The actual number (and percentage) is even greater because it is relative to the 2005 population, not the 2015. If you want "small", try the percentage of the European (and American, and Japanese) that actually works in agriculture and compare it to the corresponding percentage in Africa.
The "Doha scenario 1" you cite refers to a one-third cut in subsidies - see the table at the bottom of page 14. None of the eight Doha scenarios envisage the complete elimination of subsidies; that is an additional one outlined by the research team.
Did you miss the table on page 12 of the report? It showed that 63 percent of gains to developing countries from trade liberalization are from agriculture. Right below that, you can't miss it, it says flatly, "Agriculture is where cuts are needed most".
There seems to be an attitude here that CAP reform is some kind of right-wing plot by so-called "Anglo-Saxon" countries. This is nonsense. The US and Canada have resisted cutting subsidies every bit as much as the EU and Japan have.
On this issue, the EU is on the same side as the Bush administration - the wrong one. Virtually all NGOs working in the Third World have called for subsidy reform - see Oxfam, for example. The Trade Justice Movement calls for the EU to abolish export subsidies. So have African governments - see this article. The Guardian, the UK's only liberal broadsheet, maintains a blog on the subject.
As to the myth that subsidized exports from the EU benefit food-importing countries, see Devinder Sharma's rebuttal here.
On the World Bank report: I don't want to be tedious, but there are a couple of things I'd like to rectify or nuance in what you say.
I then have a job understanding what the rest of your remarks have to do with anything I said. If the remark
There seems to be an attitude here that CAP reform is some kind of right-wing plot by so-called "Anglo-Saxon" countries.
is meant to apply to me, I'm at a loss. People here have repeatedly said (and I'm among them) that we want to see CAP reform. I want to see phasing out of export subsidies and of subsidies to the agri-food industry, and capping of direct farm subsidies with redistribution in favour of small farms. I'm pretty sure most people who comment here would agree.
As for "there seems to be an attitude", permit me to say that, if there seems to be an attitude anywhere, it's in the hectoring tone of your comments. As for "Anglo-Saxon", it's a term I avoid because it's inexact, but trying to make out it's as pejorative as "Frog" seems to me to be stretching it more than a bit.
