Editing Common Agricultural Policy (section)

==Criticism==
The CAP has been roundly criticized by many diverse interests since its inception. Criticism has been wide-ranging, and even the European Commission has long acknowledged the numerous defects of the policy.{{Citation needed|date = March 2025}} In May 2007, Sweden became the first EU country to take the position that all EU farm subsidies should be abolished, except those related to [[environmental protection]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thelocal.se/7443/20070529/ |title=Sweden proposes abolition of farm subsidy |access-date=1 November 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070829024106/http://www.thelocal.se/7443/20070529/ |archive-date=29 August 2007}}</ref>

===Anti-development===
Many developing countries are highly dependent on agriculture. The [[FAO]] finds that agriculture provides for the livelihood of 70% of the world's poorest people. As such, the subsidies in the CAP are charged with preventing [[developing countries]] from exporting agricultural produce to the EU on a level playing field. The [[WTO]] [[Doha Development Round]], which intended to increase global development, has stalled due to the developed countries' refusal to remove agricultural subsidies.

A review of post-2013 proposal by Prof. Alan Matthews underlines the lack of ambition in tackling the issue. "This CAP reform was not intended to address the trade barriers used to keep some [[EU market]] prices higher than world market levels. The EU has reduced the effect of these barriers for a number of developing countries through extending the scope of preferential access under various [[trade agreement]]s, and a further reduction is being negotiated in the WTO Doha Round. Nonetheless, developing countries will be disappointed that the opportunity was not taken in this reform to set a final date for the ending of export subsidies. A more ambitious CAP reform, in which the targeting of direct payments was pursued more insistently and coupled payments were phased out, would also have a greater effect in removing the remaining distortions caused by the CAP to world markets."<ref name="Matthews">{{cite web |url=http://www.ictsd.org/themes/agriculture/research/post-2013-eu-common-agricultural-policy-trade-and-development-a-review |title=Post-2013 EU Common Agricultural Policy, Trade and Development. A Review of Legislative Proposals |first=Alan |last=Matthews | publisher= ICTSD |date= October 2011}}</ref> In another study, Prof. Matthews showed how linking EU farm subsidies to goals such as environmental protection could help farmers in poor countries, although much depends on the size of the payments and how they are made.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ictsd.org/i/publications/97803/ |title=How Might the EU's Common Agricultural Policy Affect Trade and Development After 2013? |first=Alan |last=Matthews |publisher= ICTSD |date= December 2010}}</ref>

At the same time, however, the EU remains the world's biggest importer of farm products from developing countries. On average, over the period 2006–2008, the EU has imported €53&nbsp;billion worth of goods. This is more than the US, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external/dev/publi/overview/text_en.pdf |title=The EU is the world's biggest importer of farm products |publisher=European Commission |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref> This is further encouraged by a preferential [[market access]] agreement for products from developing countries. Today, around 71% of the EU's agricultural imports originate from developing countries. The '[[Everything but Arms]]' program,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/trade/wider-agenda/development/generalised-system-of-preferences/everything-but-arms/ |title=Generalised System of Preferences: Everything But Arms |publisher=European Commission |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref> gives the world's 49 least-developed countries duty-free and quota-free access to the EU market. Under the Economic Partnership Agreements, countries from the African, Caribbean and Pacific group enjoy full duty-free and quota free access.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/trade/wider-agenda/development/economic-partnerships/ |title=Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific group of countries |publisher=European Commission |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref>

