The UK Farm Assurance Review – delivery of recommendations
The UK Farm Assurance Review
Delivery of recommendations
Contents
Our response to the independent review into farm assurance is split into seven sections:
- Executive summary
- Background
- The Farm Assurance Review
- Reviewing the recommendations
- Recommendations for the NFU
- Red Tractor recommendations requiring NFU leadership
- Monitoring and reporting
Where we have outlined recommendations and the NFU sector view/action, these numbered references are highlighted in red and directly correspond to the 56 recommendations in the Farm Assurance Review.
1. Executive summary
1.1 In January 2024, the NFU and AHDB announced plans for a comprehensive review of farm to fork assurance schemes to assess whether they are functioning well for farmers and supply chains and to determine whether they are fit for a modern farming environment. The FAR (Farm Assurance Review) was published in January 2025 and outlines 56 thoughtfully considered recommendations under nine strategic themes. A number of recommendations (11) name the NFU to either lead or be involved in implementation. Additionally, two recommendations name the Red Tractor ownership body, of which the NFU is part, as leading actions. This action plan sets out how we will begin this process and how we propose to play our part in delivering change for farmers and growers, the supply chain and all customers of British food and drink. While a number of those recommendations are quite general and not sector specific, there are a few that are more focused (eg, an overhaul of assurance for crops and whole life assurance for beef and lamb) which will require detailed sector based input.
1.2 The FAR has strongly highlighted how assurance means different things to different sectors, and we have been mindful of that in responding to the recommendations. It is vital that the NFU, working collectively with others, considers sector-based views rather than necessarily trying to reach consensus.
The NFU is committed to delivery and action against the FAR recommendations.
2. Background
2.1 Following growing concern over a number of years, the creation of two critical reviews was announced after NFU Council questioned whether farm assurance provides value for producers at its meeting on 23 October 2023. An initial review of Red Tractor was undertaken independently by Campbell Tickell, looking at specific issues in relation to Governance and accountability at the organisation. However, it was also clear that several wider issues with farm assurance, across multiple schemes and farming sectors, and concerns about the direction of travel were being raised by our members. Together with AHDB, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland and the Ulster Farmers' Union, the NFU commissioned an independent review of farm assurance systems – the FAR (Farm Assurance Review).
2.2 In January 2024, the NFU and AHDB announced plans for a comprehensive review of farm to fork assurance schemes to assess whether they are functioning well for farmers and supply chains and to determine whether they are fit for a modern farming environment. Both in terms of our domestic market for food and drink and in the context of a post-Brexit world of international trade agreements, changing geopolitical landscapes and shocks to the economy such as the pandemic.
2.3 In March 2024 the UK farming unions and AHDB appointed an independent commission to undertake the review, set out the terms of reference, establish a realistic timeline and to ensure that the process provides a clear outcome for the industry. To achieve this, Promar was appointed to support the data gathering and production of the report under the direction of the Commissioners.
2.4 The four commissioners driving this review were:
(1) Dr David Llewellyn CBE (lead commissioner) – Former Vice Chancellor of Harper Adams University.
(2) James Withers – Former Chief Executive Officer of Scotland Food and Drink.
(3) Mark Suthern – Chairman of Trustees of the FCN (Farming Community Network).
(4) Katrina Williams - Former Director General of Food & Farming at Defra, before leading all of Defra’s international work.
2.5 The wide ranging and eagerly anticipated Farm Assurance Review examining farm to fork assurance schemes across the UK was published in January 2025 and can be found on: Promar | Farm Assurance Review.
3. The Farm Assurance Review
3.1 The review is a comprehensive and thoughtful reflection on the 3,616 farmer responses, 162 detailed supply chain/stakeholder responses as well as desk-based research looking at previous reviews of regulation, assurance, red tape etc that have been undertaken over the years. Read the NFU's submission to the FAR.
3.2 56 detailed recommendations have been made and a number of these will require NFU input to deliver. The recommendations fall under nine strategic themes:
- On-farm audits must be reduced, simplified and delivered more consistently.
- There must be a transformational step forward in embracing technology and managing data to deliver more effective farm assurance with greater added value for all.
- Farm assurance schemes need to reset and/or restate their decision-making 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, establishing this as an area of competitive advantage for UK farming.
- The inclusion of regulatory requirements within farm assurance standards and audits should be conditional on government and regulators agreeing a form of ‘earned recognition’.
- There must be greater coordination in the way in which farm assurance operates across the UK nations.
- Farm assurance schemes must better position the UK farming industry in world food markets and in competition with imported food.
- All farm assurance schemes must review, and, where necessary, improve their methods of communication with the farming industry.
- The Red Tractor scheme must complete the implementation of recommendations in the Campbell Tickell report (governance review).
3.3 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.”
4. Reviewing the recommendations
4.1 The nine strategic themes are made up of 56 detailed recommendations. Each contains a description, an indication from the report Commissioners of which organisations they judge that the recommendation sits with, and a suggested timescale. A complete list of recommendations can be seen within the FAR.
