Talk:Common Agricultural Policy

message: :"(...) according to a study by the Centre for New Europe, the CAP kills 6,600 people in developing countries every day."
Can anybody confirm me that such a study does exist. I have had a look at the publication web page of the Centre for the New Europe (= Centre of New Europe?), and I can't find any such study 
. I really would like to know whether this assertion is based upon a sound reasoning. --Edcolins 20:05, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
:: Here you go. Added also to the article. --Tmh 12:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The CAP kills 6,600 people in developing countries every day 

message: I still think this is a very poor introduction to such an important subject. I had some thoughts about revising it in line with the simple explanations in Robert Jackson's recent article in Prospect Magazine (November 2005), but I can't reconcile his three pillars of Community Preference, Market Support and Own Resources with what's here on Wikipedia. I shied away because a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I was afraid of making it worse. But the whole article really does need to explain in these simple steps:
1. When was the CAP set up?
2. What were its objectives?
3. What policies were designed to achieve these objectives, and what constituencies and products did they affect?
4. How much did they cost?
5. How were they funded?
6. How have policies, costs and funding changed since the establishment of the CAP?
7. What are the political controversies surrounding the CAP?
8. What are some proposed resolutions of these controversies?
I suspect all this information is either explicitly or implicitly in the article, but it really is very hard to follow.
84.9.74.228 20:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks all well and good, but a lot of your questions depend on points in history, so from one section to the next there'll be a lot of jumping about in time. Like it or not, the CAP is hugely complex so no matter what happens, it's always going to be a bit of a mess, unless we make one introductory article and then link the rest from there into separate pages (e.g. History of the CAP, Data of the CAP (such as pricing for individual items etc: the raw numbers stuff.)). I think part of the problem is that people with different areas of expertise are all editing this same article, so it jumps from being introductory to heavily about economics to introductory again to about diplomacy of the EU and so forth. Would anyone else agree that splitting the article might be the way to go, or will someone take on the mammoth task of editing according to the bullet points provided by Jonathan (or another list)? Nach0king 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd still like to see some changes take place. When you contrast this article to other complex political ones it does look weak, and jumps from the very basic to the fairly involved seemingly at random. I'd like to go with Jonathan Hollow's "roadmap" for changing this article, whilst keeping a lot of the content here. Is anyone else interested in doing this? Or will any attempts just be reverted? Nach0king 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, all I said was that it was not too long to be on one page. I personally find it annoying to have to flip to different pages unnecessarily.  Just taking bits of it and putting them elsewhere would not improve the content. If you want to figure out what the hell it all means and make it better, then that's what we do here. All I can say is it is a lot better than it used to be. The article does contain sections corresponding to most of the points above, somewhere. Can't say as I read prospect magazine, so I have no idea whether what was in it is correct. Perhaps unsurprisingly, quite a few simple explanations of this subject contain some significant flaws. Sandpiper 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon-ridden and still badly structured

message: Someone has edited the article arguing that the French get greater CAP subsidies because they have inefficient farmers. This is not true. The amount of money you get does not depend upon how efficient your farmers are. Rather, farmers can afford to remain inefficient (rather than going out of business) because they get a subsidy. The inefficiency of french (voting) farmers is why the French government is desperate to hang on to the subsidy, to keep them happy, not why they get as much money as they do. The reason France gets a lot of money from the CAP is because France is a big country with a lot of LAND. The more land you have, the more money you get. The actual subsidy rate is the same in different countries. 
Actually, the figures quoted in the article demonstrate that France makes a net contribution to the EU Budget of around 0.5million euros. So overall, they contribute to the budget, and do not receive a subsidy from anyone. Sandpiper 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inefficient french Farmers 

