The Farming Profitability Review and the new Farming and Food Partnership Board: what’s new and what do you need to know?

Baroness Batters’ Farm Profitability Review was published on 18 December 2025.  The review is the result of a detailed independent six-month review conducted by Baroness Minette Batters. As a farmer and former president of the National Farmers Union Baroness Batters has strong credentials and industry credibility and worked alongside DEFRA’s Profitability Unit, which contributed extensive analysis and evidence.  

The Review has been published now, without a formal government response.  We are told that response will follow as part of the 25-year Farming Roadmap, now slated for publication in 2026.  Meanwhile, to coincide with the publication of the Review, Defra also announced the launch of a new Farming and Food Partnership Board, which is intended to help facilitate industry engagement by bringing together “senior leaders from farming, food production, retail, finance and government to take a practical, partnership-led approach from farm to fork to strengthen our food production.” We don't yet have detail on exactly how the new Board will work. 

So – what do you need to know now? This note summarises the sets out initial observations on key features and takeaways. 

What does the review say about profitability? 

The Review finds that farm profitability is squeezed by high input costs, weak prices, policy uncertainty, extreme weather, market volatility, and geopolitical change. Post‑Brexit, England removed BPS without an effective replacement, while tighter environmental and welfare standards have raised costs. The Review proposes a “new deal for profitable farming” to rebalance food production and environmental outcomes and to deliver policy and financial certainty. Certainty is central: the gap between the most and least profitable farms directly reflects the advantages available to those who can plan and strategically manage cost.  Planning and cost management require a clear, stable government framework. The long‑promised 25‑year Farming Roadmap is now critical. The industry needs immediate stability and clarity through a predictable policy regime, coherent and reliable scheme guidance, and clear, timely communications so businesses can plan, invest and build resilience.

What recommendations does the Review make?

The Review sets out 57 recommendations for government and industry to improve profitability, resilience and long term viability. Baroness Batters recognises that there is “no silver bullet to achieve farming profitability” and makes detailed proposals to “restore balance between food production and the environment. They should be treated as two sides of the same coin.”

The 57 recommendations detailed in the review can be grouped into 15 key categories or focus area.  These are: 

1. Valuing food and farming (1–3): Recalculate farming’s contribution to the economy by counting primary and secondary processing, plus knock‑on effects across allied industries. Put nature on the balance sheet by accelerating a natural capital accounting framework to reflect its true economic value.

2. Resilience and viability (4–6): Give businesses certainty and improve access and value for money. Provide a resilience focused offer for those not yet in SFI, review SFI delivery for cost‑effectiveness, and link schemes covered by the Farming Budget to food production and resilience by applying the ‘Active Farmer’ principle to ensure the Farming Budget goes to working farms.

3. SOILSHOT + NATURE (7–12, 32): Create a SOILSHOT + NATURE taskforce to unlock high‑integrity green finance, set consistent insetting/offsetting metrics, mandate corporate nature reporting, and roll out a whole‑farm approach to soil health to boost fertility, cut emissions and build resilience.

4. Partnership approach (13–16): Set up the Great British FARM Advisory Board (GBFAB) to grow and track sales of British raw ingredients across retail, out‑of‑home, public procurement and exports, targeting a 30% export uplift by 2030. Embed circular‑economy thinking across policy to cut costs and create new revenue.

5. British brand (17–20): the report recommends support for specific Trade and Agriculture Commission recommendations on global standards; suggests treating agriculture and food as ‘sensitive sectors’ from a trade strategy perspective and calls for a requirement that the use of British branding is underpinned by recognised assurance schemes. Update retailers’ voluntary principles and extend origin labelling to the out‑of‑home market.

6. Supply chain fairness (21–22): Tackle unfair practices by extending Groceries Supply Chain Code of Practice and the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, codifying “Golden Rules”, and aligning both within Defra. Build enhanced market monitoring to track prices across the chain.  Extend origin labelling principles. 

7. English food culture (23–24): Grow the “Brand Britain” proposition across retail, hospitality, public procurement and exports. Update Buying Standards across all sectors to set clear provenance rules and embed dynamic procurement. Establish Food and Drink England to champion producers and strengthen links with local government. Food and Drink England would have sector “missions” (e.g. dairy, beef, horticulture) and robust market monitoring to guide production, exports, procurement and resilience.

8. Sustainable FARM Service (25–27): Create a simpler, unified advice and skills service. Coordinate and consolidate existing government advisory services for a simpler, more accessible technical advice and support proposition.  Work on a co-ordinated approach to goal‑oriented, scalable research priorities.

