Talk:Common Agricultural Policy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fmd1994.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Older stuff

Notes:

• Need to make it clear that Fortress Europe is the tariff wall thing as well protectionism
• Rationalisation for agricultural subsidies -- food is an important good, supply can flucuate (bad harvest etc) while demand is inelastic; resulting in price flucuations (room for diagrams)
• Moral dilemas -- food mountains, wine lakes, food dumping -- develops into market/capitalism issue.

--Sam

It should be said when and why the CAP was set up. In 1962, the 6 Member States of the European Economic Community were mostly in deficit in terms of food production.
The CAP objectives already appeared in the Treaty of Rome: to increase the agricultural productivity; to ensure an equitable standard of living for farmers; to stabilize the markets; to guarantee supplies; to ensure suitability of prices for the consumer.

• A normative concern was the self-sufficiency of Europe. Partly it was a cuddly, post-WW2 Euro love-in; partly, it was a piece of Cold War realism. Nach0king 23:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The time of wine lakes, fruit dumping, butter stocks is gone. That was in the 70 and 80ies (of last century :-))

Mentionning the US Farm Bill would help to understand the Pac as it is redefined now, and to present it in a slightly more neutral point of view.

user:anthere

Balance is welcome, of course! I just got into criticisms first :) -- Sam

---

put here for further extent

In recent years, the biggest beneficary of these subsidies has been France, and hence that country is its strongest supporter in the face of calls for liberalisation of agricultural markets.

Some major critics of the Common Agricultural Policy are those that reject the idea of protectionism, either in theory, practice or both. Free market advocates are among those who disagree with the government intervention because, they say, a free market (one without such intervention) will allocate resources much more efficiently. Some members of the anti-globalisation movement say that these subsidies, like those of other Western states, add to the problem of what is sometimes called Fortress Europe; The West spends millions -- if not billions on agricultural subsidies every year, and this acts as a tax on poorer nations competing for the agricultural markets.

---

[[Price control|minimum price]]

Why? -- Sam

I believe that this is sensible because I have seen the dangling links in the area of taxation for regressive taxation and progressive taxation. It seems that flat tax may have been intended as an offshoot of taxation to cover the concept of progressivity, but it has taken on a lot of detail about income tax. It seems to me that Price control is a single concept that can correspond to a single article discussing both minimum prices, as in this context, and maximum prices as in a war time command economy (or as, I believe, obtained for milk in the United Kingdom until well into the 1980s). I think this would be preferable to fragmentation. -- Alan Peakall 14:43 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

I'll go with that, I suppose, at least for now. If the discussions get very long, which, with a variety of examples etc., could get quite long. Fair enough. --Sam

---

• Common Agricultural Policy generally because information is incomplete (no history, no clear explanation of why the Pac was set up, how it works, evolution over time, benefits it brings to the community...), clear anti-CAP article. Critics is fine, only critics is not. On top, anti-french rant imho. user:anthere

from wikipedia:votes for NPOVing - I assume this is now resolved?

It is still a very poor article, but it is not only critics as before; so you can assume it is "solved". Ant

The CAP kills 6,600 people in developing countries every day

"(...) 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 [1]. I really would like to know whether this assertion is based upon a sound reasoning. --Edcolins 20:05, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

[2] Here you go. Added also to the article. --Tmh 12:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I read the referenced article. It argues that 20,000 people die from malnutrition daily, that this is a consequence of unfair trade rules, that the EU handles 1/3 of world trade and so is responsible for 1/3 of these deaths. An extraordinarily unsubstantiated line of reasoning. Even if you accept this argument, it not actually talking about the CAP, but EU trade in general.Sandpiper 2 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)

---

Had occasion to look at this page and was struck by its out of datedness, incompleteness about how the system works, and very negative attidute. It does not reflect what the UK would see as the negative aspect of the scheme, that it is something of an historical anachronism, distorts budget discussions and encourages fighting between countries for entrenched advantage. But it also hardly mentions the original aim which was to preserve a (militarily) strategically important farm sector. This was an independant UK aim even before joining the EU. Nor does it explain the increasingly important social aim of essentially paying for general maintenance of the countryside. It may not come across in the US just how crowded some European countries feel and how sensitive they may be to threats to countryside. --sandpiper 10/11 june 2005

I removed the "needs attention" notice. I just read through it and thought that it provides a pretty good overview of the subject. While there's certainly room for improvement, the guidelines say the notice applies to pages needing a "lot of work". I don't think this is the case here. --62.77.178.54 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I note that the author of this article states immediately after the quoted statistics that "These are questionable, if not unreasonable, figures." Alarm bells anyone??? Even the author feels the figures are not valid - so they definitely should not be used as sole evidence. Ctwi001 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jargon-ridden and still badly structured

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)Jonathan Hollow

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)

Maybe splitting it is a good idea ... it just seems a shame - Wikipedia is so good at giving these kinds of overviews and I'm sure it could be done better.

