Dear Editor,

Happy Birthday to The CAP –Comment on the CAP’s 50th

Birthday

Herzlichen Glückwunsch, GAP– Kommentar zum 50.Geburtstag der GAP

Bon anniversaire à la PAC –Commentaire sur l’anniversairedes 50 ans de la PAC

It is traditional when celebrating a50th anniversary to wish the recipienta prosperous and healthy future, aswell as celebrating the history. In thecase of the CAP (EuroChoices, 7:2),however, your contributors andcorrespondents seemed reluctant tobe so generous. Michel Petit, p.44,came closest, perhaps, commentingthat: ‘Predicting precisely theoutcome of these multiple forcesbearing on the future of the CAP isimpossible. What is safe to predict,though, is that CAP reform willcontinue to be on the agenda for along time’. Meanwhile, Stead, p.7,noted that: ‘Critics down the yearshave, nevertheless, consistentlyobserved that the objectives set werevague and contradictory. (Nowadaysanother criticism is that they arealso outdated…)’. Csaki goes further,p.5: ‘Hence one might questionwhether the ‘‘one fits all’’ approachof the CAP is the right direction forthe future?’ though, interestingly, onlyraising this fundamental question as aconsequence of considering the verydifferent needs of the CentralEuropean countries for any sort ofagricultural policy. Meanwhile, bothAckrill and Grant strongly suggestthat the political (as opposed tological or economic) justification for a

long and prosperous future continuesto be, income protection – ‘Despitethe centrality of income concerns tothe CAP, data on farm householdincomes remain limited – and thereexists considerable politicalopposition to changing thissituation’, Ackrill, p.21; and acontinued dependence on support –‘… the debate has been dominatedby an acceptance of the need forsubsidies and protection. What is amatter for real concern is that someof this tired old thinking seems to bestaging a comeback (Grant, p.45).

It is, perhaps, even more interestingthat the current rationale for thecontinued existence, if not furtherhealth and prosperity of the CAP –multifunctional agriculture – does notappear in any of these commentaries.If it did, perhaps at least one mighthave been written as an obituary, orat least as a valedictory. Surely thetitle – Common Agricultural Policy –has now become as anachronistic asthe USSR, a contradiction, if not anactual lie in every word.

If the only sustainable rationale forany sort of policy towards agriculture(and ⁄ or rural land use) is that ofmarket failure (as implied by themultifunctional arguments), then itfollows that the reasons forintervention (and hence for policydesign and objectives) must alsodiffer, in both quantity and kind,across space and territory and,therefore, between countries. Thenotion and concept of a commonpolicy is inherently contradictory, ifnot meaningless (and thus a lie).Even if the rationale continues to besupport and protection, as Csakipoints out, the current members ofthe EU have very differentrequirements at least in terms ofquantity, if not also of the kind of

policy. In this case, too, commonremains as an anachronism, while thecurrent rhetoric defending the policyis clearly a lie.

Many will agree with Petit – CAP‘reform’ will continue to occupy ourpoliticians’ and policy advisors’ time(and therefore our effort andresources) for the foreseeable future.But, I seem to remember, most peoplesaid the same of the USSR. Perhaps 50is old enough for this policy, and weshould turn our attention and effort toretiring it (if not burying it) gracefullyand get on with the real problems ofthe future by defining and designingmore rational (and hence sustainable)policies?

Meanwhile, the European Associationof Agricultural Economists Conferencein Ghent last August provided amagnificent caricature of the presentCAP. Six hundred delegates expressedinterest in discussing the HealthCheck with EU Commission officials,of whom four were available. After aone and a half hour journey toBrussels – normally 40 minutes – wediscovered that the available meetingroom could only hold 400, so 200 hadto ‘participate’ remotely. Still, theCommission did provide us all with anexcellent and well-lubricated buffetsupper. All of which neatlyencapsulates the 50 year old CAP.Well done the EAAE and the EU.

David HarveyNewcastle University, UK

Email: david.harvey@@ncl.ac.uk

letter

54ƒEuroChoices 8(1) ª 2009 The Author

Journal compilation ª The Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists 2009