Future farming investment scheme: Fair scheme or flawed delivery?
The newly launched Future Farming Investment Scheme (FFIS) has generated no shortage of conversation across the agricultural sector in Scotland. For some, it’s a timely opportunity to secure support for long-needed upgrades and investments. For many others, though, it has raised eyebrows, frustration, and a fair amount of confusion. As the scheme opens for applications, questions are being asked about what it really means for day-to-day farming and whether it’s genuinely fit for purpose — particularly for smaller or more marginal holdings.
At its core, the FFIS offers grant support of up to £20,000 per business for capital items that contribute either to reducing agricultural emissions or improving resilience to climate change. Examples include upgraded livestock handling systems, EID equipment, improved slurry or waste storage, solar panels, and energy-efficient machinery. The stated aim is to support businesses in adapting to climate and economic pressures — an objective few would argue against in principle.
However, the practical delivery of the scheme has left many scratching their heads. One of the most significant concerns is the lack of published scoring criteria. While the scheme is clearly competitive, and applications will be assessed on merit, there’s no visibility on how that merit is actually judged. Are emissions savings ranked more highly than resilience? Do smaller businesses have any real chance against larger, well-resourced applicants with more professional application support? Without a scoring matrix, applicants are left trying to reverse-engineer what “success” might look like, which makes a targeted, confident bid incredibly difficult to put together.
This ties into a broader concern that the tiered funding structure still favours larger, more resilient businesses, despite repeated assurances that policy would prioritise support for smaller farms and crofts. Under the current rules, businesses under 30 hectares can apply for up to £5,000, those between 30.01 and 150 hectares up to £10,000, and only those over 150 hectares are eligible for the full £20,000. While this appears to offer scaling, in reality the cost of capital items — such as a weigh crate, solar panels, or handling system — doesn’t vary much by business size. A small croft faces similar purchase prices to a large estate, but with far less ability to spread those costs or recover investment. Larger businesses are also typically in a stronger position to cash-flow projects upfront, or frame their application in ways that meet emissions or resilience criteria. In that sense, the current tiering could still be viewed as backwards — offering the least support to those who often need it most.
Another issue that’s causing justified frustration is the quiet but significant enforcement of Whole Farm Plan compliance. While farmers were previously told that failing to complete the two WFP requirements in 2025 would not affect their core subsidy, this scheme now makes it clear that you must have completed both to be eligible for the FFIS. For many, this has come as a surprise — especially given the short time frame and the previous narrative that it wouldn’t be a barrier. It’s something I warned clients about in the run-up to the IACS window, but even so, the sudden shift from optional to essential has understandably left many feeling blindsided. It’s a stark example of how voluntary requirements can quickly become gateways to wider funding, and why it’s important to keep ahead of the policy curve.
Another frequent complaint is the use of abstract policy language. Terms like “climate resilience” and “emissions mitigation” may make sense to civil servants, but for many working farmers they feel vague and disconnected. There’s a widespread feeling that this scheme is being driven more by the optics of environmental compliance than by real, practical support for Scottish farming. Some are rightly questioning whether this is simply a box-ticking exercise — one that demands farmers translate everyday needs into government jargon just to be eligible.
That said, the scheme does offer genuine funding, and in the right circumstances it could be used to support changes that make a meaningful difference to a business. It’s important not to dismiss it entirely. If you’ve been considering infrastructure, kit, or efficiency improvements that reduce input costs, improve livestock handling, or allow for better waste or energy use — then there may be a route to eligibility. The key is how the case is made, and unfortunately that’s where transparency is most lacking.
For many, the scheme feels like a missed opportunity — or at the very least, one that’s being rolled out before the groundwork is fully in place. The intention may be positive, but the current delivery leaves small and medium-sized holdings in particular unsure whether the effort involved in applying is even worth it. It shouldn’t be this difficult to understand where public support is going and how to access it fairly.
In the absence of clearer guidance, farmers and crofters will need to rely on common sense and sound advice. If you’re unsure whether your project fits, or how to present it in a way that gives you the best chance of success, I’m happy to help. I’ve already had many conversations about the scheme — and while none of us have all the answers yet, sometimes it helps just to talk it through.