message: Hey, I heard on EuroNews a while ago that the EU had planned to adjust the system so that big farmers would get less money but smal l farmers would get the same (or something like that), does anyone know what the policy was, why the UK rejected it? - FrancisTyers
:Last I heard, someone did make such a proposal, but  some countries didn't like it, and thats that. Did the Uk reject it? Sandpiper 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This might have been it;  "Paying farmers for what society wants" Franz Fischler presents CAP review in the UK. Maybe worth adding to the page? - FrancisTyers 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And again: , ,  - FrancisTyers 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a link for the UK rejecting it, but I'm sure they said as such on EuroNews, if anyone can find a link I'd be grateful :) - FrancisTyers 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, thats exactly it (apart from the bit about the inbalance, I don't get where that comes in). - FrancisTyers 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But don't French farmers need the money more? Because they have more smaller farms? If the UK moved towards smaller farms wouldn't it then be able to claim more?  - FrancisTyers 17:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would be quite surprised to discover that UK farmers get three crops per year. They don't where I live. Also, I have mentioned this before: amount of subsidy is tied to the amount of land being farmed. France has much more farm land than britain, so it gets more money. If Britain was twice as big, then it would be the one benefitting more. Sandpiper 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked it up. According to wiki, France is 2.75 times bigger than britain, so on the face of it you might expect them to get 2.75 times as much subsidy for 2.75 times as many farmers. So I take it back, Britain would have to be 3 times bigger than it is to get more money. Sandpiper
---------
Farms in the UK that get three crops a year in one feild are often farming in an unsustainable way.
---------
The coastal Brittany farms I have seen are very specialised ; many produce cabbage, cauliflour, artichokes and other field vegetables. Others produce tomatoes and cucumbers under glass. Thus it is normal to see several machines in one (small) field ; harvester, packager and also logistic machinery ; often one has to wait while the other catches up. The fields can be small since optimum machinery use is not a priority in such high unit output systems.
In the lower profitability agricultural economy such as in the East of England, farms are less specialised ; producing commodity crops (wheat, oilseed rape etc.) is a challenge of how low your costs can be pared in order to make some sort of income. The idea of three crops per year is only available in an agricultural dreamland (only some intensive Asian rice production allows this). Fields must be large in order to reduce labour and machinery unit costs as much as possible. Without the EU subsidies, Eastern England would be reduced to growing thistles and brambles. See my comments below on French farming.
My mind goes back to my college days when we were told "there are only two types of small farmers - those that want to get bigger and those that want to give up". Would you present yourself to your boss for volontary demotion and lower salary ?Tomcrisp7 18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK rejection

message: From the article:
=== Equity among member states ===
Some countries in the EU have larger agricultural sectors than others, notably France, Spain, and Portugal, and consequently receive more money under the CAP. Other countries make net contributions, such as Germany and the Netherlands (the biggest contribution per head in the EU budget). The UK would have been contributing considerably more, except that Margaret Thatcher successfully negotiated a special annual UK rebate in 1984. Without the rebate the UK was the largest contributor despite being the third poorest member state. The UK has offered to give up some of this rebate, provided that funds released only benefit poorer member states of the EU. 
As of 2004, France gets 13% more of CAP funds than the UK (as a % of total funds - see diagram). This is a net benefit that France gets compared to the UK of €6.37bn.  In comparison, the UK budget rebate for 2005 is scheduled to be approx €5.5bn. . The popular view in the UK (as, for example, set forth in the tabloid press) is that if the UK rebate were reduced with no change to the CAP, then the UK would be paying money to keep an inefficient French farming sector in business - to many British people, this would be seen as grossly unfair. French motives for generating arguments about "solidarity" and "selfishness" are therefore seen as extremely cynical. 
If the rebate were removed without changes to the CAP then the UK would pay a net contribution of 14 times that of the French (In 2005 EU budget terms). The UK would make a net contribution of €8.25bn compared to the current contribution of €2.75bn, versus a current French net contribution of €0.59bn. Alternatively, these figures demonstrate that France makes no net demand on the EU budget at all, rather it makes a modest contribution in overall budget terms, although less than a country with a comparable economy like the UK, due to Frances CAP receipts.
:ok, I copyedited it. See what people think.Sandpiper 17:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  France and UK make similar contributions 

