Author: Sonali

By Frank Cannon, Programme Director, Rural SafeGuard

I write in response to NFU Mutual’s Rural Crime Report 2026 (News, 29 May), which deserves credit for its transparency, yet warrants careful scrutiny before its figures shape policy. 

First, NFU Mutual is but one insurance provider. Despite its prominence, it does not cover every holding. Cornish Mutual, Howden Rural, Aviva, AXA, Zurich and others all under write agricultural risk. 

A headline figure of a 6% annual fall drawn from a single insurer’s claims data is therefore a partial snapshot, not a national picture. A reported fall in payouts may reflect a contraction in market share rather than any genuine reduction in offending. 

Second, the government’s January 2026 policing White Paper proposes the most radical force restructuring in two centuries. The creation of larger, more centralised forces in England and Wales risks pushing rural crime off the agenda entirely. We need only look to Scotland and Northern Ireland, where super-national forces now operate and where rural crime is rising sharply, to see the danger of sacrificing specialist local knowledge to the pursuit of efficiency

Third, our farmers are simply not taught to configure their farms to reduce crime. There is no meaningful crime-reduction curriculum within agricultural or land-management courses. Young farmers, estate managers and rural business owners enter the industry with no grounding in security risk assessment or crime prevention. 

I would add one essential clarification. The NFU Mutual data is genuinely useful for communicating crime trends, mainly concerning property loss. It does not, however, quantify the true cost of rural crime across the UK, which is precisely what almost everyone uses it for. 

Until all major insurers pool anonymised data, and include all rural crime types, any national cost figure remains, at best, an informed estimate. 

Bottomline Up Front 

NFU Mutual’s Rural Crime Report 2026 deserves genuine praise for its transparency and commitment to exposing the devastating impact of rural crime. However, a headline 6% decrease in estimated costs to £41.6 million should be treated with significant caution. This figure reflects only what one insurer pays out — not the true scale of criminality blighting Britain’s farms, fields, and communities. With 13 ANPR cameras deployed across 246,500 miles of British roads, and a delivery model that asks private policyholders to fund public policing, it is time for Parliament to ask harder questions. Are we investing wisely, or simply doing the same thing over and again — and expecting a different outcome? 

The Report That Deserves to Be Read — and Challenged 

NFU Mutual is to be sincerely congratulated for publishing its Rural Crime Report 2026. For more than two decades, the organisation has championed rural communities when many in Westminster have not. Its willingness to put figures in the public domain, to fund the National Rural Crime Unit (NRCU), and to support the UK’s first dedicated livestock theft officer reflects a genuine and admirable corporate conscience. That commitment, articulated powerfully by Chairman Jim McLaren — who speaks of over twenty years of advocacy, direct investment in law enforcement, and support for legislative change to reduce the “devastating impact” of rural crime on farmers, their families, and the wider rural community — deserves recognition at the highest levels of Government. 

And yet, with respect, recognition is not enough. Data without scrutiny is not accountability. A falling number is not necessarily good news. 

The 6% Decrease: Caution Required 

Parliament should be cautious about celebrating the reported 6% decrease in estimated rural crime costs, from £44.3 million to £41.6 million. This figure is derived from NFU Mutual’s own claims data — which, however robust, represents only one provider’s slice of the agricultural insurance market. NFU Mutual, despite its dominant position in farm insurance, does not cover every farm in Britain. Cornish Mutual, Howden Rural, and a range of other specialist providers also underwrite agricultural risk. 

Here is the critical question that MPs must ask: could a reduction in claims payments reflect not a reduction in crime, but a reduction in NFU Mutual’s market share? If the insurer’s proportion of the rural insurance market has contracted — even marginally — then claims payments would fall arithmetically, regardless of whether a single criminal has been deterred. A 6% fall in the estimated cost of rural crime, calculated solely by one insurer’s internal data, may tell us more about market dynamics than it does about criminal behaviour. 

Until all major agricultural insurers are invited to pool their claims data, any headline figure presented to Parliament will remain, at best, an informed estimate and, at worst, a dangerously misleading one. 

Thirteen Cameras. 246,500 Miles of Road. 

In 2025, NFU Mutual invested nearly £550,000 in rural crime fighting initiatives. This included continued major funding of the National Rural Crime Unit and — strikingly — working with local police forces to install 13 Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras strategically placed in rural locations across England and Wales. 