84.9.74.228 17:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is not that long. Whatever you may think about its structure or content, it would be rather silly to split it onto different pages when the total size is still small enough to comfortably fit on one page. It is a complex subject, and I suspect it does not have enought detail. For instance, the issue of different countries being permitted to create their own implementation rules. I have heard discussion suggesting that effectively France is now operating a rather different system to Britain. we have started the process of transferring subsidies away from specific crops, but they have not. Naturally, any english speakers interested in the subject are likely to know about the english system. Sandpiper 19:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Inefficient french Farmers

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)

Farm Structures

I have taken this phrase out of the the first main paragraph, since i have no idea what it means in the context of agricultural intervention.

UK rejection

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)

---

As far as i know, the british monarchy are the biggest owners of farmland in the UK, hence the british government rejected the new deal

---

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)

And again: [3], [4], [5] - FrancisTyers 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

The reason UK rejected proposal is on the grounds of most of UKs farms are large and would have had their money cut, France has mainly mostly small farms so little money reduction. So in effect UK would have received even less money, causing an even bigger inbalance.

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)

The imbalance comes where the UK would be makeing an even greater Net contribution to EU funds and France an even lower one. It was pointed out that France would then again be a net receiver of funds and Uk would effectively be paying for it. Considering Uk and France are of similar economic size and strength it would be seen as even more unfair to the Uk.

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)

The small farming model in France is one of the reasons for low productivity and efficiency of the French farms. I have a home in France in Brittany and the standard of farming is very poor i.e small fields, ineffective use of machinery i.e 3 tractors in one field operated by 1 driver whereas next to my house in UK farmer planting same crop using 1 tractor to complete all tasks and also Uk farms get at least 3 crops per field per year whereas brittany farms only do 1. So really I see no reason Uk should finance low farm output in France. France may have more farms but if they used them more effectively they could produce same amount of food for less cost and same or higher quality using less land and less manpower. So effectively they would have bigger and fewer farms so less need of CAP. But unfortunately they have become so used to receiving large amounts of CAP they are unable or unwilling to change.

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)

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)

France and UK make similar contributions

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. [6]

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. [7] In comparison, the UK budget rebate for 2005 is scheduled to be approx €5.5bn. [8]. 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)

discussion

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)

humiliating defeat?

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)

Agree, reads like something out of the Daily Mail. - FrancisTyers 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but having read the official Budget handout I wonder where it states what you have said or is it just your opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.136.41 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 22 December 2005.

[9] page 30: (d) The UK budgetary correction mechanism (the UK abatement) shall remain, along with the reduced contribution to the financing of the abatement benefiting Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands, as agreed at the 1999 Berlin European Council. The UK abatement remains in full on all expenditure except in relation to the new Member States as set out below. Starting in 2013 at the latest, the UK shall fully participate in the financing of enlargement costs for countries which have acceded after 30 April 2004 except for CAP market expenditure 1. To this end the UK budgetary mechanism shall be adjusted by progressively reducing the total allocated expenditure in line with the modalities in Annex II. During the period 2007-2013 the additional contribution from the UK shall not be higher than 10.5 billion euro, in comparison with the application of the current Own Resources Decision. In case of future enlargement the additional contribution referred to above will be adjusted accordingly (except for Romania and Bulgaria).

Annex II just conatains a list of percentage by which this will be phased in from 2007-2013. Nothing is said about what will happen after 2013. I have yet to see a sensible explanation of how this changes things, but it appears to say what I said. Sandpiper 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

quote:- (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 do not see any reference to this in your quote and having re-read article still cannot find this is any of the budget releases, so as I stated above it must be an opinion or wishfull thinking.217.43.200.168 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Interesting way of reading the above!! It only says UK will FULLY participate, it is a total assumption on your part that others will do so as well. It could be assumed that as it mentions Uk as FULLY participating other countries may be to a lesser or greater extent, or even not at all! though this is unlikely.. So you have proven that it is your opinion not a factual documented Directive.217.43.200.54 09:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Totally not proven and also interesting how your interpretation is now put forward as normal and only English meaning.If anything this interchange has only shown that these pages are not all factual and have a large content of individuals opinions. So I will comment no further 217.43.203.208 00:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Size of budget

The EU financial report for 2004 [10] 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)

I added originally the budget of 43 billion, don't know who changed it. -nagytibi ^{! ?} 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article that footnote (1) refers to does not state a 2005 budget of 43 bln as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but of 49 bln. However, newer figures are available, with a stated 55 bln for 2007, "link":http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/bulletin.aspx?bulletinid=27 item 1. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state the lastest possible figure? MZH 88.16.207.208 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Massively improved and clarified

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)

• • Where did all the other info go?! As nice as it is to see most of my changes remaining, the only remaining information is now about Reforming the CAP. Nowhere is there an explanation of what the CAP actually is, other than the first tiny paragraph. Has this page been vandalised? Nach0king 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think it probably had. The correct procedure in such a situation is to find the last complete version and put it back. Appologies to anyone who made any intervening actual improvements which got lost. Sandpiper 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

UK Third Poorest Member State?

