The Scottish Government’s commitment to re-run the Future Farming Investment Scheme (FFIS) in 2026 is both welcome and necessary. For many of our members, FFIS 2025 was not just another funding opportunity, it was a clear signal that capital investment remains central to the future of Scottish agriculture.
However, it also highlighted something more fundamental - the scale of unmet demand across the sector.
Oversubscription to FFIS 2025 should not be viewed as a failure of policy design. Quite the opposite. It demonstrated just how constrained access to capital has become for farming and crofting businesses, and how critical targeted grant support is in unlocking investment, improving efficiency, and supporting transition.
But in a context where demand far outstrips available funding, the design of the scheme becomes absolutely critical.
As NFU Scotland, we have listened carefully to member feedback, undertaken survey work, and engaged with Scottish Government ministers and officials. It is clear that FFIS 2026 must build on what worked, address what didn’t, and above all, deliver a scheme that is transparent, fair, and grounded in pragmatism.
We support the Scottish Government’s intention to evolve FFIS into a simpler, more outcome-led scheme. However, simplification must not come at the expense of accessibility. The scheme must continue to work across different sectors, such as livestock, arable, dairy, mixed systems, and crofting enterprises, and across Scotland’s diverse geographies, including our most fragile and remote areas.
Importantly, FFIS 2026 must strike the right balance between environmental ambition and economic resilience. These are not competing goals. They are intrinsically linked. A more efficient business is typically a more sustainable one, both environmentally and financially.
There is merit in narrowing the focus of FFIS 2026, namely reducing greenhouse gas emissions through improved efficiency. However, members have been equally clear that the scheme must not be framed too narrowly.
If FFIS is perceived as a ‘carbon-only’ scheme, it risks disengaging farmers and crofters whose investment priorities are broader but still deliver environmental benefits. Framing FFIS 2026 around productivity, welfare, soil health, and resilience as core components would lead to better outcomes and stronger participation.
One of the most consistent areas of feedback from FFIS 2025 relates to the use of ‘priority groups’. While well-intentioned, this approach created confusion and, in some cases, a perception of unfairness.
For FFIS 2026, we are advocating a shift away from priority group classifications towards clear budget allocations and differentiated grant rates. This approach would reduce ambiguity and ensure funding decisions are based on clearly defined objectives and outcomes, rather than broad categorisation.
That said, we absolutely recognise that some businesses face structural constraints that limit their ability to invest. New entrants, tenant farmers, and island-based units often operate under additional pressures, whether financial, contractual, or geographic.
Rather than labelling these as ‘priority groups’, we propose enhanced grant rates for such businesses. This is a more targeted and transparent way of supporting those who need it most, without distorting the overall scheme structure.
A significant proposed change for FFIS 2026 is the move away from 100 per cent funding towards a match funding model. While this represents a shift, it is one we support, provided it is implemented carefully.
Match funding achieves several important objectives. It ensures applicants have a stake in the investment. It helps reduce speculative or low-quality applications. It allows limited public funds to go further.
However, grant rates must remain viable. If the contribution required from the business is too high then participation will fall, and the scheme’s impact will be diminished.
Another lesson from FFIS 2025 is that land area is not a reliable indicator of investment need or potential impact. Farming systems vary enormously and a hectare in one context does not equate to a hectare in another.
There’s a case for removing land-based thresholds under FFIS 2026 and instead introducing differentiated grant caps. This approach would better reflect actual investment behaviour and ensure value for money while still allowing ambition. The introduction of a predefined list of eligible capital items would also improve clarity for applicants.
If there is one overarching theme from member feedback, it is the need for greater transparency. Applicants must understand how decisions are made. That means having clearer scoring criteria and worked examples in guidance.
There is also merit in introducing a more deterministic ranking system, whereby applications are assessed based on their highest-scoring item. This would simplify the process and make outcomes more predictable. Transparency builds trust. And trust is essential if FFIS is to maintain credibility across the sector.
A question that inevitably arises is how to treat those who were successful under FFIS 2025.
While it is important to maximise the reach of FFIS 2026, any blanket exclusion of previous recipients would penalise progressive businesses and disrupt long-term investment planning.
A more balanced approach could involve allowing repeat applications, potentially with adjusted grant rates. This would be fair while supporting continuity and ongoing improvement.
Finally, it is important to recognise that FFIS does not exist in isolation. The level of demand seen in 2025 points to a broader structural investment gap within Scottish agriculture.
Addressing this will require greater multi-year funding certainty, alignment of capital investment within wider agricultural policy frameworks, and recognition of the FFIS-type model as a key delivery mechanism for future support
We will continue to engage with the Scottish Government on all these issues. The changes for FFIS 2026 we have put to the Scottish Government are about refinement - building on what worked, addressing weaknesses, and ensuring the scheme delivers for those it is intended to support.
FFIS has the clear potential to drive efficiency and emissions reduction, strengthen business resilience, support innovation and investment, and help maintain confidence across the industry.
To realise that potential, FFIS must be fair, transparent, and rooted in the realities of farming and crofting.