Thirteen cameras. The Department for Transport’s 2024 road length statistics confirm that Great Britain has approximately 246,500 miles of road — of which the vast majority are minor rural roads and unclassified lanes. To place 13 cameras across this network is not a deterrent strategy. It is, to borrow the language of the farmyard, a plaster on a severed leg caught in a bailing machine. The wound is catastrophic; the dressing is cosmetic. 

This is not a criticism of NFU Mutual’s intentions, which are evidently sincere. It is a criticism of the structural inadequacy of the approach. Thirteen cameras cannot provide meaningful coverage of the rural road network, cannot build a credible intelligence picture, and cannot — on their own — shift the risk calculation for organised criminal gangs who travel hundreds of miles to steal quad bikes, tractors, livestock, and fuel. 

A Hidden Tax on Policyholders? 

Jim McLaren’s commitment to “investing in law enforcement, funding crime-fighting tools, and supporting legislative changes” raises a question that Parliament should examine directly: is this arrangement appropriate? 

NFU Mutual is a mutual insurer. Its surplus belongs, ultimately, to its policyholders — the very farmers and rural residents whose properties are being targeted. When that surplus is deployed to fund a specialist police unit — the NRCU — and to purchase ANPR infrastructure for police forces to operate, one must ask whether policyholders are being asked to pay, through their premiums, for a public service that the State has declined to fund adequately. Is this a commercial business filling the gap left by under-resourced policing? Is it, in effect, a hidden tax — levied on rural communities through their insurance premiums — to subsidise public law enforcement? 

There is a parallel here with the counter-terrorism world that demands Parliamentary attention. The National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) has, for years, leveraged the knowledge, reach, and commercial networks of the private security sector to deliver crime reduction outcomes that public bodies alone could not achieve. The model works because it draws on private sector agility, commercial expertise, and — crucially — independent innovation. The rural crime reduction world has not yet made that leap. The private security sector, with its specialist capabilities in surveillance, intelligence analysis, physical security, and community engagement, remains largely untapped. If Parliament is serious about rural crime, it should be exploring how a NaCTSO-style model — one that genuinely partners with private security professionals rather than simply congratulating one insurer to fund a police unit — could transform outcomes for rural communities. 

To continue investing in the same delivery model, year after year, and hope for a different result, is — as the philosopher’s maxim warns — the very definition of madness. 

Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Policing White Paper 

The crime statistics in the 2026 report reveal something that should concern MPs considerably: whilst England and Wales show modest movements in rural crime figures, Scotland and Northern Ireland are experiencing double-digit percentage increases. This is not a footnote; it is a flare. 

The Government’s policing White Paper, published in January 2026 and subtitled From Local to National: A New Model for Policing, proposes the most radical restructuring of police forces in two centuries. The creation of a National Police Service, designed to tackle complex and serious crime, risks — if not carefully designed — leaving rural policing further behind. The history of police reform in this country is littered with examples of specialist local knowledge being sacrificed on the altar of efficiency and centralisation. As super-national forces take shape in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the double-digit rises in rural crime in those jurisdictions suggest that rural crime is already being treated as secondary to urban priorities. Parliament must ensure that any restructuring explicitly protects — rather than further erodes — the specialist rural policing capability that communities depend upon. 

The Data Gap: An Invitation to Competitors 

If NFU Mutual is truly committed to evidence-based advocacy — and its track record suggests it is — then the most powerful step it could take would be to extend an invitation to its competitors. Howden Rural, Intact Insurance, Aviva, Cornish Mutual, Zurich UK (via Rural Insurance Group MGA), AXA UK and every other provider underwriting agricultural business should be brought to the table to share anonymised claims data. A collaborative dataset, compiled under appropriate governance arrangements, would give Parliament, policing bodies, and policymakers an accurate, representative picture of the financial cost of rural crime — not a single-insurer snapshot. 

This is not about competitive disadvantage. It is about the integrity of the evidence base. And it is about ensuring that when the rural crime community makes the case to Government for investment, it does so with the full weight of the sector behind it. 

