Mr. Paul Savage:

Of course. With the Chairman's permission, I am happy to move to the other questions that were raised. With regard to GAEC 2 and differentiating between peat soils or providing a derogation for member states, for example, I can make some general comments before leaving it open for colleagues to provide some detail. There are a number of different provisions within the regulations that provide for the management of soils and the maintenance of what we call eligible hectare. There are a couple of different elements. The GAEC 2 is a new requirement that is coming in as part of conditionality and the protection of wetlands and peatlands. It is clear that this new requirement is coming in as part of CAP reform. It is linked to provisions in the regulations, specifically Article 12 and Article 4 in particular.

Article 12 makes it clear that member states must define the GAEC standards in accordance with their own local farming conditions. Member states set the standard that must be achieved under each of the GAECs. It is up to member states themselves, subject to compliance with the overall regulatory framework, to decide the level at which the bar should be set in terms of management to fulfil GAEC requirements. In the case of GAEC 2, for example, there are different approaches in the wording from the Commission, the Parliament and the European Council. The Council's wording speaks about minimum protection of wetlands and peatlands by 2025 at the latest. It is up to the member states to decide the minimum level of protection they want to set as part of the implementation of that GAEC. Therefore, we have freedom at member state level to set the requirement in accordance with our local conditions. This is under the article and it is clear it is the member states' responsibility and there is flexibility in doing this.

Article 4, meanwhile, goes into some detail on the definition of eligible land. There are a number of different elements to that. One of the elements referred to is the possibility of land that would continue to be considered eligible despite the fact that something may be done on that land in the context of implementing a GAEC 2 requirement. If the land were to become ineligible as a result of that practice, member states could nevertheless continue to make payments on that land as if it were eligible land, essentially.

The key point is that this is not a derogation as such. There is provision in the legislation. We speak about an amendment but it is an amendment to the text that was submitted by the Commission in the first place, which speaks to the areas that would continue to be considered eligible for payments. Under that there is specific reference made to any lands subject to a management practice under GAEC 2. It essentially means that if anything is done in the context of GAEC 2 that might otherwise lead to land being made ineligible, it is up to member states to decide whether that is the case and they could continue to consider that land as eligible.

This is not a derogation. It has been said before that we must still agree the detail of the regulations between three institutions. Even in the context of the wording as it currently stands, there is no intention for a member state to apply for a derogation on this. This is around member states exercising the flexibility they have been given in the regulations to define what is required under the standard. In the context of doing that or implementing GAEC 2, for example, if a member state made a requirement under GAEC 2 that would otherwise render lands ineligible, the member state could still treat those lands as eligible and pay on them as eligible lands. It is at member states' discretion.

Ultimately, this is about providing the framework within which member states can make a decision. In our case we will look at local conditions, as other member states would do, in order to set a standard under GAEC 2. We want to be able to do that in a way that is manageable and which upholds our obligations to comply with GAEC 2 while giving the scope to build on that with potential ecological schemes.