message: Some countries in the EU have larger agricultural sectors than others, notably France, Spain, and Portugal, and consequently receive more money under the CAP. Other countries make net contributions, such as Germany and the Netherlands (the biggest contribution per head in the EU budget). The UK would have been contributing considerably more, except that Margaret Thatcher successfully negotiated a special annual UK rebate in 1984. Without the rebate the UK was the largest contributor despite being the third poorest member state. The UK has offered to give up some of this rebate, provided that funds released only benefit poorer member states of the EU. 
As of 2004, France gets 13% more of CAP funds than the UK (as a % of total funds - see diagram). This is a net benefit that France gets compared to the UK of €6.37bn.  In comparison, the UK budget rebate for 2005 is scheduled to be approx €5.5bn. . The popular view in the UK (as, for example, set forth in the tabloid press) is that if the UK rebate were reduced with no change to the CAP, then the UK would be paying money to keep an inefficient French farming sector in business - to many British people, this would be seen as grossly unfair. French motives for generating arguments about "solidarity" and "selfishness" are therefore seen as extremely cynical. 
If the rebate were removed without changes to the CAP then the UK would pay a net contribution of 14 times that of the French (In 2005 EU budget terms). The UK would make a net contribution of €8.25bn compared to the current contribution of €2.75bn, versus a current French net contribution of €0.59bn. Alternatively, these figures demonstrate that France makes no net demand on the EU budget at all, rather it makes a modest contribution in overall budget terms, although less than a country with a comparable economy like the UK, due to Frances CAP receipts.
:ok, I copyedited it. See what people think.Sandpiper 17:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equity among member states 

message: I removed the following addition from the section 'equality amongst member states'
, although less than a country with a comparable economy like the UK, due to Frances CAP receipts.
On the scale of the overall budget, the contributions of Britain and France are both quite small and comparable, as are the sizes of the economies. This addition puts the same case which has already been stated in the sentences before. Sandpiper
I removed the line again. The first objection to the addition is that it is three additional clauses tagged on to the end of a two-clause sentence. Next, the addition seeks to rebut the point made in the original sentence. This rebuttal is partially made already, in the opening paragraph, but also does not really address the issue of whether the CAP is unfair (which it states is the express reason for the difference in contributions). This section is titled 'equity amongst states', but it has been edited almost entirely into a discussion of the CAP, whereas strict equity also depends on other elements of the budget. But if considering CAP alone, the article states the excess paid to France is 6.37 bn, whereas the rebate is 5.5bn. So assuming the rebate were entirely to offset CAP issues, then the difference is only 0.87 bn, not the 2.75 bn overal discrepancy. Clearly Britain is losing out elsewhere too. But then, taking into account the sizes of the two economies as invited by the line, this figure is pretty small change and while mathematically greater than France's contribution, the difference is not really significant.
Also, the rebuttal as a whole does not really adress the point of the originating sentence. That France, whatever it spends the money on, overall puts money into the budget, as does Britain. So in no real sense can it be claimed that Britain is subsidising France, whether or not Britain receives a rebate. Only that Britain subsidises certain (unnamed) member states, but not France, Germany, or the netherlands. Sandpiper 11:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion

message: someone inserted the following into the text: in 'equity amongst member states'
The UK offered to give up some of this rebate so as to benefit the poorer member states of the EU, in return for CAP reform[3]. However, France and Germany refused any immediate reform, and in a humiliating defeat, the UK gave up £1 billion per year in rebate, while receiving nothing in return, and no concrete reform proposals.
The meaning of the first sentence was changed, although its replacement is also true. However, despite changing the first sentence to explain why the UK decided to allow the rebate to be reduced, the second sentence then claims this was a 'humiliation'. What the Uk received in return was conditionality on the extra money so that it could not be spent on the CAP, and must be spend on structure programes, which means helping the poorer areas (effectively, the new states). As I read it (in the rather long official handout), the other states are also committed to providing similar extra amounts of money. So we got the money spent where we want it to go, and got the others to chip in similarly. I don't see how that can be described as a 'humiliation'. The thing about the rebate is that it limits extra contributions by the UK. If the other states want to contribute more, they can go it alone.  What has happened is that the Uk has agreed to adjust its rebate to increase its contributions in line with others. True, the issue of CAP reform and the balancing rebate remains, but it has really been put to one side while the budget has been readjusted to help the new countries. Sandpiper 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, reads like something out of the Daily Mail. - FrancisTyers 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The above says shall fully participate on the financing of enlargement. Which means the others would also have to participate pro-rata. Sandpiper 08:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proven it says what it says. I am certainly interested in any references you can find giving an authoritative explanation in more detail. In the absence of further explanation I give it its normal English meaning, that to fully participate in an activity with a group of others suggests that everyone will be participating as well. I did not see anything to suggest that any countries would not be participating in funding expansion/development costs for the new members, whereas it explicitly states that the UK will not be participating in any additional funding of CAP or programs for existing members. Sandpiper 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  humiliating defeat? 

message: The EU financial report for 2004  states the CAP budget as 42.5 billion, plus a rural development budget of 6.5 billion. This gives total agricultural spending of 49 billion, which the article claims for CAP expenditure. I recall the number in the article originally being lower, so was this an incorrect correction by someone, or what? The 2004 report anticipates 2005 total expenditure about 1 billion up, to 50 billion for the two elements Sandpiper 23:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added originally the budget of 43 billion, don't know who changed it. -nagytibi  ! ? 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of budget 

message: Having moaned about this page a couple of months ago, I'd like to congratulate everybody who has massively improved it!
Jonathan Hollow 84.9.72.158 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massively improved and clarified

message: In what analysis?  In terms of receiving CAP moneys?  Not in actual GDP, of course...  Very unclear.
:I assume this is a recent comment, but it is undated? I think it was probably in terms of per capita GDP. I'm not sure which bit you refer to, but the UK budget rebate was originally granted because Britain was strike ridden and broke. Remember the power shortages? Sandpiper 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Third Poorest Member State?

message: Large slabs of this article seem to be direct lifts from EU sites. The opening para, which had been a definition, was replaced by POV stuff about the objectives of the policy, presented in bureaucratic language (I've restored the definition). The article as it stands, fails to give a proper account of what the CAP does. JQ 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I put in the "globalize" template because this article is seriously skewed in its discussion of the policy. I count almost 30 references to the UK, 18 to france, 9 to Germany, 3 to Spain, and then 1 or 2 or fewer to all of the other member states. Obviously certain states will be more relevant to the discussion than others, but this is ridiculous! The real problem is that there's a very long section detailing how France is screwing over the UK. Obviously this is an issue, but it is given more attention than it merits in an encyclopedia article, skewing the overall story. I hate to cut out information, but it seems that editing is called for in this case. Objections? Peregrine981 04:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited geographic scope 