The Emotional Cost and the Education Gap 

NFU Mutual deserves genuine credit for giving voice to the emotional and psychological toll of rural crime. The statistics are stark, but it is the human stories — the farmer who no longer sleeps soundly, the family who has lost irreplaceable livestock, the community whose sense of safety has been shattered — that should move legislators to act. Rural crime is not merely a financial inconvenience; it is a sustained assault on the mental health and resilience of a community that feeds the nation. 

Yet there is a gap in the response that this report, like its predecessors, does not fully address: education. There is no meaningful rural crime reduction curriculum within agricultural or land management degree programmes. Vocational courses at rural colleges rarely, if ever, include structured modules on security risk assessment, crime prevention through environmental design, or the practicalities of protecting agricultural assets. This is a missed opportunity of considerable proportions. Young farmers, estate managers, and rural business owners are entering the industry without the knowledge to protect themselves or their communities. 

Conclusion: The Case for a New Model 

NFU Mutual’s Rural Crime Report 2026 is a document that Parliament should read, debate, and act upon. It is produced with care, published with courage, and funded with genuine commitment. But commitment and continuity are not the same thing. The evidence suggests that the current model — one insurer, one police unit, a handful of cameras, and annual reports that measure one company’s claims — is insufficient for the scale of the problem. 

Parliament owes rural communities more than annual sympathy. It owes them a structural response: a collaborative data architecture, a genuinely funded rural policing strategy, a private security partnership on the NaCTSO model, and a generation of farmers educated to protect themselves. The definition of madness, it has been said, is doing the same thing over and again and expecting a different result. The rural crime figures — however we measure them — suggest we have been doing precisely that for too long. 

Bibliography 

1. NFU Mutual. Rural Crime Report 2026. NFU Mutual, 2026.

2. Department of transport. Road lengths in Great Britain: 2024. Published 20 February 2025 .

3. Home office, White Paper: From Local to National — A New Model for Policing. Published 26 January 2026 . 

4. Rural SafeGuard. Close the Farm Gate Podcast.   

5. Rural SafeGuard. Free Resources and Toolbox Talks.

6. Quote Investigator. “The Definition of Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Expecting Different Results”. Published 23 March 2017. 

7. National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO). Guidance and Resources. Available at: National Counter Terrorism Security – GOV.UK.

8. McLaren, J. Opening Statement. NFU Mutual Rural Crime Report 2026. NFU Mutual, 2026. 

9. National Rural Crime Unit (NRCU).

10. Ordnance Survey / Department for Transport. Road Length Statistics (RDL). Available at: Road Length Statistics (RDL) – GOV.UK.

As the combines roll out for another harvest and growers convene at the Cereals event, a reoccurring conversation continues – the need to protect the modern farm business. Rural crime, once seen as an occasional inconvenience, now poses a persistent operational risk, threatening profitability, staff wellbeing and long-term confidence throughout the agricultural sector. Theft of machinery, diesel and liquid fertiliser, trespassing, fly-tipping and livestock losses are no longer rare occurrences but frequent challenges for farmers and land managers. 

This growing concern has prompted the emergence of businesses like Rural Safeguard, which, though still in its infancy, reflects a wider movement in UK agriculture: one focused on resilience, vigilance and affordable protection. Security today is far more complex than locking a gate at night. Farms have become high-value enterprises, managing expensive GPS-guided machinery, substantial fuel stores, chemical inputs, renewable energy infrastructure and digital data systems. Organised gangs increasingly target rural businesses, exploiting isolated locations, limited overnight activity and the vastness rural police must cover. 

For arable businesses, the focus at Cereals often centres on machinery investment and precision farming. Yet every technological leap brings with it a responsibility: safeguarding these investments. Across the UK, farmers now adopt a more professional approach to rural security. Solar-powered camera systems appear in remote yards and entrances; tracking devices are standard on tractors, ATVs and trailers; motion-activated lighting, reinforced doors and secure fuel storage are seen as business essentials, not optional extras. 

Rural SafeGuard security specialists stress that robust protection comes not from a single product, but from creating layers of defence. Effective farms deploy multiple deterrents: locked gates, visible cameras, forensic marking, alarms and neighbour awareness. Criminals may breach one barrier, but several obstacles dramatically reduce their chances of success. 

Layered security also extends to land management. Small changes in farm layout—removing unused access points, creating vehicle barriers, maintaining boundaries and clear signage—can make a significant difference. Criminals seek easy opportunities; uncertainty and delay often make them give up and move on elsewhere.

