FARMERS need to prepare for a big disappointment next week, when EU farm ministers discuss what can be done to tackle the crisis on agricultural markets.

The good news, for now, is that they and the European Commission have recognised that a crisis exists. The bad news is that no-one has come up with any radical ideas about what could be done that would have a significant impact on the grim financial situation farmers are in across the EU.

In short, next week is the best shot for sometime to do something about this - and as things stand, to mix metaphors, that best shot is likely to end up a damp squib.

There is no shortage of ideas from member states, and they have been put forward with varying degrees of enthusiasm. The problem is that many are non-starters, because they will be rejected by the Commission or will not secure majority support in the farm council.

Aware of these odds, France has tweaked its call for temporary supply management controls for the dairy sector to call for a scheme to fund producers who opt to reduce milk production over the summer months. It has based this around achieving a 3% reduction, and is suggesting €200 million would fund such a programme. This is opposed by a number of member states, including the UK and Ireland, on the grounds that it is a backwards step away from a more competitive European dairy industry.

The bigger question however is whether such a scheme could deliver if is voluntary, in that reductions by some farmers would be offset by others increasing production. Another issue is the speed at which production could be cut without culling cows, which would have a negative impact on a fragile beef market.

The wider problem is also what might be dubbed 'perverse economics', in that when milk, and indeed pork, production should be falling because of poor prices, it is in fact rising. This is because in an era of financial pressure and poor prices, production is the only way farmers can maintain cash flow. Those issues, coupled with lukewarm political support, suggest this idea will make little progress.

Where action is possible is over some tweaking of private storage arrangements for dairy products. There is pressure for cheese to be included along with butter and milk powders, and for more flexibility on ceilings and storage periods.

This might produce a positive response from the Commission, although the impact would be to stop things getting worse rather than a lot better. There is also pressure for the Commission to review dairy intervention prices, but that is unlikely to happen, because of cost and because the Commission has set its face against this from the start. Enhanced private storage is probably a runner for dairy and pork. The Commission may also agree to an 'observatory', based on the milk market observatory, for the livestock sector. Also likely is some commitment to look at some form of export credit scheme.

These are likely to leave farmers feeling distinctly underwhelmed, but the more radical ideas some member states have suggested are simply not going to happen. These include another emergency funding package, similar to last year, but the budget is not there. The Commission has dismissed funding this from its crisis reserve, claiming that since farmers would have to pay to top that up from their CAP payments, it would only be recycling their own money.

There have also been some suggestions that funds should come from outside the agriculture budget for an aid programme. This is based on the Russian crisis that is causing so much damage not being of farmers' making - a logical argument, but one that is not going to win, not least because the migrant crisis has left the EU budget in difficulties.

This is why farmers need to be prepared for an 'is that it?' reaction to what is likely to emerge from next week's farm council. Where there will be agreement is on the continuing need to persuade Russia to re-open its market to at least some EU products, but the political atmosphere is against that happening in the near future.

On that basis we will not see much beyond some tinkering around the edges - although the astute farm commissioner, Phil Hogan, might land the ball back in member states' courts by suggesting some flexibility on state aid rules if they want to introduce national programmes to help farmers.