9. People, labour and skills (28–34): Put agriculture into STEM syllabuses and careers pathways; develop regional Agri‑Growth Hubs and expand farmer‑led arm and Environmental Delivery Groups; implement the recommendations made in John Shropshire’s independent labour review; extend the Seasonal Worker Visa to nine months to cover the whole season.

10. Tenancy (35): Encourage longer, more secure tenancies with targeted tax reforms and consider statutory powers for the Tenant Farming Commissioner.

11. Tax incentives, grants and investment (36–41): Improve access to capital via 0% soft loans through the British Business Bank for entrants/expansion, review grant delivery, and consider full expensing/capital allowance accessibility for sole traders/partnerships. 

12. Planning (42–47): Deliver a National Planning for Food Infrastructure Blueprint, with extended permitted development rights for reservoirs, on‑farm energy (rooftop/turbines), and larger livestock buildings to improve welfare and environmental outcomes, plus streamlining duplicative permitting. 

13. Energy and connectivity (48–49): Extend Permitted Development Rights for on‑farm wind turbines and reservoirs and require District Network Operators to accelerate rural connectivity and grid access.

14. Water (50–53): Embed Agri‑Growth Hubs and Farm and Environmental Delivery Groups in implementing recommendations on regulator reform and regional planning made in the Cunliffe review; adopt an evidence‑led partnership on abstraction where needed for food production; extend Permitted Development Rights for on‑farm reservoirs.

15. Regulation (54–57): Review regulatory effectiveness and costs; shift to outcomes‑ and risk‑based rules; fix approvals for biological crop protection; and reduce the Food Standards Agency control burdens on small abattoirs.

Our predictions on the legal and commercial changes and challenges

At the moment, we don't have a government response to the recommendations made, so don't yet have insight on which are most likely to be accepted. If all the recommendations were accepted, depending on how they were implemented, we anticipate that could mean changes to:

• Supply chain and competition law: Proposed extensions to Groceries Supply Chain Code of Practice and the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and statutory fairness rules point to tighter oversight of retailers and out‑of‑home procurement. Expect more disclosure obligations and potential disputes over price adjustments and deductions. Suppliers should anticipate renegotiations and documentary rigour; buyers may need to recalibrate practices.
• Planning and infrastructure opportunities: Extended Permitted Development Rights for reservoirs, on‑farm energy and livestock buildings could materially ease delivery risk and timelines, affecting land values and farm business plans. Careful management of how this interacts with environmental permitting and water abstraction regimes will still be critical, particularly in sensitive catchments.
• Environmental finance and disclosures: Mandating more extensive reporting and creating SOILSHOT + NATURE may accelerate private‑market payments for ecosystem services. This raises contract design and verification issues (standards, baselines, permanence, liability for reversal) and may affect covenants in tenancies, charges and land transactions. Due diligence on environmental credit integrity and stacking rules will become more mainstream.
• Tenancy and tax reform: Linking support to “Active Farmer” status and incentivising longer terms/more secure tenancies could reshape FBT structures and rent dynamics.  Possible for further changes in relation to tenancies as the Law Commission’s current programme includes consideration of the agricultural tenancy regime. Potential changes to expensing/capital allowances for partnerships and any interaction with agricultural/ business reliefs will be important in terms of succession planning; diversification projects (energy, tourism, environmental credits) will require early tax/VAT advice and appropriate structuring.
• Workforce and compliance: A longer seasonal visa would be helpful but still leaves recruitment risk and compliance obligations (supply‑chain labour standards, accommodation, H&S). Contracting frameworks with labour providers and growers would need to be refreshed to reflect the extended season and enforcement risk.
• Litigation and risk: Greater market monitoring and data transparency could expose pricing and performance variances, increasing the likelihood of challenges around contract compliance, mislabeling/origin claims, and environmental performance representations. Robust data governance and audit‑ready records will be essential.

Conclusion

Overall, the Review sets out a series of pragmatic recommendations: fewer fragmented schemes, clearer objectives, and – hopefully – a more practical legal framework for fairness, planning and environmental finance. The recommendations would carry risks and opportunities: planning and Permitted Development Right opportunities, risks to mitigate through carefully checking supply‑chain contracts, the prospect of opportunities in the nature markets. We should have a clearer idea of which recommendations are likely to be accepted and on what basis once we see the government’s response – and the 25-year Farming Roadmap which will contain the response.  Currently we don’t know when we will have that, except that it is due for publication in 2026. The political keynote speech at Oxford Farming Conference is often used for farm-related announcements, so perhaps we may have more clarity on timescales early in the new year – we’ll be watching that space!