Technology is reshaping risk monitoring. Mobile-connected cameras allow farmers to check livestock, machinery yards and fuel tanks remotely, whether from the cab of a combine or a field miles away.  

However, technology is only part of the solution. The strongest protection in rural communities remains behavioural. British agriculture is built on a powerful sense of community—farmers talk, contractors share information, neighbours notice unusual activity. Crime reduction schemes and local watch groups prove their worth by creating collective awareness, allowing everyone to adapt behaviours and foster a protective culture. 

At events like Cereals, these conversations are invaluable. Growers exchange practical security advice: which tracking systems have led to the recovery of stolen machinery, which cameras work best despite poor connectivity, and how estates can balance public access with biosecurity and safety.  

The financial impact of rural crime is significant. Machinery downtime during drilling or harvest may cost more than the value of the equipment itself. Delayed operations, insurance excesses and replacement lead times all add pressure to businesses already coping with volatile markets and unpredictable weather.

Beyond economics, the emotional toll must not be overlooked. For many farming families, rural crime is deeply personal. Farms are homes, heritage and livelihoods built over generations. Discovering vandalised property, cut fences or stolen machinery brings more than monetary loss—frustration, anxiety and a sense of violation often linger long after insurers have settled claims. 

Thus, crime reduction matters. A proactive security culture restores confidence. Staff training, regular risk reviews and clear reporting procedures contribute to stronger, more resilient operations. Increasingly, landowners recognise the value of specialist rural security advisors who understand agricultural realities, rather than generic commercial solutions. 

The future of farm security will blend traditional rural common sense with advanced technology. Artificial intelligence-enabled surveillance, remote monitoring and integrated tracking systems are entering the market. Yet, even as systems evolve, the fundamentals endure: deterrence, detection and delays that enable a unified community response. 

For agriculture, this shift signals more than a reaction to crime. It marks a professionalisation of crime risk management. Modern farming is data-driven, mechanised and capital intensive. Protecting those assets is as vital as managing soil health, machinery or crop nutrition. 

This message will resonate at this year’s Cereals event. Alongside discussions of yield, regenerative practices and input costs, safeguarding the farm business is now a pillar of the resilience agenda. 

Rural Safeguard may be a name preparing to enter the marketplace, but the principle behind it is well established. British agriculture is recognising that rural protection is not just about reacting after crime, but building farms and estates that are harder targets, stronger communities and more secure businesses for the future. 

In a sector built on long-term thinking, investing in security and community resilience may well be one of the most important commitments British farming makes. 

Stand: 440 

Company: Rural SafeGuard, the Optimal Risk Group 

Programme Lead: Frank Cannon, Chartered Security Professional 

E-mail: info@ruralsafeguard.com 

POC e-mail: frank.cannon@ruralsafeguard.com 

Website: https://ruralsafeguard.com/ 

Podcast: https://ruralsafeguard.com/podcast-rsg/ 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ruralsafeguard/?viewAsMember=true 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61588114349337 

Introduction

Congratulations are due to Baroness Minette Batters for undertaking a comprehensive review of UK Farming Profitability and for publishing a Report with such meticulous detail. The breadth and depth of the analysis are impressive, and while I do not possess the necessary qualifications or experience to evaluate most of the report’s content, I am keen to listen to, and learn from, the perspectives of those with practical experience in this area.

An Overlooked Factor: Rural Crime and Adversarial Risk

Despite the thoroughness of the report, I wish to draw attention to a significant omission that adversely affects the profitability of today’s farming businesses: the marked increase in adversarial risk, specifically the rise in crime within our rural communities. The escalation of criminal activities—described here as “bad people doing bad things”—poses a genuine threat to the day-to-day operations and long-term sustainability of farms.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Farm Profitability

Maslow’s psychological motivational theory identifies a five-tier hierarchy of needs, where basic physiological requirements such as air, water, food, and shelter form the foundation. The second level is ‘safety’, which encompasses personal security, access to resources, health, and protection of property. If farmers do not feel safe, or if their land, equipment, livestock, and agricultural data are persistently targeted by criminals, it becomes increasingly difficult—arguably impossible—for farm businesses to remain profitable.

