After concerns from farmers and crofters across Scotland the Scottish Agroecology Partnership (SAP) is asking the Scottish Government for more transparency over the distribution of funds via the Future Farming Investment Scheme (FFIS). 

SAP has also asked for more detail about the mechanism deciding how the funds were allocated after many farmers committed to transitioning to sustainable practices were left “deeply disappointed”.  

Having previously raised concerns in July about the equity and effectiveness of the scheme. Now that awards have been made, those initial concerns appear justified.

Tara Wight, policy and campaigns coordinator for the Landworkers’ Alliance, said:  

“SAP organisations have been inundated with concerns from our farmer and crofter members who the government promised to prioritise and who have now found themselves left empty-handed.  

She continued: “We are deeply disappointed about the government’s decision not to prioritise groups they promised in a meaningful way, and more transparency is required over what, and who, has actually been supported.”

Concerns over scheme design and delivery

The scheme generated 7,584 individual applications, demonstrating a clear interest among farmers and crofters to transition to sustainable and regenerative agriculture. SAP are urging the Scottish Government to align future funding and policy with this clear need for support.

While 1672 individual businesses benefited, the overall scheme appeared rushed in its design, implementation and delivery, and serious questions remain over the scoring mechanism applied.

• SAP points out that nearly 80% of applicants seeking to make their business more sustainable received no support, undermining confidence in future policy initiatives.  
• The partnership also understands that the 100% upfront payment may have not elicited the correct, reasoned and measured assessment of on-farm need and it is our, and our members’, view that detailing of requested equipment with regards to sustainability practices  was a  tick-box exercise, that was surface information at its best, failing to capture the genuine need of champions of regenerative and nature-friendly farming to develop their businesses further.  
• SAP has open questions as to which items were funded, how these meet the overall objectives of the fund and the best use of public money to further sustainable and regenerative agriculture.  

David McKay, Co-Director at Soil Association Scotland, said:  

“Organic producers were told they would be prioritised but two thirds of those who applied were unsuccessful. Many also fitted other priority criteria such as being new entrants or young farmers.  

“There is clearly huge demand for capital grants, so this fund is very welcome. However, changes will be required to provide greater clarity around the assessment process and ensure farmers and crofters do not lose confidence in the scheme.”

Priority groups largely ignored

Overall, only one third of the funding was awarded to the ministerial priority groups of new entrants, young farmers, tenants, organic producers, and island businesses. It appears disingenuous to speak of priority groups at all, if the vast majority of the budget is awarded to people who do not meet any of the prioritisation criteria.  

Furthermore, the grant was explicitly framed as a means to support smaller businesses who do not benefit from economies of scale yet, despite the government’s commitment towards prioritising these businesses, the average individual grant value of £12,793 indicates that funding was mostly allocated to businesses over 100 ha (as farms and crofts below this size could only apply for a maximum of £10,000 under 100 ha and only £5,000 for those under 30 ha).  

The lack of means-testing meant no consideration was given to the fact that some recipients may well be in a position afford the items themselves.

Call for data transparency

SAP members are urgently asking the Scottish Government to disclose:  

• Data on approved versus rejected applications
• Details on how applications were prioritised
• Further demographic analysis of successful applicants and their awards
• How individual sustainability criteria (climate/environment) were weighted
• Full transparency on the scoring mechanism applied.  

Quotes

“We are island-based tenants and new entrants, running a small business. We applied for £2300 to buy a drone to assist in livestock management. The large land area we graze with cows and sheep is inaccessible unless on foot, and hill and coastline topography means looking for stock can take considerable time. The drone would reduce the time we spend walking out looking for stock, but will enable us to increase the oversight of stock, particularly at vulnerable times such as calving. There are numerous areas of concern in relation to the scheme not least the disparity between stated ministerial outcomes and actual outcomes.”  

“Our main concern though is that the application form had no room for any qualitative input. Nowhere were we required to articulate or rationalise the merits of our project. How can public money be awarded on such limited information? Due diligence has gone out of the window.” A Crofter, Isle of Lewis

“As a 'young', 'new entrant', 'organic' farmer applying for items clearly aligned with the scheme’s objectives, I am surprised that my application was rejected while others outside the priority groups were funded. I think not providing the opportunity to justify the worth of an item in meeting the schemes aims was a failing. As was the lack of opportunity to receive feedback on an application before submission. The cynical view would be that small mistakes in a claim were welcomed as a means of reducing the number of claims to be assessed.” An Organic Farmer, Dumfries & Galloway

“We knew that FFIS would be probably oversubscribed but felt it was worthwhile as our application met six out of the eight priorities.  Very surprised and disappointed to be unsuccessful when there were farmers that met none of these priorities and have been awarded funds.  Surely when there is a limited pot of money, even more attention should be placed on priorities.  This just seems random, where mostly non-organic, large businesses have got the support.”  A New Tenant Farmer, Aberdeenshire

SAP calls on the Scottish Government to ensure the next round of the FFIS provides a far more transparent process for assessing applications, and a larger budget. SAP is already on record calling for reform and redistribution of the overall agricultural budget, so that the majority of funds support agroecological practices to restore ecosystems, build soil health and strengthen local food systems.  

<ENDS>

Contact
Tara Wight, Landworkers’ Alliance:  07758329938