In the last European parliament, Billy Kelleher and Colm Markey were the two MEPs most closely aligned to what have come to be referred to as "productive farmer" issues.

Whether it was outright opposition to the changes in the nitrates derogation, or defending historical payments, the two men's opinions generally aligned with those of the IFA.

In contrast, Luke Ming Flanagan and Chris MacManus usually held positions that chimed with more extensive drystock farmers. They favoured full flattening of area-based payments, and were more concerned with rewetting and the Nature Restoration Law than the nitrates derogation. More like the INHFA's priorities than the IFA's.

This was not surprising, Flanagan is from Roscommon and MacManus Sligo, while Markey is a Louth dairy farmer, and Kelleher a dairy farmer in Cork prior to being a full-time politician.

During the election campaign, there was some, eh, convergence on many farming issues, as candidates naturally said little to divide or annoy prospective voters.

That said, the issue of historical payments saw a clear geographical fault-line during the hustings. West of the Shannon, support for full convergence and flat payments was fairly strong, among farmers and candidates.

Agriculture committee representation

Now that the European Parliament's Agriculture committee has been formed, what is interesting that the three full-time members from Ireland, and indeed the one substitute member, are all from Midlands North West. Luke Ming Flanagan returns, and he will be joined by Maria Walsh, Barry Cowen, with Ciaran Mullooly on standby.

There is to be no Billy Kelleher, no Cynthia Ní Murchú from Carlow, no Kerry Sean Kelly or Kilkenny Kathleen Funchion. No-one at all from Ireland South in fact.

This committee will formulate the parliament's position on the next CAP, and those who want to see historical payments retained past 2028 will now have to pin almost all their hopes on Barry Cowen. I can't see Maria from Mayo or west midlands Mullooly pushing for the retention of historical payments.

Cowen will find it hard to find many allies, as 20 countries have already moved to full flattening.

In truth, it's hard to see how full convergence of payments will be stopped in the next CAP.

It's also hard to argue that historical payments still are a recognition of the level of productivity, investment and risk-taking farmers make, which compromise the criteria that governed the single farm payment back in 2004. At that time, payments were calculated on the average payments drawn down in the years between 2000-2002.

When the next CAP expires, the reference years will be over 30 years in the past - a span that encompasses the start of the first world war to the ending of world war two

The SFP has now evolved into the BISS, and those reference years are now 22-24 years into the past. They have more in common with the Galway and Armagh lads from the successful teams of 2001 and 2002 who will be on "Up For The Match" this Saturday evening than they do with the current teams who will take the field on Sunday. And by 2035, when the next CAP expires, the reference years will be over 30 years in the past - a span that encompasses the start of the first world war to the ending of world war two.

The IFA's official position is that fully flattened payments reward landowners who carry out minimal activity in terms of food production. Teagasc's National Farm Survey, which this week showed the average net margin per hectare to be only €6 when payments are stripped out, suggests that for drystock farmers at least, the more you do, the more likely you are to lose money. It's a problem.

Are historical payments the best way to support farmers committing financially and physically to their farms? I'm not sure they any longer are. It may be time to go full circle, and return a higher level of CAP funding to supports linked to farming output rather than land occupation, whether that land is owned or rented.

Re-coupling of payments towards livestock or animal production is far easier to justify than retaining payments based on what farmers or their payments did at the turn of the century.

The big difficulty will be keeping such payments in the "green box" from a World Trade Organisation perspective. Schemes would have to be non-trade distorting, so they can't be seen to encourage production. Instead, they must target high-welfare and high environmental production systems, but still be paid on the animal rather than the hectare the animal lives on. Not simple.

And if the family farm is the model, capping of payments needs to be strengthened, specifically in terms of preventing large investment firms or wealthy individuals from setting up a network of entities that separately qualify for payment up up the ceiling, all while effectively under the same control.

This needs to take place in tandem with a raising of the bar as to what constitutes a trained and active farmer when it comes to accessing Capital Acquisitions Tax. As Martin Kenny, newly returned to the role of Sinn Féin Agriculture spokesperson this week, put it, whether it's conglomerates buying land for forestry plantation in the north west, or stud farms buying land across the southern half of the country, the end result is the same - farming families are being squeezed out of the land market.

Straw saga - the final verdict

The Straw Incorporation Measure (SIM) saga has finally been put to bed, with the scheme re-instated in full by Minister McConalogue. Technically, it had never been withdrawn, he had simply announced his intention to suspend it in full this year.

In addition, McConalogue is also introducing a complementary option, where farmers already in the SIM can opt to bale straw to help alleviate a potential shortage of bedding (as I pointed out last week, straw isn't really fodder). For this they will be paid €175/ha, which is 70% of the €250/ha SIM payment.

Who were the winners and losers from the whole saga? Let's go through them group by group.

Firstly, for those farmers who have crops in the SIM and intend to continue chopping, there is no change for them.

For those farmers who now take some or all their crops out of the scheme and bale their straw, they are the big winners.

Before the minister's intervention, there was an expectation that good prices would see some straw come out of the scheme. Now, farmers will get a good price for their bales, and get the €175/ha on top. I have to say I think that payment is perhaps excessive, €100 per hectare would probably have tempted a similar number of people out of the scheme.

The third group are those tillage farmers who aren't in the scheme. many of them are grumbling that they are being disadvantaged by the new payment. Unless straw prices fall, that is not true. What is true is that they have seen people who are entered in the scheme now gain an advantage over them, which makes them feel less well off.

Straw price

Other farmers may have gained, but they haven't lost. It's not the same thing. My sense is that the straw price will not change much as a result of the amount of straw that's going to come back into the marketplace on the back of the new payment. There's only about 18,000 hectares of barley straw in the scheme. Almost 16,000 ha of that is in spring barley crops, many of which won't be ripe for a month or so.

I would predict that unless we get ideal harvest conditions, as much as half the spring barley will still be chopped. Farmers will want to facilitate the planting of cover crops, or get ready for autumn planting. If the weather collapses, the choppers may well be turned on in a high percentage of crops currently entered into the scheme, to prevent a repeat of last year's mess, where straw lay in rows over the winter.

Understand it, farmers don't have to decide on close to harvesting spring barley. Much of it's a month away and that leads on barley may not have the weather suitable for baling. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

Farmers who buy straw are a little better off than before the minister's announcement, as we can safely say that there will now be more straw than there would have been, and it certainly won't be dearer than it would have been.

Cherry on top

For farm organisations concerned, the IFA and the Grain Growers, it's definitely been a win.

They worked together on this issue from the very beginning, they couldn't be divided, and maintained an insistence throughout a week of fairly intensive diplomacy that the scheme must be reinstated. And it has been, with the cherry on top of the new one-off baling incentive. IFA president Francie Gorman, grain growers chair Bobby Miller and IFA grain committee chair Kieran McEvoy formed an all-Laois wall of steel, and deserve grain farmers gratitude.

We finish with with Charlie McConalogue himself. I said here last week that I felt the minister could come out with the whole thing with some credit if he did the right thing and reversed.

And that is what he has now done, so credit where it's due for that, although I still don't really understand why he took the approach he did last Wednesday week.

I seem to be in a minority willing to quickly forgive the misstep. In fact, everyone seems to feel a little unhappy with where things have landed. From my analysis, no-one has really lost out very much, but farmers in the scheme feel he never should have touched it and everyone else now feels those farmers in the scheme have been treated too well in the end. It's not easy to please farmers, is it?