The Need for a Strategic Response

This raises an important question: Should the report advocate for a government-led strategy specifically aimed at reducing rural crime? While the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has recently introduced a police Wildlife and Rural Crime Strategy, this initiative falls short by failing to sufficiently engage key stakeholders such as farmers, the private security sector, the agricultural supply chain, and those involved in land management education.

Beyond Policing: A Holistic Approach to Rural Security

Relying solely on policing will not deliver the safe, secure, and resilient farm businesses that the sector requires. A more holistic approach is needed—one that addresses both the likelihood of criminal activity occurring and the impact of such incidents should they take place. Only by tackling both sides of the adversarial risk can we hope to protect the profitability and sustainability of our rural enterprises.

Modern farming already recognises a simple truth: specialist risks require specialist advice. This is why agronomists are engaged to protect crop health and productivity, and veterinarians are relied upon to safeguard animal welfare and biosecurity. Rural crime presents a risk of equal significance—one that threatens not only assets, but operational continuity, safety, confidence, and long‑term viability.

Engaging a rural crime reduction consultant follows the same proven logic farmers already trust in crop and livestock management.

Avoidance is Best: The Same “Pre‑Emergence” Thinking Farmers Already Use

Agronomists assess soil health, nutrient balance, and pest occurrence before crops emerge, reducing the likelihood of yield loss. Vets implement immunisation and biosecurity measures before disease outbreaks occur, reducing the probability of illness spreading through a herd.

A rural crime consultant applies this same pre‑emergence discipline to crime risk.

Through structured farm‑security assessments, crime trend analysis, and vulnerability mapping, a crime reduction consultant identifies weak points before they are exploited—whether that is machinery storage, fuel security, livestock movement, access routes, or patterns of activity on the farm. This directly mirrors how agronomists and vets reduce likelihood rather than reacting only after damage has been done.

Just as farmers would not wait for crop failure or disease before seeking advice, relying solely on reactive crime response leaves the business exposed to avoidable loss.

Reducing Consequences: Professional Response when Incidents do Occur

Even with the best reduction measures, incidents still happen. Farmers understand this clearly in animal health: when illness or injury occurs, vets provide rapid diagnosis, treatment, and recovery planning to limit harm and restore productivity.

Crime reduction consultants play an equivalent post‑incident role.

They support victims, coordinate effective responses, and conduct root‑cause analysis to avoid repeat incidents. By strengthening detection and response measures —aligned with the deter, detect, delay, and respond protective security principles— they reduce the consequence and impact of crime on the farm business, staff wellbeing, and community confidence.

This structured response ensures crime is treated as a managed risk, not an unavoidable cost of rural life.

Crime is a Business Risk—Not Just a Policing Issue

Agronomists are not replacing farmers; they are enhancing decision‑making with specialist insight. Vets do not remove responsibility for animal care; they strengthen it with expertise.

In the same way, a crime reduction consultant does not replace police involvement. Instead, they translate crime reduction into practical, proportionate, and affordable actions that fit the realities of a working farm. Their role is to protect productivity, assets, and people—just as other rural specialists already do.

A Logical Extension of Professional Farm Management

Farmers already invest in expertise to protect:

• Crop yield and soil performance (agronomists)
• Animal health and welfare (veterinarians)

Engaging a crime reduction consultant simply completes the picture by protecting:

A farmer’s home and family.	Farm infrastructure and equipment.
Staff safety & wellbeing.	Farm machinery, materials, and livestock.
Agri-business resilience.	Farm operations and business continuity.

And ultimately, helps the farmer to deliver the national food security supply chain.

When viewed through the same risk‑management lens, crime reduction consultancy is not an optional extra—it is a logical and responsible extension of modern, professional farming practice.

Note to editors:

Rural Safeguard is UK’s first, commercially available, national programme designed to reduce rural crime before it happens. We introduced farmers, growers, land manager, and rural communities to the security sector and share best practise currently on offer to other industrial sectors. This helps to protect livelihoods, strengthen food security, a makes the countryside a safer place for all.

Website: https://ruralsafeguard.com/  

E-mail: frank.cannon@ruralsafeguard.com

Farm assurance schemes are built on a clear principle: identified risks must be actively managed using competent advice, proportionate controls, and documented review. Farmers already demonstrate this approach through the routine engagement of safety advisors, agronomists, and veterinarians to safeguard people, protect crop performance, animal welfare, biosecurity, and compliance.