=== Funding of animal farming ===
A study reported in 2024 that 80% of the CAP's subsidies in 2013 supported emissions-intensive animal products, a ratio that hasn't significantly changed since. Critics argue that these funds could have been better allocated to promote a transition toward more sustainable, plant-based food systems.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Niranjan |first=Ajit |date=2024-04-01 |title=EU pumps four times more money into farming animals than growing plants |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/01/eu-four-times-more-money-farming-animals-than-growing-plants-cap-subsidy |access-date=2025-01-17 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kortleve |first1=Anniek J. |last2=Mogollón |first2=José M. |last3=Harwatt |first3=Helen |last4=Behrens |first4=Paul |date=April 2024 |title=Over 80% of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy supports emissions-intensive animal products |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00949-4 |journal=Nature Food |language=en |volume=5 |issue=4 |pages=288–292 |doi=10.1038/s43016-024-00949-4 |pmid=38561459 |issn=2662-1355}}</ref> According to Olga Kikou, the CAP also created conditions for overproduction, which incentivizes [[intensive animal farming]] and is incompatible with [[animal welfare]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=CAP and animal welfare: Simply incompatible |url=https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/opinion/cap-and-animal-welfare-simply-incompatible/ |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250108131900/https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/opinion/cap-and-animal-welfare-simply-incompatible/ |archive-date=2025-01-08 |access-date=2025-01-17 |website=Euractiv |language=en-GB}}</ref> 

===Oversupply and its redistribution===
To perpetuate the viability of European agriculture in its current state, the CAP-mandated demand for certain farm produce is set at a high level compared with demand in the free market (see {{format link|#CAP as a form of state intervention}}). This leads to the European Union purchasing millions of tons of surplus output every year at the stated guaranteed market price, and storing this produce in large quantities (leading to what critics have called '[[butter mountain]]s' and '[[wine lake]]s'), before selling the produce wholesale to developing nations.<ref name="openeurope.org.uk">{{cite web|url=http://openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=256 |title=independent think tank calling for radical reform of the EU |publisher=Open Europe |access-date=23 April 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111006182925/http://openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=256 |archive-date=6 October 2011}}</ref> In 2007 in response to a parliamentary written question the UK government revealed that over the preceding year the EU Public Stock had amassed "13,476,812 tones of cereal, rice, sugar and milk products and 3,529,002 hectoliters of alcohol/wine", although the EU has claimed this level of [[oversupply]] is unlikely to be repeated. This point was actually proven in January 2009, where the EU had a store of 717,810 tons of cereals, 41,422 tons of sugar and a 2.3&nbsp;million hectoliter wine surplus, showing that the stocks had diminished dramatically.<ref name="openeurope.org.uk"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://caphealthcheck.eu/return-of-the-butter-mountain/ |title=Return of the butter mountain &#124; capreform.eu |publisher=Caphealthcheck.eu |access-date=23 April 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090211212518/http://caphealthcheck.eu/return-of-the-butter-mountain/ |archive-date=11 February 2009 }}</ref>

The [[2007–08 world food price crisis|food crisis in 2008]], which saw the stocks empty out and the prices skyrocket, even introduced a popular demand for the introduction of emergency stocks of agricultural produce in the EU, which would help stabilize prices both on the very volatile markets. In 2010, the European Commission announced its intention to sell out of its cereal stocks to stabilize the situation after a [[Russian grain export ban]] had stung world markets, sending wheat prices to two-year highs and sparked worries of a crisis in global food supplies that could spark widespread strains and protests.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/farm-food.6ao |title=EU to put cereal stocks on market by year-end |publisher=Eubusiness.com |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref>

In 2010, the EU decided to use existing intervention stocks (cereals, milk powder and limited quantities of butter) for its Food Aid for the Needy program for 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1284&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en |title=Europe approves €500&nbsp;million of Food Aid for the Needy for 2011 |publisher=Europa (web portal) |date=4 October 2010 |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref> An estimated 13&nbsp;million poor Europeans benefit from this scheme.