4.2 The NFU has welcomed all of the recommendations, and we look forward to working with all stakeholders to support actions taken as a result as well as recognising the recommendations which the NFU must take a lead role in delivering.
4.3 The recommendations and strategic themes chime closely with the submission made by the NFU during the evidence gathering process. In forming the NFU response we consulted widely throughout our membership structure including:
- 45 in person member meetings starting from March to May 2024, across the whole of England and Wales. We had over 800 attendees across all the meetings.
- A member survey with responses from around 300 members – open to members only and cross checked against our membership database to ensure all responses were genuine.
- Discussions among all regional boards and NFU Council.
- Sector responses developed by regional and national NFU sector boards.
- Discussions hosted with the Farm Assurance Review Commissioners at agricultural shows across the country during summer 2024.
4.4 Farm Assurance is a topic that our members hold a range of views on depending on their sector and experience, but all those views are passionately held, so it was essential that we took care to reflect that balance. Within the spectrum of views that were articulated to us, there were some very consistent themes that emerged:
- Assurance schemes should embrace this opportunity to deliver meaningful change for scheme members and act on the recommendations that are put forward.
- Deliver, and communicate greater value for money to scheme members by recognising that value will mean different things to different sectors. Sectors require autonomy to focus on driving the best possible outcome.
- Progress is made to address the on-farm audit burden, reduce complexity, and change the culture of audit, to one that guides and supports good practice.
- Address widespread concerns about farmer representation and trust in the governance of assurance schemes.
- Nurture consumer trust, and support growth in the domestic and export markets for British food.
- Recognise the unique needs of different sectors in the assurance landscape.
4.5 Our members highlighted to us several benefits that they believe farm assurance offers, including market access, trust and traceability, demonstration of compliance/earned recognition, and supporting public perception and reputational risk. On the flipside, many areas of concern were flagged too which included value for money, the audit and inspection process, the volume of and development of standards, whether consumer and market demands are genuinely met.
4.6 Within the context of these views from our members, it is clear that the detailed recommendations from the FAR go a long way to both addressing the concerns and bolstering the positive views of farmers and growers while also balancing against the responses from the wider supply chain.
4.7 Our submission focused principally on ‘what good looks like’ views that could apply to any scheme in any sector before outlining the detailed views of each of our sector boards. In the main, the 56 recommendations are also general, but a few are more specific. Table 1 below picks out these (please note if you're viewing on a mobile you will see this table in a text only format).
Table 1: Sector specific recommendations
Recommendation | Detail | Organisation | Time | NFU sector view |
There are particular issues with the combinable crops sector, where evidence from the industry suggests that the RT (Red Tractor) model is not effective and where trust, in some cases, has broken down between the scheme and its members. We recognise that RT is working on a new entry level grain standard, but we still believe that the cereals sector must take stock of farmer feedback and decide if a new comprehensive model for the sector should be adopted. To this end, an exercise to compare and contrast the RT assurance scheme for this sector with the Scottish Quality Crops assurance scheme and the Food Fortress programme in Northern Ireland would provide a means to begin a thorough review, which should be time limited and which should engage widely with the combinable crops industry, and the AIC (Agricultural Industries Confederation), to co-develop a new approach. The review must take account of the mixed nature of many farm businesses to ensure that a new approach, if adopted, does not increase farm assurance requirements or cost. | Crops supply chain orgs, coordinated by AHDB | 6 months | Lack of value and recognition perception. A radical overhaul is required. Use of technology could reduce inspection frequency.
A more practical audit programme.
Comparison between schemes in devolved nations. | |
The combinable crops sector has particular issues with the use of assurance standards when imported products can be mixed with those produced in the UK. There is a view that this can distort the presentation and consumer understanding of a product so that it is thought to solely meet UK farm assurance standards. While it is recognised that only a limited number of consumer products based on such crops carry the RT logo, there is no equivalent trade labelling for products mixed with imported combinable crops. This practice must be changed so that clear labelling is employed to identify the origin of component materials in a combinable crops product, in order to provide a complete picture for others in the food chain, and for consumers, about the nature of a product and, with the comparative studies we have previously recommended, the standards to which it has been produced. | FA Schemes with crops sector reps and their customers | 9 months | Imported grains of differing standards mixed with UK assured grain (little trust in comparisons between UK schemes and gatekeeper protocols). | |
Livestock farm assurance schemes that do not deliver whole life assurance should establish a plan to do so. We recognise that this will disrupt elements of the farming industry, but it is essential to the longer-term delivery of consumer confidence in product standards and to maintaining the assurance link between product origin and the consumer. | Relevant FA schemes | 1 year | Lack of whole life assurance could undermine trust. A system is needed that recognises segmentation (eg, stores vs finishers). |
Table 1: Sector specific recommendations
Recommendation
6.1 Consider a new approach for combinable crops
Detail
There are particular issues with the combinable crops sector, where evidence from the industry suggests that the RT (Red Tractor) model is not effective and where trust, in some cases, has broken down between the scheme and its members. We recognise that RT is working on a new entry level grain standard, but we still believe that the cereals sector must take stock of farmer feedback and decide if a new comprehensive model for the sector should be adopted. To this end, an exercise to compare and contrast the RT assurance scheme for this sector with the Scottish Quality Crops assurance scheme and the Food Fortress programme in Northern Ireland would provide a means to begin a thorough review, which should be time limited and which should engage widely with the combinable crops industry, and the AIC (Agricultural Industries Confederation), to co-develop a new approach. The review must take account of the mixed nature of many farm businesses to ensure that a new approach, if adopted, does not increase farm assurance requirements or cost.