message: I am an ex-farmer of 280 hectares and produced wheat, oilseed rape and maize together with forage crops and milk from 140 cows. I was a producer for over 20 years, mostly in France.
I would like to correct the inaccuracies in the following paragraphs of the article:
Hurting smaller farms: Although most policy makers in Europe agree that they want to promote "family farms" and smaller scale production, the CAP in fact rewards larger producers. Because the CAP has traditionally rewarded farmers who produce more, larger farms have benefitted much more from subsidies than smaller farms. For example, a farm with 1000 hectares, earning one hundred extra euros per hectare will make 100,000 extra euros, while a 10 hectare farm will only make an extra 1000 euros, disregarding economies of scale. As a result most CAP subsidies have made their way to large scale farmers. Since the 2003 reforms subsidies have been linked to the size of farms, so this is not so true any more. So while subsidies allow small farms to exist, they funnel most profits to larger scale operations.
It is important to realize that subsidy is paid to support the production of the commodities rather than to support the farm or the farmer. Therefore payment per hectare merely encourages the farmer to grow the crop since it will ultimately be more profitable for him than any other within the limits of his rotation.
Secondly you are confusing the margin generated by growing the crop and being paid the subsidy with the profit the farm makes. From the 100,000 euros both farms have to support the cost of labour, machinery, power, rent and overheads for growing their crop. The relative end profitability is irrelevant since who is to judge whether the 1000 hectare farmer earning 100,000 euros is too wealthy, or for that matter the 10 hectare farmer mad for surviving on 1000 euros? The small farmer is only small because he can’t afford to or doesn’t have the skills to get bigger.
In France political tools are used to keep farms small. Every sector is responsible for its own social security cover / pensions. Therefore a large number of farmers, essentially the equivalent of farm workers in the UK, are kept out of the unemployment chain to limit the costs that this would entail. Many small farmers are thus living in relative poverty.
In the UK the small farms logically saw more benefit in selling up to the large. Future social security cover was not an issue. Large rich farms in the UK are more of a perceived problem – the UK inheritance system has allowed traditionally large estates to be handed down the generations intact, as opposed to France where farms have been divided at each generation until, too small to be viable, the land is rented to larger farms.
The big farmer at the local manor farm has bought a new Range Rover largely because he has no rent to pay rather than because of farm subsidies which have merely encouraged him to grow wheat.
Environmental problems: The CAP has traditionally promoted a large expansion in agricultural production. At the same time it has allowed farmers to employ uneconomic ways of increasing production, such as the indiscriminate use of fertilizers and pesticides, with serious environmental consequences. Since the reforms of 2003 much more attention is paid to environmental problems, and this may no longer be true.
Supporting wheat production has caused expansion. Use of fertiliser and pesticides is however, most certainly economic since yields and output will be halved without them (see wheat – costs and returns).
Use of fertiliser and pesticides is not and never was, INDISCRIMINATE. Any farmer who did this would be committing financial suicide. Optimum levels of fertiliser and pesticides are those levels above which no realistic economic gain can be expected. Every farmer knows this, optimum levels are therefore minimum levels discovered by scientific trials.
The argument should be whether or not to subsidize growing wheat in the EU? This is largely a redundant argument now, as CAP reforms are decoupling aid from production.
Tomcrisp7 07:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from a farmer 

message: I just deleted this line 'With the above in mind, it is clear that reform was as infrequent as it was underwhelming until fairly recently'. What? was that line lifted from somewhere else, or is it simply POV writing?  I also noticed that the section describing how the CAP actually works had disappeared completely. Admittedly, it's not very good, but what it needs is expanding with a better explanation of how it works, not deleting. Anyone notice comment about the total debacle in the UK over the last year when the new scheme introduced was an administrative disaster? Sandpiper 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that near the start of the reform section? If so, I think that was me a couple of years ago. I apologise for the non-neutral writing there! Nach0king 10:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment from an editor 

message: I just moved some info around in the "Equity & the UK rebate" sections.  Would someone who has spent more time on the article please let me know if I really improved it or not?  Thanks!  Mdotley 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangements 

message: What are editors looking for to fix the NPOV and "worldwide view" problems, so we can get those tags out of the way? Mdotley 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my first thought. Tags can be very unhelpfull if the perpetrator does not explain what is bothering him. Sandpiper 00:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Can someone familiar with all the issues please write a fully referenced summery of the CAP for the main European Union page. We would be most grateful, I for one do not have the knowledge or sources to do it. Thanks. - J Logan t: 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Please note whoever altered the article updating it to the current 'reformed ' scheme, that this has not been implemented yet. Transitional arrangements apply, so effectively much of Europe including the Uk is still entirely or partially running on the unreformed crop subsidy scheme. Sandpiper 00:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: having just provisionally checked my recollections, the transition runs until 2012 and in the UK farmers will receive a diminishing proportion of the amount they received averaged over the last years of the old scheme and a rising proportion of payments under the new scheme through that period. So whatever level of payment they were getting, dependent on the particular crop they were growing up to 2005, is frozen irrespective of actual changes they have made in their farming practices. So I suppose basically every farmer is now getting a flat rate payment which does not change whatever they are growing, but some get more money per acre than others. Hmm? Sandpiper 07:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAP reforms 