Rural crime represents a material risk to farm businesses that aligns directly with these same assurance principles and therefore requires the same professional, structured approach.

Risk Identification and Assessment

Agronomists assess soil condition, nutrient balance, and pest pressure to identify risks to crop establishment and yield. Vets assess herd health, disease vectors, and welfare indicators to identify risks to livestock performance and compliance.

A rural crime reduction consultant fulfils an equivalent risk identification role for crime and security.

Through structured farm‑security assessments, crime trend analysis, and vulnerability mapping, a crime reduction consultant identifies threats (types of criminals) and crime risks (likelihood and impact of crime) to property, infrastructure, livestock, staff safety, and operational continuity before incidents occur. This mirrors the safety assurance requirement to identify hazards proactively rather than relying on reactive action.

Avoidance Controls (Risk Likelihood Reduction)

Farm assurance places strong emphasis on controls that reduce the risk:

• Agronomists advise on pre‑emergence nutrition, rotation, and pest management to reduce the likelihood of crop failure.
• Vets implement vaccination programmes, biosecurity protocols, and herd‑health plans to reduce the likelihood of disease outbreaks.
• Safety consultants suggest mitigations to reduce health and safety hazards before the injury occurs.

Crime reduction consultancy applies the same reduction, pre‑emergence control logic to rural crime risk.

A crime reduction consultant advises on proportionate and affordable measures to deter, detect and delay criminals —such as farm layout, access control, asset protection, and behavioural practices—designed to reduce the probability of criminal activity affecting the farmyard. This demonstrates that crime risk is being actively managed in line with assurance expectations.

Monitor, Detect, and Evolve

Farm assurance requires evidence of ongoing monitoring:

• Crops are inspected for emerging pest or disease pressure.
• Livestock are routinely observed for early signs of illness or welfare concerns.
• Farmyards and operating procedures are frequently reviewed to identify hazards dangerous to health and wellbeing.

Crime reduction consultants support equivalent monitoring and detection measures to identify defensive gaps that a criminal will exploit. These controls ensure that suspicious activity, emerging vulnerabilities, or changing crime patterns are identified early, allowing corrective action before losses escalate. This demonstrates continual risk awareness that helps evolve farm defences rather than static cookie-cut compliance.

Incident Management and Corrective Action (Consequence Reduction)

Assurance frameworks recognise that not all incidents can be prevented and require clear incident response and corrective action processes:

• Vets provide rapid diagnosis, treatment, and recovery planning following illness or injury.
• Agronomists advise remedial action following crop damage or disease outbreaks.
• Accident investigators recommend safety precautions to prevent repeat events.

Crime reduction consultants provide an equivalent post‑incident management function to identify improvement opportunities to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

They support victims, assist with incident management, and conduct structured root‑cause analysis to identify why controls failed and what improvements are required. This ensures that incidents lead to documented learning, corrective action, and reduced likelihood of recurrence—core assurance expectations.

Continuous Improvement and Business Resilience

Farm assurance is not solely about compliance; it is about continuous improvement, resilience, and sustainability. The goal is to pass on the farm in a better shape than you received it.

Engaging a rural crime reduction consultant demonstrates that the farm treats crime as:

• A managed business risk.
• Subject to professional oversight.
• Integrated into wider health, welfare, and safety systems.

This approach protects not only physical assets but also staff wellbeing, operational continuity, and confidence—key indicators of a resilient, professionally managed farm business.

Crime Risk Management as an Assurance Function

Farmers already demonstrate assurance compliance by investing in specialist advice to protect:

• Crop health and yield (agronomists).
• Animal health, welfare, and biosecurity (veterinarians).
• Staff safety, health, and wellbeing (HSE advisors).

Engaging a rural crime reduction consultant completes this framework by creating affordable solutions to protect:

A farmer’s home and family.	Farm infrastructure and equipment.
Staff safety & wellbeing.	Farm machinery, materials, and livestock.
Agri-business resilience.	Farm operations and business continuity.

When assessed against farm assurance principles—risk identification, control that reduce, hazard awareness, incident response, and continuous improvement—crime reduction consultancy is not an optional addition. It is a logical, proportionate, and assurance‑aligned extension of modern farm management.