Organisations
Crops supply chain orgs, coordinated by AHDB.
Time
6 months.
NFU sector view
Lack of value and recognition perception. A radical overhaul is required. Use of technology could reduce inspection frequency.
A more practical audit programme.
Comparison between schemes in devolved nations.
Recommendation
7.3 Farm assurance for combinable crops
Detail
The combinable crops sector has particular issues with the use of assurance standards when imported products can be mixed with those produced in the UK. There is a view that this can distort the presentation and consumer understanding of a product so that it is thought to solely meet UK farm assurance standards. While it is recognised that only a limited number of consumer products based on such crops carry the RT logo, there is no equivalent trade labelling for products mixed with imported combinable crops. This practice must be changed so that clear labelling is employed to identify the origin of component materials in a combinable crops product, in order to provide a complete picture for others in the food chain, and for consumers, about the nature of a product and, with the comparative studies we have previously recommended, the standards to which it has been produced.
Organisations
FA Schemes with crops sector reps and their customers.
Time
9 months.
NFU sector view
Imported grains of differing standards mixed with UK assured grain (little trust in comparisons between UK schemes and gatekeeper protocols).
Recommendation
6.4 The role of whole life in farm assurance
Detail
Livestock farm assurance schemes that do not deliver whole life assurance should establish a plan to do so. We recognise that this will disrupt elements of the farming industry, but it is essential to the longer-term delivery of consumer confidence in product standards and to maintaining the assurance link between product origin and the consumer.
Organisations
Relevant FA Schemes.
Time
1 year.
NFU sector view
Lack of whole life assurance could undermine trust.
A system is needed that recognises segmentation (eg, stores vs finishers).
5. Recommendations for the NFU
5.1 A number of recommendations highlight actions for the NFU. Table 2 below picks these out along with a brief description of steps that will be taken – this will be an evolving piece of work, and we will continue to update members on our progress and steps taken. For recommendation 1.1 about ‘Clarity of Purpose’, time and effort will be required to come up with a framework that encapsulates the nature of what the umbrella can be which allows different schemes and sectors the ability to meet core objectives while also responding to market need. This is about being specific enough to be meaningful, offering flexibility for sector autonomy and delivering value for the relevant sector in a measurable way. Please note if you're viewing Table 2 on a mobile you will see this table in a text only format.
Table 2: FAR recommendations with NFU identified or assumed
Recommendation | Organisations identified in FAR | NFU actions |
|---|---|---|
1.1 Clarity of purpose. The purpose and scope of farm assurance must be clarified and reset, based on the good practice statement set out in this report. Agreement should be sought from bodies across the food supply chain on this restatement so that there is a clear understanding of the need for, and objectives of, a high-quality UK farm assurance system. | NFU and AHDB | This is a core part of the narrative of the FAR and a key concept in the NFU submission. The NFU will take a leadership role here that recognises the autonomy and demands of different sectors and ambitions. The NFU and AHDB have begun the process of working together to deliver this and are including stakeholders within the process. A roundtable meeting to inform discussion has been arranged. This is a key part of the transformational change outlined in the strategic objective and is a priority for the NFU. |
2.2 Data ownership. Any outstanding issues surrounding the ownership, holding and use/sharing of data required by farm assurance schemes, following the review and streamlining of current standards recommended earlier in this report, must be clarified in conjunction with farming industry bodies and the results communicated to the farming industry as soon as practicable. It is recognised that certain farming data may be seen as valuable by assurance scheme members, but it is essential that value creation by a farming business is not conflated with the use of anonymised data that can help direct improvements in farming assurance and farming systems. This distinction needs to be ‘written in’ to an industry compact about data ownership, custodianship and use that will be vital if the longer-term benefits arising from the wider use of technology in farm assurance systems are to be realised. | FA Schemes, Farming Unions and AHDB | Greater use of technology was a key theme within our FAR submission and key to that is the data that is fed in. Between organisations, there may be scope for data sharing that benefits scheme members. Where farm data is shared, it should be used for the purposes described and ownership of data should be clear. Farm data may have a financial value and this should be respected. We will support this process though AHDB is likely to take a lead role. The guidance set out in Farm Data Principles will make a vital starting point: Farm Data Principles |
2.5 Future possibilities – using collective expertise. The farming industry should seek to facilitate a regular ‘hackathon’ – inviting subject matter experts and institutions to help gather relevant businesses/academics to address the question of the longer-term use of technology in farm assurance. The literature review for this report shows that the topic of technology is often raised as a solution but there has been little collaboration and focus on building solutions that will help reduce the burden of assurance on farming businesses while satisfying the information needs of those who rely upon farm assurance for wider business or regulatory purposes. | NFUs, AHDB and Defra Data Group, with Agri-Tech E &/or UK Agri-Tech Centre & FA schemes | The NFU will support this activity. |