message: According to the International Style Guide (used by EU institutions), the CAP in full form is not capitalised, thus 'common agricultural policy'. Please can someone confirm this? 83.99.40.237 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling convention 

message: I am going to remove some/all of the tags on the article and will do so again unless anyone comments here exactly what they see as problems. There is some debate on this page, but it goes back years and I would judge it to have been resolved. Sandpiper 12:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tags 

message: it's the copy from the european navigator
shouldn't it be mentioned there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.87.16.9 (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mansholt plan 

message: In English, a policy does not take initial capitals. The fact that a policy is well-known and has an acronym associated with it does not change this fact. The phrase 'common agricultural policy' consists of two adjectives and one common noun, none of which take initial capitals in English. It is not the name of a person, organisation or legal instrument, or any of the other types of proper noun which do take an initial capital.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Cooper (talk • contribs) 12:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Europe has a specific common agricultural policy that it [the EU] refers to as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of course. Don't want anybody getting the wrong idea :) --Streaky (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Dear editors,
Our experts from the Agriculture department flagged inaccuracies in the article, especially in the section 'How many people benefit'?
Below is text they drafted as possible replacement of the current one. Could you please let us know whether it would be acceptable? We would be happy to work with you on making it more objective and supply additional sources and citations if needed.
I also noticed that the article has currently an 'outdated' status. Again we would be happy to work together with you on updating it in an objective manner. 
Thank you for your comments, alternatively you can contact us at veronika.sumova@ext.ec.europa.eu and john.mc-clintock@ec.europa.eu Thank you!
The draft:
How many people benefit? 
Europe’s 12 million farmers  are supported by the Common Agricultural Policy, which stabilises their incomes and helps to ensure their long-term economic viability. As well as producing high quality food, farmers undertake other functions:  farming in an environmentally-friendly manner and looking after the countryside, which accounts for three-quarters of the territory of the EU and where half the EU population lives. The CAP also rewards farmers for these services, for which there is currently no market (so called public goods) but which keep the rural economy alive.  
Farmers and their families (10% of the EU population)  are not the only group who benefit directly from the CAP. Through its rural development programmes, the policy also helps rural businesses to develop and expand their activities, with rural development funding going into the wider rural economy. These funds support measures ranging from small business development and skills training to provision of basic services including infrastructure and broadband, and support for local community groups, thus contributing to thriving rural communities.   
Furthermore, EU consumers also benefit from the assurance of food security and reasonable prices.  Food accounts for a declining share of the household expenditure: the average EU household devotes 15% of its budget to food – half as much as in 1960.   A thriving EU farm sector also underpins the resilience of the whole food chain. Together farmers and food manufacturers account for 7% of employment and contribute 6% of the EU's GDP.  In total more than 15 million businesses  are involved in producing and processing food, trade and food services.  
References (the wiki format unfortunately erased the footnotes from the above text, happy to learn how to cite properly on Wikipedia):
  European Commission (2014), The European Union Explained: Agriculture, a partnership between Europe and farmers, the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP): for our food, for our countryside, for our environment.  Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, p. 4. 
  Calculated on the basis that there are 12 million farmers, each farmer has a spouse/partner and on average two children. 12 million times 4 persons = 48 million persons. Of a total EU population of 500 million, the proportion that is farmers and family members is approximately 10%.   
  European Commission (2014), The European Union Explained: Agriculture, a partnership between Europe and farmers, the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP): for our food, for our countryside, for our environment.  Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, p. 8.
  European Commission (2014), The European Union Explained: Agriculture, a partnership between Europe and farmers, the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP): for our food, for our countryside, for our environment.  Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, p. 4.
  European Commission (2014), The European Union Explained: Agriculture, a partnership between Europe and farmers, the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP): for our food, for our countryside, for our environment.  Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, p. 4.
