to look inwards at itself and realise they have failed, hence the "splinter" groups the industry always has. If they had achieved a “0” change in terms of trade after productivity was included, there would be no splinter groups. My food for thought for the day.
Posted by dunart, 12/05/2010 12:00:57 PM
Given a choice between being the captain of a canoe, or the first mate on an aircraft carrier. The average farmer will take the canoe every time. It's just the nature of the beast.
Posted by Qlander, 12/05/2010 12:28:24 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Piet Vanthemsche.
Piet Vanthemsche.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: If an election were held this weekend, for which party would you vote?

Labor
(9%)

Liberal
(42%)

National
(32.7%)

Greens
(7.4%)

Family First
(1.4%)

Independent
(5%)

Other
(2.4%)

Total Votes: 1075
Poll Date: 09 May, 2010

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...