4.1 Developing environmental standards. The RT scheme has made clear that it will not revisit the Greener Farms Commitment (or its successor) unless and until the farming industry asks it to do so. Other schemes will be progressing their own environmental standards in consultation with their respective members. In these circumstances there is no firm leadership around the issue of establishing a consistent framework for environmental standards that can act as a guide for farm businesses, nor is there clarity around how emerging legislation, with which the farming industry will be expected to comply, will be incorporated in farm assurance, other than in a very fragmented way. This issue must therefore be taken out of the hands of the farm assurance system and addressed by farming representatives, working with the relevant regulators, to provide a ‘foresight’ style approach to the conversion of environmental legal expectations into a code for use by farm assurance providers and farm businesses. This process will require the respective central and devolved government ministries and their agencies, to work with the industry to establish as common a framework as possible so that anomalies will not be ‘baked into’ farm assurance standards in different parts of the UK. To begin this process, the AHDB/NFUs must clearly articulate what is currently required by each of the seven industry sectors to be legally compliant with current environmental legislation and conduct a gap analysis of methods for compliance and requirements of emerging/anticipated legislation for discussion with the ministries and their agencies. | AHDB, NFUs, Gov depts and relevant agencies | Recognising that this is an issue which in part prompted the commencement of the Campbell Tickell review and FAR. This process will begin with a review of existing environmental legislation and a review of any additional requirements. We will work with AHDB and other agencies to achieve this. |
4.2 Implementing environmental standards. In taking the above approach there must be clear and regular communication with farm businesses about the steps they can take to meet the necessary environmental legislative baseline and any agreed farm assurance standards related to that baseline. This should be on the basis of a menu of options for farming businesses to adopt, so that a ‘one size fits all’ approach for farm businesses is avoided. | AHDB and NFUs | This is about implementing environmental standards within FA schemes. The NFU will help to drive this conversation forward. NFU sector boards will help us to shape an outcome fit for the differing sector requirements while keeping in mind that this must demonstrate value for all in the form of premiums, market access, reducing audit or similar – as a result this will look different in different sectors and Farm Assurance schemes. |
4.5 Looking ahead to future environmental standards. Farm assurance schemes must work with the whole food supply chain to look at emerging trends to help the food sector be current and less defensive on environmental issues. We propose a further ’foresight’ exercise to begin this process. It will be necessary to continue to monitor the UK’s farming performance on environmental standards and to benchmark this performance against competitor farming nations and international farm assurance standards. The review process must be driven from the perspective of farming businesses, taking longer term changes in environmental regulations as a baseline, whilst continuing to enable farms to determine how they will meet new standards from a menu of sector-appropriate farming measures. | FA Schemes with farming and food chain industry reps | This will be an area for our sector boards to participate in and demonstrate their leadership and expertise – there is clear emphasis on the perspective of farming businesses so the NFU must also seek views from wider membership and through our governance structures. |
5.2 Consistency of regulatory use of farm assurance. There are a variety of ways in which government departments and agencies employ farm assurance, ranging from the concept of ‘earned recognition’ resulting in reduced inspections from an agency, or a laissez-faire approach where farm assurance has been outsourced to private providers and left to the market, to the engagement by a devolved government department in the co-development of farm support systems involving the industry and a farm assurance scheme. This patchwork approach to the use of farm assurance in the regulatory environment is no longer viable. A more strategic view is required, where the respective government departments, and their agencies, must determine how, and when, they expect to use farm assurance in their regulatory systems, and a consistent approach to its use is negotiated and agreed with farm assurance schemes and relevant industry bodies. An early part of these negotiations should be to properly define the term ‘earned recognition’ so that the concept is employed consistently across the farm assurance landscape. | Gov depts, regulatory agencies and NFUs | The NFU can work with government agencies here but we must ensure that earned recognition benefits the producer and not just the regulator. |
7.2 Informing UK farming about standards in other nations. The AHDB and NFUs must use the information obtained via the ongoing programme of comparative assessments of international food standards to provide the farming industry with an evidence base of how UK food production really compares with that of competitor nations. The information in these assessments should provide clear comparisons for ease of interpretation and should highlight major differences where international standards either exceed or fall below those employed in the UK. | AHDB and NFUs | This is an important area of work. It was clear from the FAR report that producers were concerned about differing standards for imported products but also that they were largely unaware of what the differences were. |
