The revision draws on experience applying the current Standard, stakeholder input and new technical knowledge. It aims to make requirements clearer, more practical to implement and easier to assess, while strengthening the links between farming practices and sustainability outcomes.

The draft contains 43 requirements across eight themes. It strengthens provisions on water, nutrients, pest management, biodiversity, working conditions and safety. It also introduces Mandatory Compliance Foundations for third-party assurance and a pathway recognising progress towards full verification.

Yes. For selected requirements, the levels of compliance reflect differences in farm scale and operating context.

They are risk assessment, a grievance mechanism and remediation. Producers and producer groups seeking third-party assurance must meet these requirements; a higher score elsewhere cannot compensate for a missing foundation. 

The Standard sets out expected practices and management measures. The 12 Performance Indicators provide a framework for measuring farm-level economic, environmental and social performance over time. 

No. The v3.0 PI revision focuses on farm-level profitability from rice production and greenhouse gas emissions. The Basic, Intermediate and Advanced measurement framework remains in place.

This pathway recognises progress towards full verification. Eligible producers or groups must score 50–89%, meet applicable mandatory thresholds and demonstrate continued improvement. The Progress Recognition Statement is available for up to two years; full verification must be achieved in the third year. 

A producer or group must score at least 90% and meet the essential compliance threshold for every applicable requirement, as well as the Mandatory Compliance Foundations for third-party assurance.

No. Progress recognition does not confer SRP Verified status or automatic permission to use SRP claims, labels or trademarks. The applicable Assurance Scheme and Brand Manual & Claims Guidelines govern their use. 

The draft provides a 12-month transition from publication. Audits continue under v2.2 for the first six months. For the next six months, v3.0 audits are encouraged while v2.2 remains accepted. V3.0 becomes mandatory for verification and annual audits one year after publication. SRP will confirm calendar dates when publication is final. 

No. Its first v3.0 audit follows the existing audit cycle.

Review the proposed changes, identify any gaps in practices or records, and plan training and updates to management systems. The transition period is intended to give all users time to prepare.

The points earned for applicable requirements are divided by the maximum points available for those requirements, then multiplied by 100. The result is expressed on a 0–100 scale. Where all requirements apply, the draft identifies 138 as the typical maximum available points.

Yes, where the relevant activity or risk is absent from the production system. The reason must be documented and checked during the audit. A requirement cannot be excluded simply because it is difficult to meet; an accepted non-applicable requirement is removed from the maximum points used to calculate the score.

The score alone does not qualify the producer for SRP Verified status. The producer must also meet the essential compliance threshold for every applicable requirement and the Mandatory Compliance Foundations for third-party assurance. 

Evidence should show that risks have been assessed and addressed, a documented process exists for receiving and handling grievances, and appropriate action is taken when an issue requires remediation. The records needed will depend on the operation and the issue identified. The final Standard and assurance guidance will set out the applicable assessment expectations.

The group’s Internal Management System (IMS) Manager is responsible for ensuring that the foundations are implemented, monitored and documented for verification. Individual producers may also need to provide information or carry out actions under the group’s procedures.

The draft requires an overall score of 50–89% and the applicable essential compliance thresholds for designated requirements concerning biodiversity, food safety, farmer health and children’s welfare. The Mandatory Compliance Foundations also apply where third-party assurance is sought. The exact applicable thresholds must be checked against the final Standard. 

The draft requires the producer or group to maintain or improve its overall score, continue meeting the applicable mandatory thresholds and demonstrate progress towards full verification. A Progress Recognition Statement is available for no more than two years; full verification must be achieved in the third year to continue on the verification pathway. 

The levels reflect different purposes, data needs and degrees of measurement detail. Users should select the level appropriate to their monitoring objective and ability to collect reliable data, then follow the method specified for that indicator and level. A higher measurement level requires stronger supporting data; it is not a separate level of compliance with the Standard.

A change over time needs a defined baseline and a comparison using consistent methods and boundaries. The underlying activity data, emission factors, assumptions and data quality procedures must be documented at the applicable measurement level. Users should follow the final GHG Performance Indicator methodology and any additional requirements relevant to an assured GHG claim.

No. It measures the economic performance of rice production at farm level. Information on income from other sources may provide useful context, but assessing living income adequacy requires additional household data, benchmarks and methods beyond the profitability indicator.

No. National Interpretation Guidelines can provide locally relevant guidance for applying the global Standard but must preserve its scoring system and minimum mandatory compliance thresholds.

Auditors will need to understand the revised requirements, levels of compliance, scoring and applicability rules; assess the Mandatory Compliance Foundations; and distinguish the conditions for Aspiring Producer recognition from those for SRP Verified status. Audit tools, training and recording procedures should follow the finalized Standard and assurance guidance.