WHEN TALK turns to the problems of agriculture it is not long until the 'V word' is used.

'Volatility' is the issue from which there is no escape, whether the venue is a high level meeting in Brussels, or a meeting of a local NFU group.

Agricultural commodity prices are massively more volatile than they were a few years ago. Dairy products in particular have gone from being one of the most stable to one of the most volatile.

This is because agricultural commodity prices have increasingly followed the wider commodity market and oil in particular - and we all know what has happened to oil in recent months.

This will make it difficult for farming to break out of the malaise it is in so far as prices are concerned. When it finally does so, there will be a big drive to make sure the industry does not end up back in the same situation, thanks to the short boom, long bust cycle now in place.

The European Commission will be expected to contribute to the debate, but based on figures just published it will be a in a strong position to suggest farmers and indeed member states have failed to help themselves.

When the CAP reform deal was done back in 2013, a key part of the plan from the start was a 'tool box' of measures to manage risk. These were part of the options available for rural development programmes, but interest has been minimal - despite the fact that the way markets have moved made these measures more necessary than ever.

The former farm commissioner, Dacian Ciolos, was enthusiastic about the concept of risk management tools, but he did not make a great job of highlighting the advantages they could bring. In the legislation there are a wide variety of options, from insurance-type arrangements to price balancing to help protect farmers from market volatility, weather or crop problems.

Member states could use rural development funds to help fund various programmes, set up and run by the industry to benefit farmers. These schemes were given a new relevance because the commission has made clear since 2013 that it will not be in the position it was in the past, in term of funding, to ride to the rescue when problems occur.

The lack of enthusiasm for risk management can be measured by the fact that just 2% of rural development budgets have been allocated to these schemes. This covers rural development plans from 2014 to 2020, and hindsight is a wonderful talent we do not possess.

In 2013 and 2014, when these schemes were being drawn up, the global market and the finances of agriculture were a lot better than they are today. If member states had known then how badly things would go they might have been more enthusiastic about these schemes.

That said, the scale of plunge in prices and incomes is such that none of the schemes in place will insulate farmers from what is happening, although those in the national and regional programmes will have some cushion.

This is a concept that needs to be looked at again and needs to move up the agenda in Brussels. It is too late to re-open rural development plans that have been agreed, but the 2017 review of the CAP could create conditions for second thoughts about these programmes. If that is not possible, it will pave the way to make risk management a bigger part of the post-2020 CAP.

Current farm commissioner, Phil Hogan, recognises the problems of volatility, but his approach is more radical than the risk management tool box option through the CAP. He would like to use the European Investment Bank (EIB) to radically change how farming is funded for capital investments, so that loans are over a longer period than is now the case.

Crucially, repayments would be linked to the profitability or otherwise of farming in a particular year. This would, in turn, be linked to the commodity for which the money is being borrowed, with an initial focus on the dairy sector.

This is a bold plan, but getting it off the ground will mean convincing member states to implement a loans programme. It will also involve taking on existing banks or finding a new way to work with them and it involves persuading the EIB to risk a lot on agriculture.

Those are not insurmountable issues, but volatility will not be tackled without radical thinking.