7.3 Farm Assurance for combinable crops. The combinable crops sector has particular issues with the use of assurance standards when imported products can be mixed with those produced in the UK. There is a view that this can distort the presentation and consumer understanding of a product so that it is thought to solely meet UK farm assurance standards. While it is recognised that only a limited number of consumer products based on such crops carry the RT logo there is no equivalent trade labelling for products mixed with imported combinable crops. This practice must be changed so that clear labelling is employed to identify the origin of component materials in a combinable crops product, in order to provide a complete picture for others in the food chain, and for consumers, about the nature of a product and, with the comparative studies we have previously recommended, the standards to which it has been produced. | FA Schemes with crops sector reps and their customers | The NFU Combinable Crops Board has taken a mature approach to outlining the challenges and opportunities of the current farm assurance landscape and is happy to support this process. Work undertaken must show openness and transparency around imported grains and better articulate the purpose of a standard – eg, is it about regulatory need, market requirements or something else? |
7.4 Reviewing international standards by government. All government departments with responsibility for the farming and food industries should ensure that they reconsider their approach to ensuring that standards for imported food are equivalent to those of UK farm assurance schemes, and that movements in international standards are kept under close review to assist in the export of UK food products. The work we propose must be conducted by the AHDB and NFUs, to maintain oversight of international food assurance standards, should be used as evidence to support this recommendation and it should be seen as a refocus by government departments on developing and supporting a new, comprehensive, UK food export strategy. | Relevant gov depts, with AHDB and NFUs | AHDB has undertaken a great deal of work in this area already on a sector by sector basis. We can monitor and support this on an ongoing basis. |
8.4 Avoiding 'mission creep'. We have already recommended changes to the way in which farm assurance standards are introduced to ensure that their origin is clearly stated. In cases where changes to farm audits that purport to relate to farm assurance requirements fall outside the accepted purpose and scope of farm assurance contained in this report, they must be subject to full industry consultation, an independent impact assessment and an agreed method to share the cost of implementation and operation. These actions must be undertaken collaboratively to achieve a collective decision on whether, and how, such changes are to be implemented, and how the costs will be shared across the wider food chain. | BRC with NFU and AHDB | This is a key theme outlined in the NFU submission to the FAR. We are already working with AHDB on this area and have reached out to BRC to begin a conversation in this space. |
Table 2: FAR recommendations with NFU identified or assumed
Recommendation
1.1 Clarity of purpose. The purpose and scope of farm assurance must be clarified and reset, based on the good practice statement set out in this report. Agreement should be sought from bodies across the food supply chain on this restatement so that there is a clear understanding of the need for, and objectives of, a high-quality UK farm assurance system.
Organisations identified in FAR
NFU and AHDB.
NFU actions
This is a core part of the narrative of the FAR and a key concept in the NFU submission. The NFU will take a leadership role here that recognises the autonomy and demands of different sectors and ambitions. The NFU and AHDB have begun the process of working together to deliver this and are including stakeholders within the process. A roundtable meeting to inform discussion has been arranged. This is a key part of the transformational change outlined in the strategic objective and is a priority for the NFU.
Recommendation
2.2 Data ownership. Any outstanding issues surrounding the ownership, holding and use/sharing of data required by farm assurance schemes, following the review and streamlining of current standards recommended earlier in this report, must be clarified in conjunction with farming industry bodies and the results communicated to the farming industry as soon as practicable. It is recognised that certain farming data may be seen as valuable by assurance scheme members, but it is essential that value creation by a farming business is not conflated with the use of anonymised data that can help direct improvements in farming assurance and farming systems. This distinction needs to be ‘written in’ to an industry compact about data ownership, custodianship and use that will be vital if the longer-term benefits arising from the wider use of technology in farm assurance systems are to be realised.
Organisations identified in FAR
FA Schemes, Farming Unions and AHDB.
NFU actions
Greater use of technology was a key theme within our FAR submission and key to that is the data that is fed in. Between organisations, there may be scope for data sharing that benefits scheme members. Where farm data is shared, it should be used for the purposes described and ownership of data should be clear. Farm data may have a financial value and this should be respected. We will support this process though AHDB is likely to take a lead role. The guidance set out in Farm Data Principles will make a vital starting point: Farm Data Principles.
Recommendation
2.5 Future possibilities – using collective expertise. The farming industry should seek to facilitate a regular ‘hackathon’ – inviting subject matter experts and institutions to help gather relevant businesses/academics to address the question of the longer-term use of technology in farm assurance. The literature review for this report shows that the topic of technology is often raised as a solution but there has been little collaboration and focus on building solutions that will help reduce the burden of assurance on farming businesses while satisfying the information needs of those who rely upon farm assurance for wider business or regulatory purposes.