Parts of the EU stocks are exported with the use of export subsidies. It is argued that many African and Asian dairy, tomato,<ref name="Journalism Grants 2014">{{cite web | title=The Dark Side of the Italian Tomato | website=Journalism Grants | date=26 June 2014 | url=https://innovation.journalismgrants.org/projects/the-dark-side-of-italian-tomatoes | access-date=1 March 2018}}</ref><ref name="Al Jazeera 2015">{{cite web | title=Nigeria's tomato farmers squeezed by low prices | publisher=Al Jazeera| date=17 May 2015 | url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/nigeria-tomato-farmers-squeezed-prices-150517175156759.html | access-date=1 March 2018}}</ref> grain and poultry farmers cannot keep up with cheap competition from Europe, thus their incomes can no longer provide for their families.<ref name="Frith 2006">{{cite web | last=Frith | first=Maxine | title=EU subsidies deny Africa's farmers of their livelihood | website=The Independent | date=16 May 2006 | url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html | access-date=1 March 2018}}</ref> At the same time, many urbanized families in the developing world benefit from the relatively cheaper products stemming from Europe.

For dairy products, export subsidies rose in 2009 after having been stopped in 2008. In 2009, the main recipients of dairy products that benefited from export subsidies were: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Nigeria.

According to the 2003 Human Development Report the average dairy cow in the year 2000 under the European Union received $913 in subsidies annually, while an average of $8 per human being was sent in aid to Sub-Saharan Africa.

The 2005 Human Development Report states "The basic problem to be addressed in the WTO negotiations on agriculture can be summarized in three words: rich country subsidies. In the last round of world trade negotiations rich countries promised to cut agricultural subsidies. Since then, they have increased them." Several reports from the latest negotiations in the WTO, however, contradict the theory of the 2005 HDR report. On 29 July 2008, the WTO negotiations in the [[Doha Development Round|Doha round]] finally collapsed because of differences between the US, India and China over agricultural trade.

===Artificially high food prices===
CAP price intervention has been criticized for creating artificially high [[food prices]] throughout the EU.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destinations/asia-travel/india/weve-got-to-dig-up-the-green-belt-to-build-more-homes-c56dd6bbnv5|title=We've got to dig up the green belt to build more homes|first=Tim|last=Montgomerie|date=25 September 2015|work=[[The Times]]|location=London}}</ref> High import tariffs (estimated at 18–28%) have the effect of keeping prices high by restricting competition by non-EU producers. It is estimated that public support for farmers in OECD countries costs a family of four on average nearly US$1,000 per year in higher prices and taxes.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite web |url=http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0,2340,fr_2649_201185_35738477_1_1_1_1,00.html |title=The Doha Development Round of trade negotiations: understanding the issues |publisher=Oecd.org |access-date=23 April 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080612183045/http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0%2C2340%2Cfr_2649_201185_35738477_1_1_1_1%2C00.html |archive-date=12 June 2008}}</ref> The European Commission has responded that the average EU household today spends 15% of its budget on food, compared to 30% in 1960.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/faq/prices/index_en.htm |title=The price of food |publisher=European Commission |date=20 April 2009 |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref>

The recent moves away from intervention buying, subsidies for specific crops, reductions in export subsidies, have changed the situation somewhat. In the past years intervention has been reduced or abolished in all sectors. After two decades of significant CAP reforms, farmers can now respond to market signals and increase production to react to the higher prices. Although the new decoupled payments were aimed at environmental measures, many farmers have found that without these payments their businesses would not be able to survive. With food prices dropping over the past thirty years in real terms, many products have been making less than their cost of production when sold at the farm gate.

===Public health at the peril of agricultural policies===
[[Public health]] professionals have also leveled criticism at the CAP and its support regimes, arguing that agricultural policy often disregards health. It is evident that supply outputs are generating widespread public health issues of [[obesity]] and [[Diet (nutrition)|diet]]-related [[non-communicable disease]]s (NCDs), such as [[cardio-vascular disease]] (CVD), cancer and [[type II diabetes]]. Diet is one of the major modifiable determinants in promoting or preventing chronic disease, and agricultural products have a major influence on the disease risk factors.