158.169.40.8 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem here is that, as worded, this is advocacy. The articles is intended to be about this specific policy, rather than about why European agriculture is important, or why it needs to be supported.As for the references, they're by the organization itself, and therefore not reliable for saying why its work is important--all that such references can be used for is plain description.  DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer for cooperation on editing the article (European Commission) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704205503/http://www.acpsugar.org:80/ to http://www.acpsugar.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130224013823/http://www.belanski.com/drupal/great_bustard to http://www.belanski.com/drupal/great_bustard
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120227102801/http://www.ecipe.org/publications/ecipe-working-papers/public-money-for-public-goods-winners-and-losers-from-cap-reform/PDF to http://www.ecipe.org/publications/ecipe-working-papers/public-money-for-public-goods-winners-and-losers-from-cap-reform/PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720154235/http://caphealthcheck.eu/return-of-the-butter-mountain/ to http://caphealthcheck.eu/return-of-the-butter-mountain/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It would be useful to have a section on the effect of subsidies on land values and on rent. Clearly subsidies make farming more profitable and therefore make the value of farm land higher than it otherwise would be. Similarly subsidies which go direct to tenant farmers make it possible for the landowners to charge higher rents for the land - thus it is only the landlord not the farmer whom the subsidy benefits.  Perhaps there is some economic study which can referenced. Cassandra  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.17.128 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on Land Values and Rent 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101225062712/http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2010/f/2_ft_cotton_policy_report_2010_loresv2.pdf to http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2010/f/2_ft_cotton_policy_report_2010_loresv2.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060126234044/http://ue.eu.int:80/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/87677.pdf to http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/87677.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614124121/http://www.epha.org:80/a/495 to http://www.epha.org/a/495
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928112500/http://www.swisscore.org/Policy%20docs/general_research/sapir_report_en.pdf to http://www.swisscore.org/Policy%20docs/general_research/sapir_report_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312183704/http://agritrade.cta.int:80/news0506.htm to http://agritrade.cta.int/news0506.htm#sugar
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091225212259/http://www.rpa.gov.uk:80/rpa/index.nsf/vContentByTaxonomy/A4B88A09234F1D1380257046003846BE?OpenDocument to http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/vContentByTaxonomy/A4B88A09234F1D1380257046003846BE?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829024106/http://www.thelocal.se:80/7443/20070529/ to http://www.thelocal.se/7443/20070529/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006182925/http://openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=256 to http://openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=256
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612183045/http://www.oecd.org:80/document/45/0,2340,fr_2649_201185_35738477_1_1_1_1,00.html to http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0,2340,fr_2649_201185_35738477_1_1_1_1,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609192138/http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/food-crisis-set-weigh-cap-reform/article-172484 to http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/food-crisis-set-weigh-cap-reform/article-172484
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219173816/http://www.rpa.gov.uk:80/rpa/index.nsf/categories/rpa%20schemes?opendocument to http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/categories/rpa%20schemes?opendocument
*Added  tag to http://www.globalisationinstitute.org/reports/cobden-paper/green-and-pleasant-land-20060207532/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209193030/http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/eval/reports/sugar/summ_en.pdf to http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/eval/reports/sugar/summ_en.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://agritrade.cta.int/news0506.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/vContentByTaxonomy/A4B88A09234F1D1380257046003846BE?OpenDocument
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thelocal.se/7443/20070529/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0%2C2340%2Cfr_2649_201185_35738477_1_1_1_1%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/categories/rpa%20schemes?opendocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just a small thing, but I found the order of the sections in the article a bit confusing. At first I thought the article just did not contain a section on the history of the CAP, only to find that it was the last section of the article. Is the history of a subject normally not the first section of an article? I would personally switch it! Keutelaar (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put history part first?