Future Farm Investment Scheme administration and application information: EIR release

Information requested

I wish to receive the following information regarding the scheme under the The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004, regarding the administration and application of the £21.4million grant scheme for Future Farm Investment

• The exact number of application in receipt of the grant.
• Clear details of which ranking were successful.
• Clear details of which rankings were unsuccessful.
• Average age of grant recipient (mean).
• Average farm size of grant recipient (mean).

Assessment competency

• Detailed outline of all training and CPD provision attended by administers of this fund, in relations to assessment and distribution of this grant.

Conflict of Interests

• Detailed outline of your conflict of interest policy.
• Redacted information regarding conflict of interest concerns raised.

Response

As the information you have requested is 'environmental information' for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

Response to your request

• The exact number of application in receipt of the grant

1,672 farmers and crofters were offered a grant on 31 October 2025

• Clear details of which ranking were successful.

Grant offers were determined by a combination of assessment of application eligibility, Ministerial priority grouping and the relative strength of each proposed investment in delivering the scheme’s objectives, ensuring that funding was directed towards capital investments offering the greatest overall benefit.

Being in the Ministerial priority group alone did not guarantee funding, the capital investment applied for would have to be eligible for support and deliver strongly against the scheme’s objectives.

Details of how applications were assessed is provided at Future Farm Investment Scheme full guidance Future Farm Investment Scheme full guidance.

• Clear details of which rankings were unsuccessful.

Grant offers were determined by a combination of assessment of eligibility, the priority grouping and the relative strength of each proposed investment in delivering the scheme’s objectives, ensuring that funding was directed towards capital investments offering the greatest overall benefit. Details of how applications were assessed is provided at Future Farm Investment Scheme full guidance.

Applications varied widely in quality, accuracy, and alignment with the scheme’s objectives. The verification of applications identified several recurring issues that directly affected eligibility and grant award outcomes.

Verification checks identified inconsistencies between application data and RPID records. While these did not necessarily indicate intent to mislead, they reinforced the importance of accurate declarations to ensure that funding decisions were fair, evidence-based, and compliant with public finance requirements.

These cross-checks showed that a number of applications contained information that did not correspond with data already held on RPID systems. As a result, these applications did not progress further in the process. The published guidance was clear that:

“Knowingly or recklessly making a false statement to obtain payment of aid to yourself or anyone else risks prosecution. You also risk the loss of all the aid which you have claimed and may be prevented from claiming or applying for future aid schemes including BPS, LFASS and VCS.”

Addressing these cases before offers were made safeguarded applicants from financial penalty and recovery risks for inaccurate applications.

• Average age of grant recipient (mean).

As applicants were not asked to provide this detail on their application, we do not hold this information in relation to the FFIS.

• Average farm size of grant recipient (mean).

As applicants were not asked to provide this detail on their application We do not hold this information in relation to the FFIS

ministerial prioritisation	number of successful applications	number of unsuccessful applications	number of successful applications per geographical location	number of unsuccessful applications per geographical location	percentage of fund allocated to the following	total value of this % in £
new entrants	110	1,091	provided in separate table		3.95%	£908,781.23
young farmers	269	1,345			13.37%	£3,075,459.63
small agricultural businesses	157	1,475			3.36%	£772,074.03
tenants	326	2,316			16.95%	£3,898,628.04
island based agricultural businesses	180	1,315			7.67%	£1,764,180.08
crofters	122	1,272			4.09%	£941,477.48
investments in electronic identification (EID) equipment	522	2,467			29.36%	£6,755,109.56
investments in water efficiency	362	1,439			21.25%	£4,888,429.14

Area Office	New Entrant	Young Farmer	Small Agricultural Business	Tenanted Location	Island Based Business	Organically Registered Business
Ayr	17	55	16	31	17	7
Benbecula	9	8	9	12	14	1
Dumfries	5	27	5	42	0	0
Elgin	4	5	4	26	0	1
Galashiels	5	27	9	29	0	13
Golspie	1	2	1	3	0	0
Hamilton	7	21	10	9	0	5
Inverness	8	8	10	24	2	1
Inverurie	12	30	31	48	0	8
Kirkwall	11	21	9	4	62	2
Lerwick	12	19	12	42	59	1
Oban	5	9	10	13	16	1
Perth	12	29	11	30	0	4
Portree	0	3	3	5	6	0
Stornoway	0	1	1	4	4	0
Thurso	3	6	5	8	0	2
Total	111	271	146	330	180

farm/croft size	number of successful applications	number of unsuccessful applications	number of successful applications per geographical location	number of unsuccessful applications per geographical location	percentage of fund allocated to the following	total value to this % in £
30 hectares of less	143	1,302	provided in separate table		2.88%	£615,763.03
between 30.01 150 hectares	660	2,134			27.29%	£5,836,438.11
greater than 150 hectares	869	2,474			69.84%	£14,938,350.0

Area Office	Number Successful Small (<30ha)	Number Successful Medium (>30ha/<150ha)	Number Successful Large (>150ha)		Area Office	Number Unsuccessful Small (<30ha)	Number Unsuccessful Medium (>30ha/<150ha)	Number Unsuccessful Large (>150ha)
Ayr	16	119	133		Ayr	89	295	288
Benbecula	9	3	2		Benbecula	107	58	8
Dumfries	5	67	96		Dumfries	52	172	220
Elgin	4	30	26		Elgin	23	63	76
Galashiels	9	37	123		Galashiels	62	140	406
Golspie	1	5	6		Golspie	65	42	28
Hamilton	10	38	48		Hamilton	38	101	102
Inverness	9	20	35		Inverness	140	117	165
Inverurie	30	150	138		Inverurie	163	349	308
Kirkwall	9	24	29		Kirkwall	44	146	78
Lerwick	12	27	20		Lerwick	50	71	58
Oban	9	21	29		Oban	54	120	177
Perth	11	96	145		Perth	91	281	455
Portree	3	0	3		Portree	106	36	32
Stornoway	1	1	2		Stornoway	136	35	4
Thurso	5	22	34		Thurso	82	108	69
Total	143	660	869			1302	2134	2474

Assessment competency

• Detailed outline of all training and CPD provision attended by administers of this fund, in relations to assessment and distribution of this grant.

No additional training was provided as assessments were carried out by trained staff.

Conflict of Interests

• Detailed outline of your conflict of interest policy. Can be found on the Scottish Government website: Civil Service Code - gov.scot
• Redacted information regarding conflict of interest concerns raised. No concerns were raised

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.