How valuable would it be to include the following crime risk assurance declaration in your agricultural business prospectus:

“ This farm manages rural crime as a foreseeable business risk using a planned, predictive, affordable, and proportionate approach, supported by competent specialist advice and integrated into our wider health, welfare, safety, and continuous improvement systems. We advocate operational excellence.”

Word count: 812.

Note to editors:

Rural Safeguard is UK’s first, commercially available, national programme designed to reduce rural crime before it happens. We introduced farmers, growers, land manager, and rural communities to the security sector and share best practise currently on offer to other industrial sectors. This helps to protect livelihoods, strengthen food security, a makes the countryside a safer place for all.

Website: https://ruralsafeguard.com/  

E-mail: frank.cannon@ruralsafeguard.com

Frank Cannon CSyP, Programme Director for Rural SafeGuard™ a rural crime reduction initiative.

Current Challenges in British Farming

A recent survey has revealed troubling figures for British agriculture: a third of farmers are either making a loss or barely breaking even, with only a small proportion achieving a profit margin of 10% or more. This is highlighted in the inaugural UK Farmdex^[2] Report by McCain Foods, which surveyed 200 farmers in July and found widespread pessimism within the industry.

Over half of those surveyed are contemplating leaving farming entirely.

The industry has been hit hard by a prolonged drought and extreme heat, severely impacting crop yields, particularly for arable farmers. These problems are compounded by sharp reductions in subsidies following Brexit and the introduction of inheritance tax for farms valued at £1 million or more. The report notes that nearly a third of these high-value farms are also only breaking even or running at a loss. This situation raises serious concerns about the future of British farming and the government’s ability to achieve food security—ensuring enough safe, nutritious, and affordable food for the domestic market and boosting exports.

Expert Perspectives: Charlotte Smith

Charlotte Smith[3], presenter of the BBC Country File and Farming Today programmes, highlights three main issues affecting farmers: the weather, global commodity prices, and changes to government support. England recently saw its second worst cereal harvest on record, with vegetable yields also badly affected due to insufficient water. These conditions have cost some farms hundreds of thousands of pounds. Global commodity prices remain low despite poor UK harvests because of strong yields elsewhere, preventing UK farmers from benefitting from higher prices. In addition, significant changes in government support—especially the inheritance tax—have created anxiety and uncertainty, impacting succession planning within farming families. Hopes in the farming community that the government might revisit the inheritance tax policy were recently dashed when the farming minister confirmed there would be no changes in the upcoming budget.

Impact of Subsidy Changes

Subsidy arrangements have also changed dramatically. While Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are still receiving EU-style payments as they develop their own systems, England has moved more quickly to a system where public money is only given for public goods. The direct farmer payment has been almost completely phased out, a process accelerated in the last budget. Previously, subsidy payments could amount to over half a farmer’s income, but this support has now virtually disappeared in England, severely affecting farm incomes. Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS) were introduced as a replacement, but the scheme is currently closed to new applicants due to a lack of funds.

Voices from the Farming Community

• Ollie Harrison[4], an arable farmer near Liverpool, expresses deep frustration and exhaustion after two years of extreme weather—ranging from a wet harvest with no sunlight to a year of intense heat resulting in poor crop quality. He points out that subsidies are essential to buffer farmers against unpredictable weather, and without them, many will leave the industry rather than risk their family homes. Diversification has helped his farm survive, but he warns that the withdrawal of environmental payments will soon leave many farmers with no support at all, threatening the nation’s self-sufficiency in food. Harrison criticises the government for not understanding or valuing agriculture, and for perpetuating the myth of farmers as wealthy landowners, when in reality farms are assets for future generations, not sources of personal wealth.

• Duncan McAllister[5], a beef farmer on the Mull of Kintyre and vice president of the National Farmers Union in Scotland, agrees that weather is a constant concern for farmers. Confidence and profitability are closely linked, and currently, a lack of profits is preventing reinvestment in farms across the UK. While beef prices have recently improved due to a global shortage, the sector has suffered from decades of poor trading conditions, and a few good years are not enough to secure the industry’s future.

• Philip, a cereal farmer from West Yorkshire, reports that the price for crops such as wheat is the same as it was thirty years ago, while costs for machinery, bread, and fuel have risen dramatically. The need to comply with strict quality and safety standards for domestic sales drives up costs, while imported products are not always held to the same standard, creating an uneven playing field.

