© Adobe Stock In March of this year, the NFU and AHDB agreed to hold a “root and branch” review of farm assurance, following an outpouring of anger over Red Tractor’s decision to introduce

an environmental module known as the Greener Farms Commitment (GFC). Plans for the GFC, which had cost £295,000 to develop, were subsequently dropped. But the row was so bitter that a review

of farm assurance as a whole, covering all schemes, was deemed necessary. It subsequently won the backing of NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru and the Ulster Farmers’ Union. See also: Four farming

unions to oversee wider Red Tractor review Since then, four commissioners have been appointed to undertake the review: * lead commissioner and former vice-chancellor of Harper Adams

review as a “once in a generation opportunity” to look at the issue, hitting back at critics who suggested the commissioners would take a supportive position on assurance.   “We haven’t set

out to say ‘yes, farm assurance is absolutely the key thing here’,” he said. “We’re taking a very independent view about the whole system, not just trying to suggest, as some people have at

the beginning of this review, that we’re backing farm assurance.” John Giles, from Promar, added: “We may all have personal views about this, but we’re very keen to follow what the evidence

tells us, whether it fits a certain narrative or not. “The terms of reference [of the review] certainly don’t say ‘protect the self-interest of the existing providers’.” ALTERNATIVES

Already, other players in the supply chain are busy working on alternatives to the status quo. The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (Aims), for example, has created a “VetAssure”

proposal, with proof of concept due to be completed in October. The group describes the programme as “comprehensive farm-to-fork assurance that leverages statutory veterinary reviews,

blockchain and AI to monitor and risk-assess the entire supply chain in real-time, enabling remote sampling and facilitating frictionless trade through the creation of a ‘green lane’ for

export”. Dr Llewellyn has had an introductory conversation with Aims about the project. Asked whether the review’s recommendations would include a focus on innovative approaches such as

this, he said: “If there are novel ideas that are workable and would be a benefit to the primary producers as much as to everybody else in the food chain, then we will take a good look at

them. “We will see whether they form part of our recommendations, because that would be the only fair thing to do.” The commissioners are unlikely to explore, however, the potential benefits

to farmers of being outside an assurance scheme. “I don’t know that it’s up to us if we’re supposed to be looking at farm assurance to look at the benefits of being outside farm assurance

schemes, other than to say people will make their own decisions about that,” said Dr Llewellyn. “That’s a market decision, rather than an assurance scheme decision.” KEY THEMES TO EMERGE

FROM CONSULTATIONS As part of the review, the commissioners have been communicating with farmers for several months and are now at the point where they have seen some key themes emerging

from the discussions. One major issue for farmers who are part of multiple schemes is duplication of effort when they have to undergo more than one audit.   A second key theme that has

emerged from farmer feedback is the need for consistency of audit, with different auditors at present focusing on different things.   Failure to make proper use of technology was a third

area of concern for some farmers, who believe there is more scope to take advantage of real-time data collection, for example. And stress associated with audit was another serious worry. Dr

Llewellyn also intends to “grapple with” the issue of a lack of competition in assurance, with some farmers forced to be part of a particular scheme to access certain markets. “Clearly, we

can’t turn around and say those who use those products ultimately have to change their minds,” he said. Mr Giles added: “There’s quite a wide range of views being expressed, and there’s

probably a little less in the middle. People are either quite antagonistic towards farm assurance or supportive. “Among a cohort of dairy farmers or strawberry growers there are different

views depending on who your customer is or where you are in the country. “But even in what appears to be a homogeneous company from the outside, when it comes to farm assurance, people will

have a very different view depending on which bit of the business they’re in.” Feedback has also been difficult to unpick because people can have very different views about different

schemes. So far, the commissioners have found that as a general rule, farmers in the devolved nations are happier with assurance schemes than their counterparts in England. “That’s not to

say there aren’t issues, but they seem to have some reasonable working relationships with the schemes in some of the devolved nations,” said Dr Llewelyn. INFORMATION GATHERING – SURVEYS AND

ROADSHOWS Feedback from farmers has been collated through a series of channels, including an online survey which has generated almost 3,000 responses, and via organisations such as the NFU

and AHDB. The commissioners will also have attended 12 shows and events when evidence gathering draws to a close, speaking to an estimated 180 people. Outreach has taken place through marts

too, with posters and forms sent out, and the Farming Community Network (FCN) has been pointing people to the online survey. As well as speaking to farmers, the commissioners have been

conducting interviews with individual retailers, the British Retail Consortium, food processors, some major food service businesses and policymakers. Those involved in running assurance

schemes themselves have also been consulted. RECOMMENDATIONS As with all reviews of this nature, whether its recommendations are acted upon is out of the control of the commissioners. But to

avoid a scenario where the report sits on a shelf gathering dust, they intend to test potential recommendations with focus groups, individuals and organisations to ensure they’re workable

before publishing. “There are many different players in the system and to have something that is going to be comprehensively acceptable right from day one may not be feasible in some of our

recommendations. “It may be more feasible in others,” said Dr Llewellyn. “We’ll be thinking about what we can suggest as improvements that can be acceptable to a wide variety of people from

primary producers right through to the end product and also trying to get views from consumers. “It really is quite a balancing act that we’ll have to put into the recommendations.” Those

recommendations are also expected to be ranked in terms of whether they are short, medium or long-term goals, with acknowledgement that some of the more contentious issues may take time to

resolve. “We will say things in the report that may be uncomfortable to various parts of the food system,” said Dr Llewellyn. “Then it very much depends upon others to do the listening.

There could be a bit of continuing discussion to be had around these things, if we feel as though there isn’t the appetite to take it up immediately. “I’ve been in reviews like this in the

past where things have sat on shelves for some time before anybody has picked them up and done something about them. “Nobody really wants to be in that position. If you put the work in,

you’d like to see some of the recommendations picked up, if not all of them.” The commissioners’ report is due to be published by the end of the year, with evidence gathering closing in

September.