Independence of Red Tractor review under threat
© GNP Industry leaders have warned a pledged independent review into Red Tractor’s governance risks becoming a “whitewash”, after it emerged the assurance body was set to lead the investigation into itself.
The NFU announced it would hold two independent reviews in the wake of the controversy surrounding the introduction of Red Tractor’s bolt-on voluntary environmental module, the Greener Farms Commitment (GFC).
See also: Minette Batters apologises over GFC controversy
One of the reviews – demanded by the 80-strong NFU council – is to look at Red Tractor governance and the other at the future of farm assurance more generally.
During an exclusive interview with Farmers Weekly on 23 October, NFU president Minette Batters promised to try to win support from the whole of industry for the reviews, claiming they could not be the work of the NFU alone.
She also said it was “really important” that the governance review was independent, but Farmers Weekly understands it has now been agreed that the Red Tractor ownership board will lead it, with an external consultant carrying out the work.
According to sources, the only two Red Tractor owners who opposed this at the Red Tractor ownership body AGM on 10 November were the NFU and AHDB.
Phil Stocker, chief executive of the National Sheep Association, said: “It may be delivered by an independent consultant, but it’ll be done to terms of reference that the bodies which are part of it have pulled together. That’s not independent in my mind.
“If it’s done in that way, I would have very little confidence in it.”
‘Same route’
Mr Stocker also said he had “sensed” in recent Red Tractor meetings that there was a desire to “follow the same route, with the same timescales” on the GFC.
The governance review was deemed necessary because the GFC – designed to show farmers are delivering improvements in their carbon footprint, biodiversity, nutrient management, soils and waste control – was due to be introduced from 1 April 2024 without any farmer engagement or technical committee oversight.
Its introduction has since been put on hold until completion of the governance review.
“They think the review is going to be that lightweight and straightforward and easy that it’s not going to disrupt their passage of travel,” said Mr Stocker. “I just don’t think that’s good enough.”
A spokesperson for the British Farming Union (BFU), which was credited with getting AHDB to hold its own investigation into cereals assurance, told Farmers Weekly there would be “undertones” of influence if the Red Tractor ownership body appointed those carrying out the review.
George Dunn, chief executive of the Tenant Farmers Association, said he had made his views clear to Red Tractor chief executive Jim Moseley in a meeting this week.
“Our ask is that the external consultant being brought in by the ownership board needs to be free to engage with a wide swathe of the sector so it can build in the wider concerns around governance,” he added.
“The report of the governance review needs to be published before the Red Tractor ownership body decide what they’re going to do with it.”
Wider assurance review runs into problems
A second, wider review into assurance more generally is running into problems, with key organisations refusing to back it.
In a statement last month, Red Tractor confirmed its “complete support” for both the governance review and the wider review into farm assurance, but Farmers Weekly understands that at the ownership body AGM on 10 November, chairwoman Christine Tacon made it clear that the general assurance review could not be backed by Red Tractor because it would be outside the organisation’s remit.
When asked about this, a Red Tractor spokesperson directed Farmers Weekly to the original statement from October.
Other Red Tractor owners, including NFU Scotland (NFUS), have also refused to support this second review.
NFUS chief executive John Davidson, who attended the AGM, said: “NFU Scotland does not support a wider review of assurance schemes in Scotland at this time.
“Our priority and focus must remain on securing the best possible outcome for farmers and crofters from the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill as it starts its important journey through Holyrood.
“We have conveyed our position to both Quality Meat Scotland and Scottish Quality Crops.”
Farmers Weekly understands AHDB and the NFU are likely to jointly commission the wider review into assurance.
“Any review we are involved in, we would want it to be independent,” said AHDB chairman Nicholas Saphir.
“We are currently in discussions. We are aligned on most of this with the NFU, but we are working our way through it, and over the next few weeks, we will be able to announce what we are intending to do.”