Progress of the Farm Assurance Review: Key Insights and Updates

In March of this year, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) and the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) decided to initiate a comprehensive evaluation of farm assurance. This move came in response to widespread dissatisfaction regarding Red Tractor’s implementation of an environmental initiative called the Greener Farms Commitment (GFC).

Despite the £295,000 investment in developing the GFC, the plans were ultimately scrapped.

The intense backlash highlighted the need for a thorough review of all farm assurance schemes, leading to support from NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru, and the Ulster Farmers’ Union.

See also: Four farming unions to oversee wider Red Tractor review

Four commissioners have been appointed to lead this review:

• Dr. David Llewellyn, lead commissioner and former vice-chancellor of Harper Adams University;
• James Withers, the former chief executive of Scotland Food and Drink;
• Mark Suthern, chairman of trustees at the Farming Community Network (FCN);
• and Katrina Williams, a former civil servant.

Promar International and Supply Chain InSites (SCI) are assisting them in this endeavor.

Seizing the Opportunity

In an interview with Farmers Weekly, Dr. Llewellyn referred to this review as a “once in a generation opportunity” to reassess farm assurance, countering criticisms that the commissioners would inherently support existing assurance frameworks.

“Our aim is not to declare that farm assurance is the definitive solution,” Dr. Llewellyn stated.

“We will maintain an impartial stance about the entire system, without merely advocating for farm assurance as some have suggested.”

John Giles from Promar noted, “While we may have personal opinions, our goal is to adhere strictly to the evidence, regardless of any preconceived narratives.

“The review’s terms of reference do not prioritize the interests of current providers.”

Exploring Alternatives

Simultaneously, other stakeholders in the supply chain are actively investigating alternatives to the existing assurance framework.

The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (Aims) has developed a proposal called “VetAssure,” with a proof of concept expected by October. This program aims to provide a comprehensive farm-to-fork assurance system utilizing statutory veterinary reviews, blockchain technology, and AI for real-time monitoring and risk assessment along the supply chain, ultimately simplifying trade through a proposed ‘green lane’ for exports.

Dr. Llewellyn has engaged in initial talks with Aims regarding this innovative project.

When asked if the review might endorse such innovative strategies, he replied:

“If viable, novel ideas that benefit primary producers and the broader food chain arise, we will give them serious consideration for our recommendations, as that would be equitable.”

However, the commissioners are not expected to thoroughly examine the potential advantages farmers might find outside of assurance schemes.

Dr. Llewellyn commented, “It’s not our role to evaluate the benefits of opting out of farm assurance schemes; individuals will make their own market decisions about that.”

Emerging Themes from Consultations

Throughout the review process, the commissioners have engaged with farmers extensively, uncovering several key themes through discussions.

One significant concern expressed by farmers involved in multiple schemes is the redundancy and inefficiency caused by repeated audits. Another prevalent theme highlights the need for standardized audits, as different auditors tend to focus on varying priorities.

Additionally, many farmers voiced frustrations regarding underutilized technology, believing there is substantial room for improvement through real-time data gathering. The stress related to audits also emerged as a critical issue.

Dr. Llewellyn plans to address the perceived lack of competition within assurance frameworks, as farmers often find themselves compelled to join specific schemes to access certain markets.

“It’s clear we can’t mandate changes for those engaging with certain products,” he remarked.

Mr. Giles added, “The diversity of opinions shared indicates polarized views on farm assurance. Individuals’ perspectives can vary widely based on their customer base or geographical location, particularly among dairy farmers or strawberry growers.”

So far, it appears that farmers in the devolved nations generally feel more content with assurance schemes compared to their counterparts in England.

“While issues exist, they seem to maintain more favorable relationships with assurance schemes,” Dr. Llewellyn observed.

Future Recommendations

As with any comprehensive review, it remains uncertain whether the recommendations made will be implemented. However, to prevent the outcome of the report from becoming sidelined, the commissioners aim to validate their recommendations with focus groups and stakeholders before its publication.

“Given the multitude of stakeholders in the system, achieving comprehensive acceptance from the outset may prove challenging for some recommendations,” Dr. Llewellyn noted.

“Our focus will revolve around suggesting improvements that have broad appeal, encompassing primary producers to end consumers.”

The forthcoming recommendations will likely be categorized by short, medium, or long-term objectives, acknowledging that certain contentious matters may require extended discussion.

“We may present findings that could be uncomfortable for various sectors within the food system,” Dr. Llewellyn indicated.

“From there, it depends on the willingness of others to engage in dialogue. We’ve seen instances where recommendations from previous reviews have remained unattended on shelves for extended periods.”

“Our goal is to see constructive engagement with our recommendations, if not all, then certainly some.”

The commissioners plan to publish their report by the end of the year, with the evidence collection phase concluding in September.