Shaping a better Future Farming Investment Scheme for 2026

Scottish agriculture is being asked to deliver more than ever before. Farmers and crofters are expected to produce food efficiently, reduce emissions, improve biodiversity, strengthen animal welfare and build resilience in the face of economic and climatic uncertainty.

AFP via Getty Images

Delivering those ambitions requires investment. That is why the Future Farming Investment Scheme (FFIS) matters. Capital support helps businesses adopt new technologies, improve efficiency and invest in long-term resilience. As the Scottish Government prepares to re-run FFIS in 2026, the focus must now be on ensuring the scheme is fair, transparent and capable of delivering maximum value for both farming businesses and the public purse.

The success of the FFIS in 2025 revealed something important about Scottish agriculture. Farmers and crofters want to invest. They want to improve efficiency, reduce emissions, strengthen resilience and prepare their businesses for the future. The challenge is that far more businesses are looking to invest than current support budgets can accommodate.

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.

Jonnie Hall | sdf

But in a context where demand far outstrips available funding, the design of the scheme becomes absolutely critical.

At NFU Scotland, we have listened carefully to member feedback and engaged with Scottish Government. It is clear that FFIS 2026 must build on what worked, address what didn’t, and 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, and across Scotland’s diverse geographies, including our most fragile and remote areas.

FFIS 2026 must strike the right balance between environmental ambition and economic resilience. These are intrinsically linked, with more efficient businesses typically being more sustainable, 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.

Members told us repeatedly that the use of priority groups created confusion and uncertainty. We are advocating for 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 ensures applicants have a stake in the investment, reduces speculative or low-quality applications and 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 the opportunity available in one hectare does not equate to a hectare elsewhere.

There’s a case for removing land-based thresholds 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 through clearer scoring criteria, worked examples and a ranking system that makes outcomes more predictable. Transparency builds trust. And trust is essential if FFIS is to maintain credibility across the sector.

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.

The success of the FFIS in 2025 revealed something important about Scottish agriculture: farmers and crofters remain willing to invest in their businesses and their future when the right support is available. That confidence should be welcomed. The task now is to ensure FFIS 2026 harnesses it through a scheme that is fair, transparent and capable of delivering the outcomes Scotland wants from its agricultural sector.

Jonnie Hall is Director of Policy and Deputy CEO of NFU Scotland