Review calls for ‘reset’ of UK farm assurance
© Gary Naylor Photography A long-awaited review of UK farm assurance schemes has called for an overhaul of the system to address growing frustrations among farmers and restore confidence in their effectiveness.
The UK Farm Assurance Review, conducted independently by four commissioners over nine months, was commissioned by the UK farming unions and the Agriculture & Horticulture Development Board (AHDB).
The 198-page report (PDF), published on Monday 20 January, identifies critical changes needed to ensure farm assurance remains a trusted and effective component of UK agriculture.
See also: Will vet assurance shake up third-party audits?
What the review says about Red Tractor
The UK Farm Assurance Review has highlighted a significant loss of confidence in the Red Tractor (RT) scheme, particularly in key sectors like beef, sheep, dairy, and cereals.
While the scheme is widely supported in certain areas, such as pigs, many farmers feel it is not “owned by them” but instead imposed upon them.
The report stresses the need for a leadership overhaul at RT to rebuild trust and address concerns of its farming members.
Despite these issues, there is broad support for a UK-wide farm assurance system, and the review calls for immediate action to reset RT’s governance and culture.
The commissioners emphasise that RT’s future success hinges on greater farmer involvement and a shift in leadership.
In March 2024, the NFU and AHDB initiated a comprehensive review of farm assurance after a farmer backlash over Red Tractor’s plans to introduce a bolt-on environmental module, the Greener Farms Commitment (GFC), which was later scrapped.
Farm assurance schemes, which ensure that food products meet established quality standards, play a crucial role in maintaining consumer confidence.
However, the findings of the review resonate with widespread farmer concerns about the costs and complexity of assurance audits.
The review found that, while farm assurance schemes are delivering necessary assurances to consumers, they have led to significant dissatisfaction among farmers.
Many farmers feel the schemes are complex, costly, and not delivering tangible benefits, prompting calls for a “reset” of the system.
The commissioners behind the report stress the need to simplify the process, improve farmer involvement, and make the schemes more responsive to the evolving needs of the industry.
The review outlines nine strategic recommendations (see panel), including reducing and simplifying on-farm audits, embracing new technologies, and giving farmers a stronger voice in developing standards.
Nine key recommendations of the review
- On-farm audits must be reduced, simplified and delivered more consistently
- There must be a transformational step forward in embracing technology
- Schemes need to reset and/or restate their structures to establish farmers as the driving voice in standards development
- A new industry-led initiative must set out the future environmental ambitions for farm assurance
- The inclusion of regulatory requirements within farm assurance should be conditional on government agreeing a form of “earned recognition”
- There must be greater collaboration between farm assurance schemes across the UK
- Schemes must better position the UK farming industry in world food markets and in competition with imported food
- All schemes must review and improve their communication with farmers
- The Red Tractor scheme must complete the implementation of recommendations in the Campbell Tickell report on its governance
Farmer distrust
Farmers clearly want a bigger say in how assurance schemes operate.
An online survey for the review revealed that 79% of farmers felt they should be “heavily involved” in the development of farm assurance standards in the UK.
“The majority (63%) considered that this could be made possible through farming bodies, such as the farming unions and the AHDB – with 59% considering ‘farmer groups’ also to be appropriate, in order to achieve this objective,” the report states.
Analysis from Grounded Research also highlighted concerns that farm assurance was more focused on corporate interests than the needs of farmers, leading to distrust towards organisations including Red Tractor and even the NFU.
Emotional toll of audits
The report also highlights the emotional toll of audits, with many farmers describing the process as stressful and high-pressure.
This issue is compounded by rising input costs, supply chain disruptions, and post-Brexit trade challenges.
The review also calls for better collaboration between assurance schemes across the UK, with a focus on enhancing the global competitiveness of UK farming.
Additionally, it recommends that the Red Tractor scheme completes governance reforms following an earlier review of its structure.
Dr David Llewellyn, lead commissioner for the review, said farm assurance must evolve to remain relevant in an industry facing significant changes.
“Farm assurance has been a critical part of the UK farming sector for decades, but the system we have now is no longer fit for the future,” he said.
“Farmers must be central to the development of these schemes.
“They need to be supported, not burdened, by assurance systems that are seen as bureaucratic and disconnected from the realities of modern farming.”
Regional differences
The review also highlights the regional differences in the effectiveness of farm assurance schemes, noting that schemes in devolved nations like Scotland and Wales have worked more effectively than UK-wide schemes.
The commissioners stress the importance of learning from these successful models to improve the overall system.
Despite these issues, the review acknowledges the importance of farm assurance in ensuring food quality and traceability, which are vital to the UK food supply chain.
However, the report concludes that significant improvements are needed to make the system more farmer-friendly and to restore trust.
The commissioners are calling for UK governments to take a more active role in supporting farm assurance reforms.
With clear recommendations and a roadmap for change, the review aims to catalyse a transformation that ensures farm assurance continues to play a vital role in the future of UK agriculture.
Industry reaction to farm assurance review
In a joint statement, NFU president Tom Bradshaw and NFU Cymru president Aled Jones said: “We’d like to thank the commissioners for their dedication to this review and for delivering such a detailed report.
“This has been a critical piece of work and we hope it will provide a reset moment to enable farm assurance schemes to better deliver for the whole UK food supply chain and our customers.
“The report outlines a set of clear recommendations which reflect the key concerns of our members, from simplifying on-farm audits to improving communication with farm businesses.
“Delivering on these recommendations is essential and the NFU will work with stakeholders to play its part in helping to take them forward.
“This is a thorough and complex report and we will take time to analyse it in the detail it requires.”
An AHDB spokesperson said: “This review marks a significant step forward for farm assurance, and we are optimistic about the opportunities it presents for meaningful change across the agricultural industry.
“Over the next few weeks, we will take time to consider the findings as well as meeting with the other impacted industry parties to determine the next steps for this positive moment of change.
“We will update the industry and levy payers in due course.”
Tony Goodger, head of communications at the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (Aims), the trade body representing small and medium-sized enterprise meat businesses, said: “The whole report can by and large be summed up in a single sentence from page 118: ‘Too many farmers, feel that RT is not ‘owned by them’ but rather ‘done to them’.’
“This is no doubt also the view of the processing sector who, like the rest of the supply chain, are basically paying an assurance-based domestic market access tax.”
He added: “Almost all the strategic recommendations indicate the need for farm assurance to be reset and to this Aims’ view is that this must also include the voice of the meat industry and embrace all existing and emerging technology.”
Steve Ridsdale, chairman of the British Farming Union, said: “Farmers knew that farm assurance was not fit for purpose and this report confirms our beliefs.
“It is deeply disappointing that this review fails to include a much needed review of the injustice of non-assured grain imports.
“We feel this is a significant omission which should have been addressed before the report was published.”