Initial criticism emerged in the early 2000s regarding the production orientation of the CAP and the need for decoupling due to the disjointed nature of agricultural production policy in relation to consumption (and thus nutrition). The arguments were re-enforced at the 2001 European Health Forum Gastein on the CAP, which made explicit – to policy makers – the link between nutrient quality of diets and agricultural policy. The Forum also identified opportunities to align the CAP to health objectives, more specifically by encouraging changes to dietary behaviour through adjusting CAP support.

Since 2008, under the leadership of the European Public Health and Agriculture Consortium (EPHAC),<ref name="EPHA 2017">{{cite web | title=EPHA | website=EPHA | date=20 September 2017 | url=https://epha.org/ | access-date=1 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.citizensforeurope.eu/|title=Citizens for Europe – Share Knowledge, Increase Impact|website=Citizens For Europe}}</ref> the public health nutrition narrative has gained traction in policy circles. Although agricultural policy-makers are beginning to realize the arguments for upstream health intervention, practical measures remain politically unpalatable. EPHAC maintains that agricultural policies can be used to internalize the health externalities of diet-related ill-health and improve population, society-wide public health nutrition.

Health groups have become increasingly vocal in their call for agricultural policies to contribute towards resolving the consumption problems of food; such as, excessive intake of [[saturated fatty acid]]s (FSA), sugar and salt, or under-consumption of vitamins (leading to [[hypovitaminosis]]) and minerals. More attention should be paid, it is argued, on intervention policies upstream, at the primary food production and [[food processing|processing]] stages, to influence nutritional quality and the structural determinants of food choice, including; availability, accessibility and price.

===Hurting smaller farms===
Although most policy makers in Europe agree that they want to promote "family farms" and [[Smallholding|smaller-scale production]], the CAP in fact rewards larger producers.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Selam |first1=Gebrekidan |last2=Apuzzo |first2=Matt |author-link2=Matt Apuzzo |last3=Novak |first3=Benjamin |others=Reporting contributed by Armendariz, Agustin; de Goeij, Hana; Milan Schreuer; Stiller, Akos; Dzhambazova, Boryana |date=3 November 2019 |title=The Money Farmers: How Oligarchs and Populists Milk the E.U. for Millions |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/world/europe/eu-farm-subsidy-hungary.html |url-status=live |work=[[The New York Times]] |location=New York City |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191103235119/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/world/europe/eu-farm-subsidy-hungary.html |archive-date=3 November 2019 |access-date=3 November 2019 }}</ref> Because the CAP has traditionally rewarded farmers who produce more, larger farms have benefited much more from subsidies than smaller farms. For example, a farm with 1000 hectares, earning an additional €100 per hectare will make an additional €100,000, while a 10 hectare farm will only make an extra €1000, 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 farmers get the same for a hectare of land regardless of how much land they own. So while subsidies allow small farms to exist, large farms tend to get the larger share of the subsidies. With the 2008 Health Check of the CAP, a first step was taken towards limiting CAP payments to very large landowners.

The European Commissioner responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development Dacian Cioloş in his Public Hearing upon his nomination has shown his concern in small farms: "small holdings represent an important share, not only in the new Member States but also in South Europe". He has emphasized that a structural policy is needed "to modernize" small farms and to "develop existing opportunities in local markets", where there is "high demand for local products".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20100113IPR67224&language=EN |title=Cioloş' view on small farms |publisher=European Parliament |date=15 January 2010 |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref>

===Environmental problems===
A common view is that the CAP has traditionally promoted a large expansion in agricultural production. At the same time it has allowed farmers to employ un-ecological ways of increasing production, such as the indiscriminate use of fertilizers and pesticides, with serious environmental consequences. However, a total re-focusing of the payment scheme in 2004 now puts the environment at the centre of farming policy. By linking the payments to farmers to a number of strict environmental standards (among others) in the so-called cross compliance scheme, farmers will have to face cuts in their subsidy levels if they don't meet the strict environmental requirements.