Organisations identified in FAR
NFUs, AHDB and Defra Data Group, with Agri-Tech E &/or UK Agri-Tech Centre & FA schemes.
NFU actions
The NFU will support this activity.
Recommendation
4.1 Developing environmental standards. The RT scheme has made clear that it will not revisit the Greener Farms Commitment (or its successor) unless and until the farming industry asks it to do so. Other schemes will be progressing their own environmental standards in consultation with their respective members. In these circumstances there is no firm leadership around the issue of establishing a consistent framework for environmental standards that can act as a guide for farm businesses, nor is there clarity around how emerging legislation, with which the farming industry will be expected to comply, will be incorporated in farm assurance, other than in a very fragmented way. This issue must therefore be taken out of the hands of the farm assurance system and addressed by farming representatives, working with the relevant regulators, to provide a ‘foresight’ style approach to the conversion of environmental legal expectations into a code for use by farm assurance providers and farm businesses. This process will require the respective central and devolved government ministries and their agencies, to work with the industry to establish as common a framework as possible so that anomalies will not be ‘baked into’ farm assurance standards in different parts of the UK. To begin this process, the AHDB/NFUs must clearly articulate what is currently required by each of the seven industry sectors to be legally compliant with current environmental legislation and conduct a gap analysis of methods for compliance and requirements of emerging/anticipated legislation for discussion with the ministries and their agencies.
Organisations identified in FAR
AHDB, NFUs, Gov depts and relevant agencies.
NFU actions
Recognising that this is an issue which in part prompted the commencement of the Campbell Tickell review and FAR. This process will begin with a review of existing environmental legislation and a review of any additional requirements. We will work with AHDB and other agencies to achieve this.
In recognition of these previous challenges, the 9-12 month timescale is unlikely to be sufficient to build both standards and confidence within the farming sector.
A gap analysis is underway.
Recommendation
4.2 Implementing environmental standards. In taking the above approach there must be clear and regular communication with farm businesses about the steps they can take to meet the necessary environmental legislative baseline and any agreed farm assurance standards related to that baseline. This should be on the basis of a menu of options for farming businesses to adopt, so that a ‘one size fits all’ approach for farm businesses is avoided.
Organisations identified in FAR
AHDB and NFUs.
NFU actions
This is about implementing environmental standards within FA schemes. The NFU will help to drive this conversation forward. NFU sector boards will help us to shape an outcome fit for the differing sector requirements while keeping in mind that this must demonstrate value for all in the form of premiums, market access, reducing audit or similar – as a result this will look different in different sectors and Farm Assurance schemes.
Recommendation
4.5 Looking ahead to future environmental standards. Farm assurance schemes must work with the whole food supply chain to look at emerging trends to help the food sector be current and less defensive on environmental issues. We propose a further ’foresight’ exercise to begin this process. It will be necessary to continue to monitor the UK’s farming performance on environmental standards and to benchmark this performance against competitor farming nations and international farm assurance standards. The review process must be driven from the perspective of farming businesses, taking longer term changes in environmental regulations as a baseline, whilst continuing to enable farms to determine how they will meet new standards from a menu of sector-appropriate farming measures.
Organisations identified in FAR
FA Schemes with farming and food chain industry reps.
NFU actions
This will be an area for our sector boards to participate in and demonstrate their leadership and expertise – there is clear emphasis on the perspective of farming businesses so the NFU must also seek views from wider membership and through our governance structures.
Recommendation
5.2 Consistency of regulatory use of farm assurance. There are a variety of ways in which government departments and agencies employ farm assurance, ranging from the concept of ‘earned recognition’ resulting in reduced inspections from an agency, or a laissez-faire approach where farm assurance has been outsourced to private providers and left to the market, to the engagement by a devolved government department in the co-development of farm support systems involving the industry and a farm assurance scheme. This patchwork approach to the use of farm assurance in the regulatory environment is no longer viable. A more strategic view is required, where the respective government departments, and their agencies, must determine how, and when, they expect to use farm assurance in their regulatory systems, and a consistent approach to its use is negotiated and agreed with farm assurance schemes and relevant industry bodies. An early part of these negotiations should be to properly define the term ‘earned recognition’ so that the concept is employed consistently across the farm assurance landscape.
Organisations identified in FAR
Gov depts, regulatory agencies and NFUs.
NFU actions
The NFU can work with government agencies here but we must ensure that earned recognition benefits the producer and not just the regulator.
Recommendation
7.2 Informing UK farming about standards in other nations. The AHDB and NFUs must use the information obtained via the ongoing programme of comparative assessments of international food standards to provide the farming industry with an evidence base of how UK food production really compares with that of competitor nations. The information in these assessments should provide clear comparisons for ease of interpretation and should highlight major differences where international standards either exceed or fall below those employed in the UK.
