Few would want to be in Richard Lochhead’s boots at the moment.
He has only a few short months to come up with a formula for implementing the new CAP, and he has to do it against a background of competing demands and insufficient funds. His chances of pleasing all of the people all of the time must be strictly limited.
It is perhaps surprising, then, that the Rural Affairs Secretary was in relaxed, almost reflective mood when he spoke informally to a few members of the agricultural press last week after an on-farm event.
Perhaps the atmosphere of rural calm helped, but he will be under pressure very soon with consultations on Pillar Two implementation due to start this month, with Pillar One talks likely to start in December.
Pillar One is commonly referred to as direct support for active farming whereas, for convenience, Pillar Two is always described as applying to rural development and the environment.
Perhaps the distinction is not as clear “Both pillars are there for agriculture,” he said. “I have been hearing a lot of comments about the possibility of moving Pillar One funds into Pillar Two, and some are urging me not to consider this, but I think it is important to look at this in the round. Both funding streams can benefit farming, and both can deliver resources.”
Read these words carefully because they could provide an important clue as to how this winter’s discussions might go.
Mr Lochead has already said he will kick-start his consultations with stakeholders by showing a range of options, with the favoured option underlined.
It would seem, then, that moving funds from Pillar One to Pillar Two could be an underlined option. Under the over-arching EU agreement on CAP he will have the ability to transfer 15% of funds in that direction.
It will bring squeals of protest, no doubt, because every penny out of Pillar One is a penny out of the Single Farm Payment (SFP) pot: on the face of it not good news, but for many the SFP cheque looks like it will be much smaller anyway.
This will be especially the case for the arable and dairy farms outwith the Less Favoured Areas. They won’t see coupled payments because they are likely to be applied to suckler produced beef only, and of course they won’t have Less Favoured Area Support Scheme money.
Eyes are bound to turn then to Pillar Two to see what is there. Because of the EU budget allocation there is not as much as there should be. That is a very sore point with Mr Lochhead, who believes Defra Secretary Owen Paterson did not fight nearly hard enough to prevent Scotland having the lowest per hectare Pillar Two budget in the EU.
But, political bickering aside, there will be funds for rural development and the environment. Everyone from foresters to environmentalists to village hall committees will want a share, but there is an allocation for agriculture and it could be an attractive source of funding if it is allocated properly.
That would mean learning lessons from the last Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP).
In my view, although well-intentioned, it quickly went off the rails. The menu-based part, which was available to everyone who wanted to apply, asked people to sign up to Land Managers Options but in reality few of them were applicable to lowland farms.
The other part of the SRDP had to be competed for, and this is really where the scheme went wrong. Rather than spreading the benefits across the farming industry the selection panels seemed to be drawn to big flagship projects like moths to the flame.
The result was some of the biggest agribusinesses in the country, especially in the poultry sector, attracting seven-figure grants while others got nothing. Actually it was less than nothing because of the cost of hiring professional help to fill in the application forms.
So, if it is to work this time, the new SRDP must include a useful basic menu scheme open to all. It should include measures such as improvements to field drainage and liming. Slurry stores should be funded, too. All of these have a directly beneficial impact on efficient food production and reduced carbon footprint.
Then there should be a competitive element, but it must be designed to do the maximum good.
There are many potentially good diversification projects out there just waiting for a bit of SRDP encouragement.
It is all to play for, but I think Mr Lochhead already knows that.