In 2010, the EU announced that 31% of the €5&nbsp;billion that was earmarked the new (mainly environmental) challenges in agriculture would be spent on protecting and promoting biodiversity in the European countryside. This money is part of the EU rural development policy, which is supporting agri-environmental projects throughout the Member States.

The CAP has furthermore been criticized due to its effect on farmland bird populations. Between 1980 and 2009, the farmland bird population has decreased from 600 million to 300&nbsp;million, implying a loss of 50%.<ref>{{cite web|author=EUtopia |url=http://eutopia-blog.blogspot.de/2012/07/more-diversity-on-my-plate-critique-of.html |title=EUtopia |publisher=Eutopia-blog.blogspot.de |date=12 July 2012}}</ref> Among the species that have been hit hardest are the starling and the tree sparrow, which have both declined by 53%. The removal of hedgerows and ploughing over meadows are two significant factors that may have contributed to more efficient farming, but that also caused a decrease in farmland birds' habitats.<ref>{{cite news|author=Robin McKie |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/26/eu-farming-policies-bird-population |title=How EU farming policies led to a collapse in Europe's bird population |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=26 May 2012 |access-date=6 November 2014}}</ref>

In England, farmers have been lauded by the [[Royal Society for the Protection of Birds]] because the five most threatened bumblebees have made a comeback to the English nature due to the agri-environmental schemes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rspb.org.uk/media/releases/261841-countrys-rarest-bumblebees-make-a-comeback |title=Country's rarest bumblebees make a comeback |publisher=Rspb.org.uk |date=12 April 2011 |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref> In Germany, support for [[extensive farming]] and biotope management helps maintain habitat for rare species such as orchids and butterflies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_templates/filedownload.cfm?id=3E3F4C22-0331-99A3-AD5F-C25FF369EF68 |title=The Magazine from the European Network for Rural Development |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref> In Hungary, a special scheme was launched to protect the [[great bustard]], maybe the world's heaviest flying bird, which needs areas with minimal disturbance and an abundant supply of insects to breed.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.belanski.com/drupal/great_bustard |title= 人人弄狠狠婷五月丁香_高H全肉视频在线观看无需下载_av可看免费播放_乳首の奶水在线观看视频电影|website=www.belanski.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090617203927/http://www.belanski.com/drupal/great_bustard |archive-date=17 June 2009}}</ref> In Cyprus, agri-environment schemes support the maintenance of traditional trees and bushes that are a natural habitat for the islands and likely to be of benefit to farmland birds in Cyprus.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Agrienvironment_schemes_lesson_learnt.pdf |title=Microsoft Word – Agri-environment schemes and biodiversity in the EU – less |access-date=23 April 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110715103543/http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Agrienvironment_schemes_lesson_learnt.pdf |archive-date=15 July 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Rules instituted in 2015 barring or reducing payments for farmed land above threshold densities of trees or canopy cover have been attacked as having perverse consequences for mature trees, biodiversity, soil erosion and downstream flooding.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/warning-chainsaw-massacre-over-welsh-8827604|title=Warning of chainsaw massacre over Welsh farmland's 'ineligible features'|last=Forgrave|first=Andrew|date=12 March 2015|newspaper=northwales|access-date=28 October 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.monbiot.com/2015/02/25/slip-sliding-away/|title=Slip Sliding Away {{!}} George Monbiot|website=monbiot.com|date=25 February 2015 |access-date=28 October 2016}}</ref>

The [[European Court of Auditors]] raised concerns in 2024 about the lack of alignment between the CAP and EU's climate objectives in the [[European Green Deal|Green Deal]].<ref>{{Cite news |title=Major gaps between EU farming incentives and Green Deal goals, ECA says |url=https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/major-gaps-between-eu-farming-incentives-green-deal-goals-eca-says-2024-09-30/ |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20241003211412/https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/major-gaps-between-eu-farming-incentives-green-deal-goals-eca-says-2024-09-30/ |archive-date=2024-10-03 |access-date=2025-01-17 |work=Reuters |language=en-US}}</ref>