Organisations identified in FAR
AHDB and NFUs.
NFU actions
This is an important area of work. It was clear from the FAR report that producers were concerned about differing standards for imported products but also that they were largely unaware of what the differences were.
Recommendation
7.3 Farm Assurance for combinable crops. The combinable crops sector has particular issues with the use of assurance standards when imported products can be mixed with those produced in the UK. There is a view that this can distort the presentation and consumer understanding of a product so that it is thought to solely meet UK farm assurance standards. While it is recognised that only a limited number of consumer products based on such crops carry the RT logo there is no equivalent trade labelling for products mixed with imported combinable crops. This practice must be changed so that clear labelling is employed to identify the origin of component materials in a combinable crops product, in order to provide a complete picture for others in the food chain, and for consumers, about the nature of a product and, with the comparative studies we have previously recommended, the standards to which it has been produced.
Organisations identified in FAR
FA Schemes with crops sector reps and their customers.
NFU actions
The NFU Combinable Crops Board has taken a mature approach to outlining the challenges and opportunities of the current farm assurance landscape and is happy to support this process. Work undertaken must show openness and transparency around imported grains and better articulate the purpose of a standard – eg, is it about regulatory need, market requirements or something else?
Recommendation
7.4 Reviewing international standards by government. All government departments with responsibility for the farming and food industries should ensure that they reconsider their approach to ensuring that standards for imported food are equivalent to those of UK farm assurance schemes, and that movements in international standards are kept under close review to assist in the export of UK food products. The work we propose must be conducted by the AHDB and NFUs, to maintain oversight of international food assurance standards, should be used as evidence to support this recommendation and it should be seen as a refocus by government departments on developing and supporting a new, comprehensive, UK food export strategy.
Organisations identified in FAR
Relevant gov depts, with AHDB and NFUs.
NFU actions
AHDB has undertaken a great deal of work in this area already on a sector by sector basis. We can monitor and support this on an ongoing basis.
Recommendation
8.4 Avoiding 'mission creep'. We have already recommended changes to the way in which farm assurance standards are introduced to ensure that their origin is clearly stated. In cases where changes to farm audits that purport to relate to farm assurance requirements fall outside the accepted purpose and scope of farm assurance contained in this report, they must be subject to full industry consultation, an independent impact assessment and an agreed method to share the cost of implementation and operation. These actions must be undertaken collaboratively to achieve a collective decision on whether, and how, such changes are to be implemented, and how the costs will be shared across the wider food chain.
Organisations identified in FAR
BRC with NFU and AHDB.
NFU actions
This is a key theme outlined in the NFU submission to the FAR. We are already working with AHDB on this area and have reached out to BRC to begin a conversation in this space.
6. Red Tractor recommendations requiring NFU leadership
6.1 Table 3 picks out recommendations for the NFU in its role as part of the Red Tractor ownership body. Red Tractor has recently set out a response to the FAR recommendations which can be found at: Red Tractor Response to Farm Assurance Review. The Red Tractor board, of which the NFU is part, has committed Red Tractor to a wide ranging programme of improvements both based on the FAR and what was already underway following the Campbell Tickell review. As a Red Tractor board member, NFU Deputy President David Exwood said: “The sector boards have been instrumental in shaping the Red Tractor response to the Farm Assurance Review and their input is greatly appreciated.
“The response demonstrates a desire to listen and, crucially, to make changes where appropriate. The Farm Assurance Review gives us a moment to reset. We are now on track and ready to make positive changes at pace, and ensure farmers have a stronger voice in assurance.”
Please note if you're viewing Table 3 on a mobile you will see this table in a text only format.