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)

I went ahead and edited this article

I tried to make it more cohesive and update some information.

I think this is now redudant:

The creation of a common agricultural policy was proposed in 1960 by the European Commission. It followed the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which established the Common Market. The six member states individually strongly intervened in their agricultural sectors, in particular with regard to what was produced, maintaining prices for goods and how farming was organised. This intervention posed an obstacle to free trade in goods while the rules continued to differ from state to state, since freedom of trade would interfere with the intervention policies. Some Member States, in particular France, and all farming professional organisations wanted to maintain strong state intervention in agriculture. This could therefore only be achieved if policies were harmonised and transferred to the European Community level.

This is interesting but more of an interpretation:

The CAP is often explained as the result of a political compromise between France and Germany: German industry would have access to the French market; in exchange, Germany would help pay for France's farmers.

This is great information but the data is now a year old and the considerations on reforming the CAP are extensively discussed later on in the article.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a system of European Union agricultural subsidies which represents about 44% of the EU's budget (€43 billion scheduled spend for 2005 [11]). These subsidies work by guaranteeing a minimum price to producers and by direct payment of a subsidy for crops planted. This provides some economic certainty for EU farmers and production of a certain quantity of agricultural goods. Reforms of the system are currently underway including a phased transfer of subsidy to land stewardship rather than specific crop production from 2005 to 2012. Detailed implementation of the scheme varies in different member countries of the EU.

The CAP is an integrated system of measures which works by maintaining commodity price levels within ethe EU and by subsidising production. There are three principal mechanisms:

• Import Tariffs are applied to specified goods imported into the EU. These are set at a level to raise the World market price up to the EU target price. The target price is chosen as the maximum desirable price for those goods within the EU.

• An internal intervention price is set. If the internal market price falls below the intervention level then the EU will buy up goods to raise the price to the intervention level. The intervention price is set lower than the target price. The internal market price can only vary in the range between the intervention price and target price.

• Subsidies are paid to farmers growing particular crops. This was intended to encourage farmers to choose to grow those crops attracting subsidies and maintain home-grown suppliqres. Subsidies were generally paid on the area of land growing a particular crop, rather than on the total amount of crop produced. Current reforms of the system now underway are phasing out specific crop subsidies in favour of flat-rate subsidies based only on the area of land in cultivation, and in return for adopting environmentally beneficial farming methods. This will reduce, but not eliminate, the economic incentive to overproduce.

The change in subsidies is intended to be accomplished by 2012, but individual governments have freedom to decide how the new scheme will be introduced. The UK government has decided to run both systems of subsidy together, each year transferring a larger proportion of the total payments to the new scheme. Other governments have chosen to wait, and change the system at the latest possible time.

The CAP also makes use of external trade policy. Some non member countries have negotiated quotas which allow them to sell particular goods within the EU without tariffs. This notably applies to countries which had a traditional trade link with a member country.

The CAP also aims to promote legislative harmonisation within the Community. Differing laws in member countries can create problems for anyone seeking to trade between countries. Examples are regulations on permitted preservatives or coloring agents in foods, labeling regulations, use of hormones or other drugs in livestock intended for human consumption and disease control (e.g. during the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands), animal welfare regulations. The process of removing all hidden legislative barriers to trade is still incomplete.

The CAP is funded by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) of the EU. CAP reform has steadily lowered its share of the EU budget but it still accounts for nearly half EU expenditure. In recent years France has benefited the most from these subsidies.

The new accession countries which joined the EU in 2004 have large farm sectors and would have overtaken France as chief beneficiary, but for transitional regulations limiting the subsidies which they receive. The continuing problem of how subsidies for these countries will be paid when they become eligible has already led to French concessions on reform of the CAP. Further concessions will inevitably be necessary to balance the budget.

POV

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)

Limited geographic scope

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)

Comments from a farmer

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)

comment from an editor

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)

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)

Rearrangements

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)

OK, now I put the History section in order (I think). Any comments? Mdotley 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags

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)

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)

Request

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) Sorted, thanks. - J Logan ^t: 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CAP reforms

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)

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)

Spelling convention

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)

Confirmed below under new heading 'Capitalisation'. Timothy Cooper (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The question referred to the Interinstitutional (not International) Style Guide, which you'll find at http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-000100.htm. See 10.4. Capitals and lower case (http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-4100400en.htm) and list of acronyms and abbreviations in Annex A4 (http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-5000400.htm#fnc). See also the English Style Guide from the European Commission's Directorate-General for Translation (http://ec.europa.eu/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf), and in particular point 13.3. Timothy Cooper (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article tags

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)

mansholt plan

[12] 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)

Capitalisation

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)

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)

Offer for cooperation on editing the article (European Commission)

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. ISBN 978-92-79-37537-8 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. ISBN 978-92-79-37537-8 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. ISBN 978-92-79-37537-8 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. ISBN 978-92-79-37537-8 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, p. 4.

158.169.40.8 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Effect on Land Values and Rent

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Common Agricultural Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 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/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 {{dead link}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Put history part first?

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)