===Equity among member states===
[[File:CAP2004beneficiaries.png|upright=1.15|thumb|CAP 2004 beneficiaries]]
Some countries in the EU have larger agricultural sectors than others, notably France and Spain, and consequently receive more money under the CAP.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ecipe.org/publications/ecipe-working-papers/public-money-for-public-goods-winners-and-losers-from-cap-reform/PDF|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120227102801/http://www.ecipe.org/publications/ecipe-working-papers/public-money-for-public-goods-winners-and-losers-from-cap-reform/PDF|url-status=dead|title=Public Money for Public Goods: Winners and Losers from CAP Reform|archivedate=27 February 2012}}</ref> Countries such as the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have particularly urbanized populations and rely very little on agriculture as part of their economy (in the United Kingdom agriculture employs 1.6% of the total workforce and in the Netherlands 2.0%). The UK therefore receives less than half what France gets, despite a similar sized economy and population.<ref name=BBC>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061|title=Q&A: Reform of EU farm policy|date=1 July 2013|publisher=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=7 August 2018}}</ref> Other countries receive more benefit from different areas of the EU budget. Overall, certain countries make net contributions, notably Germany (the largest contribution overall) and the Netherlands (the biggest contribution per person), but also the UK and France. The largest per capita beneficiaries are Greece and Ireland.

Another aspect is difference between older Western European and newer Central and Eastern member states, due to transitional arrangements the latter received smaller payments. In 2013 payments per hectare were 527 euros in Greece and only 89 euros in Latvia. In compensation the newer members were allowed to provide national farm aid.<ref name=BBC/> In March 2018 EU agriculture ministers failed to achieve consensus on a declaration about future of CAP, with ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia demanding fully equal subsidies across the union.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://euobserver.com/economic/141381 |last=Teffer |first=Peter |title=Five east European states prevent new CAP consensus |publisher= [[EUobserver]] |date=20 March 2018 |access-date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Cotton subsidies===
In spite of these declarations, the EU Commission proposed the continuation of cotton subsidies, coupled to production.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/communication/com2010-672_en.pdf |title=EN |access-date=23 April 2011}}</ref> The coupling of the subsidy means that they will continue to have significant trade-distorting effect, most notably on West African farmers who are unable to compete with subsidised cotton.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2010/f/2_ft_cotton_policy_report_2010_loresv2.pdf|title=The great cotton stitch-up|last=Fairtrade Foundation|date=November 2010|access-date=23 November 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101225062712/http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2010/f/2_ft_cotton_policy_report_2010_loresv2.pdf|archive-date=25 December 2010}}</ref>
The Communication on the future of the CAP does not mention the cotton sector. Nevertheless, the most trade-distorting subsidies to [[cotton production]] have already been eliminated in the 2004 reform. The current EU cotton production corresponds to 1% of global cotton production and its effect on the evolution of world market prices is therefore negligible. On the other hand, the EU is by far the largest provider of development assistance to cotton. In the framework of the EU-Africa Partnership on Cotton<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.coton-acp.org/en/ |title=ACP Cotton |access-date=1 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826215920/http://coton-acp.org/en |archive-date=26 August 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref> the EU has made available more than €320&nbsp;million. The EU market for cotton is already [[duty-free]] and [[quota-free]] and there are no export subsidies for cotton.

