'We should scrap the damn thing' - Priority groups only given a third of Scottish farming fund, farmers say
Ministers have been accused of being disingenuous with the scheme.
Only a third of a multi-million pound farming fund was given to applicants who the Scottish Government described as priority groups, including young farmers and organic producers, industry leaders have said.
Scottish ministers have come under fire for the way they handled their £21m Future Farming Investment Scheme (FFIS) this month.
The funding initiative was set up to encourage farmers and crofters to improve the environmental performance of their land. Groups that were to be prioritised for the cash included young farmers, tenants, organic producers and small farms.
Some 7,500 applications were submitted for the funding, yet more than 3,500 of those were found to to be ineligible.
The Scottish Government said the latter included those who did not meet the scheme requirements from the outset, which included applications with no active farmer, inconsistent investment or those who exceeded the maximum grant threshold.
Ministers, however, have been accused of inconsistencies in how applications were assessed and the low success rate among those it was set up to help.
Farmers and politicians have claimed the money distribution was “unfair”, while industry organisations said they have been “inundated” with applicants who matched the criteria yet have been left empty-handed.
There have also been complaints about the online form being more a box-ticking exercise but also showing frustrating technical issues, such as not being able to enter numbers when clarifying size of farm or livestock count.
The Scottish Agroecology Partnership (SAP), a coalition of Scottish food and farming organizations promoting a regenerative agricultural system, said priority groups were “largely ignored.”
The SAP said: “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.”
A total of 1,672 individual businesses benefited from the funding, but SAP said the overall scheme appeared rushed in its design and delivery, and “serious questions remain over the scoring mechanism applied.”
The group claimed nearly 80 per cent of applicants seeking to make their business more sustainable received no support, undermining confidence in future policy initiatives.
Farmers also said the fund was explicitly framed as a means to support smaller businesses who do not benefit from economies of scale.
However, the average individual grant value was £12,793 which, according to the SAP, indicated 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).
One of those who fell into the priority group but missed out was nature farming champion Deborah Richardson-Webb, of The Lint Mill, an organic small-holding in South Lanarkshire.
A winner of the Sustainable Small Farm of the Year last year, Mrs Richardson-Webb said: “We were so disappointed when we learned we didn’t get accepted, and then we saw we were among thousands of others who fit the criteria.
“It’s left us asking: ‘Who got these grants?
“It’s got to be transparent otherwise the fairness is deeply questionable.
“We want a full breakdown of it all because at least that will help us understand.
“It’s my view that no one should be given the money because the process has been so appalling. Before the money is sent out we should scrap the damn thing and get an application that is fit for purpose and get everyone to reapply.”
Young farmer Daniel Ritch, from west mainland Orkney, hoped to receive funding to improve animal welfare and efficiency on his farm.
The 33-year-old, who has dairy cattle and supplies to Orkney Cheese Company, one of Scotland’s last remaining small cheese factories, said he was surprised not to have been selected.
“I ticked all the boxes,” he said.
“I am an islander, a young farmer, and with probably a successful business going ahead so, not much risk. I am also a tenant and a farm owner just trying to progress on.
“I just don’t understand how I didn’t get it.
“Then I hear a man in his 80s received money for feed fencing for a shed that he doesn’t even have his own cattle in.
“There’s a lot of cattle up here and a big farming community, and there’s a lot of young people here in the industry who are keen and to keep things going, like keeping the Orkney dairy supported.
“I just think it’s all ridiculous what’s happened.”
David McKay, co-director at Soil Association Scotland, said among organic producers in Scotland, two thirds of those who applied were unsuccessful.
He said many of the applicants 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,” he said.
“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.”
Agriculture minister Jim Fairlie said the Scottish Government is looking at the level of ineligible applications.
He said: “While I appreciate many people will be disappointed if they were not successful, there are many others who were and will share in £21 million that will make a real difference to their business. The FFIS has shown that there is an appetite across Scotland’s agricultural sector to invest in sustainability, productivity and resilience.
“The FFIS assessment methodology and application decisions were made solely on the basis of objective scoring and verified eligibility with full audit trails for consistency, transparency and defensibility.
“The work was led by the Agricultural Development Team, supported by staff from across the RPID area office network, followed by independent validation by a Project Board and review by Internal Audit representatives. We are working with local RPID area office staff to try to better understand the varying levels of ineligible applications and how we can try to improve advice around any future schemes.”
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.