Table 3: Recommendations for Red Tractor ownership body
Recommendation | Organisations identified in FAR | Actions |
|---|---|---|
8.6 Ownership of Red Tractor. (Aimed at ownership bodies). We considered the current ownership arrangements of RT, and the merits, or otherwise, of changing to a more independent structure, as suggested in the scheme’s evidence submitted to the Commission. We recognise that this scheme can be caught between the requirements of its owners and need to implement change or address issues that might prove difficult with one of the industry sectors it serves. This means that the scheme is sometimes held to account for matters beyond its immediate control, or that change can take much longer than necessary. Coupled with some shortcomings in its approach to communications with farming members this has contributed to the largely negative feedback we have received from farmers about the scheme and its operation. However, because we have concluded that the scheme exists to serve its farming members, and that there would be the possibility of a farm assurance landscape driven by other industry sectors rather than with the full contribution of farmer members, a change to a more independent structure is not appropriate at this point. It follows that the current ownership arrangements should remain in place but these must be balanced by the RT Board being reaffirmed as the primary governing body for the organisation. The owners of the scheme must show greater and more active leadership, to help shape its future direction and organisational culture, but without straying into issues of setting strategic direction and overseeing operational delivery, which should remain with the RT board. The terms of this arrangement should be established by the Board and the scheme owners and published so that they are clear to members of the scheme. | Red Tractor Board and Ownership Body | As part of the Ownership Body, the NFU will proactively take on board the comments in this recommendation working alongside the other owners. |
9.2 A formal assessment of changes to Red Tractor. Even though the Campbell Tickell report may address current issues concerning the governance of the RT scheme, it remains to be seen if, in the longer term, the measures in that report, together with those in this review, have successfully repaired the levels of trust necessary to create a more positive relationship between the scheme and the farming community. To this end, the sponsoring bodies for this review must conduct a formal assessment of the outcome of both reports, to determine how farmer sentiment towards the scheme has changed as a result of this programme of work. | NFU and AHDB | This will be reviewed and, along with the other recommendations in the FAR, the recently announced monitoring and reporting work which the NFU and AHDB are funding will support this – more detail below. |
Table 3: Recommendations for Red Tractor ownership body
Recommendation
8.6 Ownership of Red Tractor. (Aimed at ownership bodies). We considered the current ownership arrangements of RT, and the merits, or otherwise, of changing to a more independent structure, as suggested in the scheme’s evidence submitted to the Commission. We recognise that this scheme can be caught between the requirements of its owners and need to implement change or address issues that might prove difficult with one of the industry sectors it serves. This means that the scheme is sometimes held to account for matters beyond its immediate control, or that change can take much longer than necessary. Coupled with some shortcomings in its approach to communications with farming members this has contributed to the largely negative feedback we have received from farmers about the scheme and its operation. However, because we have concluded that the scheme exists to serve its farming members, and that there would be the possibility of a farm assurance landscape driven by other industry sectors rather than with the full contribution of farmer members, a change to a more independent structure is not appropriate at this point. It follows that the current ownership arrangements should remain in place but these must be balanced by the RT Board being reaffirmed as the primary governing body for the organisation. The owners of the scheme must show greater and more active leadership, to help shape its future direction and organisational culture, but without straying into issues of setting strategic direction and overseeing operational delivery, which should remain with the RT board. The terms of this arrangement should be established by the Board and the scheme owners and published so that they are clear to members of the scheme.
Organisations identified in FAR
Red Tractor Board and Ownership Body.
Actions
As part of the Ownership Body, the NFU will proactively take on board the comments in this recommendation working alongside the other owners.
We are committed to working with the board and other owners to deliver the best possible balance of active leadership alongside the RT Board’s operational delivery and will ensure that this process happens transparently.
Recommendation
9.2 A formal assessment of changes to Red Tractor. Even though the Campbell Tickell report may address current issues concerning the governance of the RT scheme, it remains to be seen if, in the longer term, the measures in that report, together with those in this review, have successfully repaired the levels of trust necessary to create a more positive relationship between the scheme and the farming community. To this end, the sponsoring bodies for this review must conduct a formal assessment of the outcome of both reports, to determine how farmer sentiment towards the scheme has changed as a result of this programme of work.
Organisations identified in FAR
NFU and AHDB.
Actions
This will be reviewed and, along with the other recommendations in the FAR, the recently announced monitoring and reporting work which the NFU and AHDB are funding will support this – more detail below.
7. Monitoring and reporting
7.1 The NFU is absolutely committed to ensuring that the FAR and the carefully considered recommendations within it do not just sit on a shelf gathering dust. They must be acted upon. While we recognise that the FAR is not ‘the law’, the recommendations are rooted in the sentiment of our farmer and grower members and we have a duty to lead and facilitate progress. Many of the timescales outlined in the UK Farm Assurance Review are optimistic and challenging, but our interpretation is that this is intentional in order to maintain momentum and the important thing at this stage is to demonstrate progress.
7.2 Our sector boards who have universally welcomed the FAR have been reviewing the recommendations to set their own priorities and as an organisation we have reached out to key stakeholders with the aim of bringing everyone on the journey with us.
7.3 Crucially, those organisations who funded this review, NFU, AHDB, NFU Scotland and Ulster Farmers' Union, have agreed to maintain the momentum mentioned above by retaining and funding the support of Lead Commissioner Dr David Llewelyn and Promar to independently monitor progress against the recommendations and report on outcomes. This will include the publication of an interim review in Autumn 2025 and a full review in Spring 2026, just over a year after the publication of the FAR.
Further reading
NFU submits response to the UK Farm Assurance Review Commission
Following extensive consultation with our members, the NFU submitted its response to the Farm Assurance Review Commission. Read our response.
What is the relationship between the NFU and Red Tractor?
As founders, the NFU, NFUS and UFU sit on what is known as “the ownership body” of Red Tractor alongside AHDB, Dairy UK and the British Retail Consortium. Find out more.
Promar | Farm Assurance Review
The first UK-wide, comprehensive review of farm assurance has called for a fundamental reset of the system to rebuild confidence amongst farmers. Read the UK Farm Assurance Review in full.
Built with Shorthand