===UK rebate and the CAP===
The UK would have been contributing more money to the EU than any other EU member state, except that the UK government negotiated a special annual [[UK rebate]] in 1984. Due to the way the rebate is funded, France pays the largest share of the rebate (31%), followed by Italy (24%) and Spain (14%).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/about4211.html |title=Arrogant and hypocritical Chirac savaged by British press |publisher=Canadiancontent.net |access-date=23 April 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060325112046/http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/about4211.html |archive-date=25 March 2006 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/11/weu11.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/11/ixnewstop.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070313093930/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/11/weu11.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/11/ixnewstop.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=13 March 2007 |title=News – Latest breaking UK news |newspaper=The Telegraph|date=17 July 2011 |access-date=12 March 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/10/23/wchir23.xml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030306001948/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/10/23/wchir23.xml |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 March 2003 |title=News – Latest breaking UK news |newspaper=The Telegraph|date=17 July 2011 |access-date=12 March 2014}}</ref>

The discrepancy in CAP funding is a cause of some consternation in the UK. {{As of|2004}}, France received more than double the CAP funds received by the UK (see diagram). This is a net benefit to France of €6.37&nbsp;billion, compared to the UK.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4407792.stm |publisher=BBC News | title=Q&A: Common Agricultural Policy | date=20 November 2008 | access-date=30 April 2010}}</ref> This is largely a reflection of the fact that France has more than double the land area of the UK. In comparison, the UK budget rebate for 2005 is scheduled to be approx. €5.5&nbsp;billion.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4721307.stm#howbig |publisher=BBC News | title=Q&A: The UK budget rebate | date=23 December 2005 | access-date=30 April 2010}}</ref> The popular view in the UK (as, for example, set forth in the tabloid [[news|press]]) is that if the UK rebate were reduced with no change to the CAP, then the UK would be paying money to keep the French farming sector in business – to many people in the UK, this would be seen as unfair.
[[File:FarmlandinEU2.gif|upright=1.35|thumb|Percentage of EU farmland by country in 2004]]
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 €8.25&nbsp;billion compared to the current contribution of €2.75&nbsp;billion, versus a current French net contribution of €0.59&nbsp;billion.

In December 2005 the UK agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007–2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by other countries' contributions and were only for the new member states. Spending on the CAP remained fixed, as had previously been agreed. Overall, this reduced the proportion of the budget spent on the CAP. It was agreed that the European Commission should conduct a full review of all EU spending.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4537912.stm |publisher=BBC News | title=Key points of the EU budget deal | date=17 December 2005 | access-date=30 April 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/87677.pdf|title=Financial Perspective 2007–2013|access-date=29 January 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060126234044/http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/87677.pdf|archive-date=26 January 2006}}</ref>

===Economic sustainability===
Experts such as Prof. Alan Matthews believed '[[greening]]' measures in the EU's proposed €418-billion post-2013 farm policy could lower the bloc's agricultural production potential by raising farm input costs by €5&nbsp;billion, or around 2 per cent.<ref name="Matthews" />

===Target population===
Only 5.4% of EU's population works on farms, and the farming sector is responsible for 1.6% of the GDP of the EU (2005).<ref>{{cite web |title=Turkey in Europe: Breaking the Vicious Circle |year=2009 |access-date=30 April 2010 |url=http://www.independentcommissiononturkey.org/pdfs/2009_english.pdf |publisher=Independentcommissiononturkey.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100113100136/http://www.independentcommissiononturkey.org/pdfs/2009_english.pdf |archive-date=13 January 2010 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The number of European farmers is decreasing every year by 2%. Additionally, most Europeans live in cities, towns, and suburbs, not rural areas.

The [[2007-2008 world food price crisis]] renewed calls for farm subsidies to be removed in light of evidence that farm subsidies contribute to rocketing food prices, which has a particularly detrimental effect on [[developing countries]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/food-crisis-set-weigh-cap-reform/article-172484 |title=Food crisis set to weigh on CAP reform &#124; EU – European Information on Sustainable Dev |publisher=EurActiv.com |date=20 May 2008 |access-date=23 April 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609192138/http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/food-crisis-set-weigh-cap-reform/article-172484 |archive-date=9 June 2011}}</ref>