It was a pleasure to contribute to the UK Farm Assurance review project - a 9 month mammoth task, run by Promar International that resulted in a report of nearly 200 pages.
The small part we had to play in this was in the analysis of over 8,894 posts with relevance to farm assurance schemes, which we undertook with a structured approach according to theme and sentiment. We used AI via an API connection directly to Open AI and a number of 'agents' were built and employed to understand the context and the conversational turn taking that data of this nature has.
Though the report was quite a chunky read, we have picked out the key summaries across each year for you to cast an eye over...
2019: farmers expressed varied sentiments, with frustrations over bureaucracy and financial strain offset by optimism about digital compliance tools. Negative
sentiments focused on distrust of assurance bodies and perceived corporate favouritism.
2020: negative sentiment intensified as the COVID pandemic added pressures. Farmers viewed assurance schemes as costly and misaligned with on-the-ground realities. However, there was some positive response to remote inspections and online compliance tools introduced during the pandemic.
2021: saw peaks in frustration, especially with RT, as farmers highlighted the increasing administrative burdens and costs. Calls for a more farmer-led, simplified model of assurance gained traction, reflecting a desire for governance reforms.
2022: negative sentiment peaked, with distrust of assurance organisations and dissatisfaction with corporate influence. Farmers voiced strong critiques of
high compliance costs and the impact of these schemes on mental well-being. Positive discussions centred on improvements in governance and animal welfare standards.
2023 and 2024: farmers expressed frustration with evolving environmental standards, especially around carbon audits. There was, however, also some cautious
optimism for 3 streamlined processes and more transparent governance structures, as assurance bodies sought to address farmers’ concerns more.
Farm assurance must evolve to better serve farmers, reducing unnecessary burdens while maintaining high standards. A key priority is simplifying and standardising on-farm audits. Many farmers feel these have become overly complex and inconsistent, adding stress without delivering clear benefits. A streamlined, fairer process will improve engagement and trust in assurance schemes.
We fully support the recommendation on a shift in governance, ensuring farmers have a stronger voice in shaping assurance standards. Too often, schemes feel imposed rather than co-developed, leading to frustration. A more inclusive approach will create assurance schemes that are practical, relevant, and farmer-led.
Improving communication is also critical. Farmers need clearer, more transparent engagement from assurance bodies. Too often, schemes feel like a ‘tick-box exercise’ rather than a supportive framework that adds real value. Better dialogue will help rebuild trust and ensure assurance is seen as a tool for progress rather than an obligation.
These reforms present a real opportunity to make farm assurance more farmer-focused, reducing burdens while enhancing its credibility and value. However, their success will depend on meaningful implementation—ensuring farmers are at the heart of decision-making and that technology is used to drive efficiency rather than bureaucracy.
Comments