Policy and the Future

Some contributors, such as John from North Yorkshire, argue that the government must make a political decision to support farming and food production, but in an environmentally responsible manner. He observes a strong demand for advisory services to help farmers access new environmental schemes but criticises the current suspension of new applications to the Sustainable Farming Incentive. The design of new subsidy schemes in England is robust but must be implemented and funded properly.

Rural Life and Changing Realities

Brenda Hocroft from North Manchester reflects on her farming upbringing, noting that although farming has always been hard, it has become much tougher recently. Farms have become smaller and less viable as sole sources of income, leading many to diversify into other work—ranging from contract work and groundworks to installing solar panels and even running restaurants. Despite the idyllic nature of her childhood, she doubts if modern farmers can sustain the same lifestyle, given the financial and practical challenges they now face.

END OF RADIO SHOW SUMMARY

So why is Rural SafeGuard™ Sharing this Public Facing Conversation

As discussed in Jeremy’s show, farmers face significant stress already, so we aim to help them reduce rural crime that further harms their success.

Reducing Rural Crime

There will be few UK farmers who haven’t been affected by rural crime in some form. The sliding scale is huge, from petty theft and vandalism to livestock rustling and industrial-scale fly tipping by organised gangs.

Optimal Risk Group[6] have created this rural crime reduction programme to suggest solutions for how agricultural businesses across the nation can be safer and secure.

The company offers practical advice in risk management and security for businesses of all sizes with extensive technical expertise, comprehensive market knowledge, and highly specialised training courses to keep businesses across multiple industrial sectors safe, including agriculture.

A pioneer in the security and risk management industry with a national presence spanning over 25 years, Optimal Risk Group is looking to tackle rural crime head on with their structured national programme, Rural SafeGuard™.

Described as a knowledge sharing programme to raise awareness about and reduce rural crime, Rural SafeGuard™ equips farmers and landowners with the skills, knowledge and training needed to safeguard their people, property, and machines from organised and opportunistic crime.

For over 40 years, Senior Consultant Frank Cannon[7] has been providing guidance and advice as a security specialist, and one of five Chartered Security Professionals[8] in the Rural SafeGuard™ programme. He and his team are bringing their expertise to the Uk agricultural sector.

“We are disrupters in the agricultural crime reduction area, as hitherto, our farmers and landowners have expected the police to look after their businesses,” says Frank. “We’re attending this year’s Midlands Machinery Show because it’s a great way to meet and talk to the farmers who are concerned about the safety of their business, and to show the farming community that we have the expertise and advice for them to address the rural crime challenges that they face.”

Optimal Risk is looking to build a public-private partnership to bridge the capability gap between police and rural communities and closely collaborate with police rural crime teams while using proven risk management solutions adapted from other sectors.

“For those farmers who own, operate, or lease out agricultural machines, our Rural SafeGuard™ programme introduces a commercially available certification pathway that recognises secure farms and estates, reassuring owners, deterring offenders, and unlocking potential security advantages.”

Having spent all year researching the attack methods of the organised crime groups and developing effective solutions, Frank sees 2026 as a great opportunity to shine a light on the crime related issues that rural communities face, such as the mismatch between levels of rural crime and the policing and business resources assigned to address it. He is looking forward to sharing the affordable and proportionate solutions that Rural SafeGuard™ can bring to farmers.

“With the support of our partners, the Rural SafeGuard™ programme is a leading example of how we work together to help British farmers develop their risk management skills to withstand crime across our countryside.

“We don’t just help farmers react to crime; we help them to reduce the opportunity for it to happen in the first place.”

You can reach out to frank by e-mailing him on: frank.cannon@ruralsafeguard.com

---

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002l831   

[2] https://www.mccain.com/information-centre/news/uk-farmdex-report-reveals-crisis-in-farming-51-of-farmers-considering-leaving-the-industry-but-signs-of-hope-remain/

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/3Nnfpwp9CtjJj6sz5TBrZqc/charlotte-smith     

[4] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2K8QmHQq3LLphq5XwbxHhA          

[5] https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/24914044.find-nfus-vp-candidate-duncan-macalister/           

[6] https://optimalrisk.com/                 

[7] https://www.linkedin.com/in/frank-cannon-csyp-cpp/?originalSubdomain=uk          

[8] https://www.charteredsecurityprofessional.org/