Many farmers in Scotland are being put off taking part in agri-environment schemes due to financial risks, confusing guidance and red tape, a new study has warned, just as the sector is undergoing the most important reforms in decades.
The research, led by PhD student David Bryan from the University of Stirling, found that farmers overwhelmingly care about the environment and enthusiastically support land management practices that benefit nature and the climate.
However, it also shows that practical and financial hurdles continue to limit uptake, with recurring concerns about fear of financial penalties, uncertainty about whether applications will be approved, and inflexibility in system design.
The changes follow a major overhaul of agriculture under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, which will replace EU-era subsidies with a new four-tier support structure aimed at strengthening food security, rural livelihoods and environmental impact.
Against this backdrop, Brian’s research highlights specific barriers that shape farmers’ decision-making, including inconsistent communication during applications, short application periods, and long-term contracts that make planning more difficult.
Social factors also influence engagement. Support from families and rural communities increases participation, and higher levels of education correlate with increased environmental engagement.
Mr Brian said this insight could play a key role as Scotland prepares for the next stage of the transition. “These insights come at a critical time for Scotland to reform its agricultural support system,” he said.
He added that the findings will help policy makers understand “what works and what doesn’t for farmers on the ground” and ensure the new framework is realistic and accessible.
Under the government structure, Tier 1 provides a base payment for meeting environmental and animal welfare standards. Tier 2 supports greener and more ambitious practices such as reducing tillage, protecting soil and creating habitat.
Tier 3 extends the Agri-Environmental Climate Plan and provides long-term contracts for targeted environmental projects. Tier 4, on the other hand, provides training, advice and collaborative networks.
The research recommendations build directly from these stages and aim to facilitate farmer participation. Mr Brian is calling for stronger farmer-led support through the expansion of Tier 4, universal access and outcomes-based design for Tier 2, and greater regional flexibility across Scotland’s diverse landscapes.
A simplified application process, modeled on the UK’s environmental land management system, is also proposed to reduce bureaucracy and barriers associated with administrative complexity.
Brian believes adopting this recommendation will give farmers the confidence and flexibility they need. “If adopted, the recommendations will provide farmers with less red tape, more flexibility and stronger local support networks,” he said.
This could lead to “improved biodiversity, soil health and climate resilience across rural Scotland”, he added. A better designed system, he argued, would ultimately “benefit everyone: farmers, communities and the environment.”
The study is based on a collaborative national survey conducted in 2024, with responses from 80 farmers gathered online and in person through exhibitions, markets and rural networks. We investigated the influence of risk perception, flexibility, access to guidance, and social support.
As Scotland prepares to introduce a new agricultural support system, this research is likely to shape further policy debates and could help determine how many farmers feel able and willing to take part in environmental schemes aimed at driving meaningful change across the countryside.
