In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:29:01 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

My understanding of the CAP was that support payments would allow time
for inefficient holdings to catch up and that such payments were not
permanent. In the event, world agriculture has moved ahead such that
European inefficiencies remain as they were. We farm more land, we use
less labour/more chemicals but we are still not as efficient as our
Kansas competitor or as cheap as our Ukrainian one.

The original intents of the CAP was laid down 1957
in the Treaty of Rome:

- to increase agricultural productivity
- to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers
- to stabilise markets
- to assure availability of supplies
- to ensure reasonable prices to consumers

Intents 2 and 5 are in conflict.

The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

regards


--
Tim Lamb