Mr. Pierre Bascou:

I will address the first two questions on the provision of environmental goods and Pillar 2 scheme or what has been called offsetting. Basically, the provision of public good in certain areas will be intensification in other areas. At the outset, what we would like to achieve is a new CAP of reform. Nobody at EU level is out to oppose competitiveness and intensification with the provision of public good, but to promote both. We want an agricultural sector which is competitive in the medium term and over the long term, but at the same time it should be sustainable in terms of management of natural resources, social aspects and in maintaining and developing improvements in rural areas. It must also be sustainable in an economic dimension.

This is why with the introduction of what we called the greening obligation in Pillar 1, we have introduced public support for the provision of public goods, both in Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, in an integrated and complementary manner. Therefore, whether a farmer decides to intensify or extend his production, he will have to respect some environmental conditions and some production method which will be beneficial for climate change. What we would like to do is to reach the two objectives of competitiveness and sustainability. Therefore, when we talk about biodiversity or soil quality, we want to have public support that will promote the production of private goods and agricultural products, such as cereals, meat and dairy produce, and also promote the maintenance, development and quality of natural resources, in particular biodiversity and soil quality.

The first question related to grass. This is a measure which is being proposed by Ireland in the context of Pillar 2. The EU supports this measure as it is one which will promote an increase in the development of grass production in a system which is beneficial for the environment. We are in the process now of examining and approving the rural development programme for the member states and our colleagues are examining this type of measure. If the Irish public administration, as per the measure, fulfils the necessary conditions in regard to implementation, approval of the area targeted, premium labour and delivery of sufficient public good, we will definitely approve of it and we will encourage farmers - although it will be voluntary - to enter the scheme. However, this scheme must be seen as complementary or additional to what is already foreseen in Pillar 1, namely, the maintenance and protection of permanent grassland.

The possibility for countries, a possibility Ireland may envisage, will be for them to protect not only at national level, with control at macro level, but to protect at parcel levels, such as specific sites on the ground. These sites might be certain grassland sites which are important for carbon sequestration, for biodiversity purposes and for the quality of water. Countries, Ireland in particular, have the possibility in Natura 2000 areas, but also in other important areas, such as peatland or other types of permanent grassland, to do something in Pillar 2 which will complement what has been done in Pillar 1.

I have already addressed the other question, but I will repeat that we do not want to oppose the two concepts or place environment against production. What we want to achieve is what we called "greening" in Pillar 1, which we tried to achieve through the green payments. In Pillar 2, we have agri-environmental measures and we hope both of these measures will build on each other and deliver both sustainability and competitiveness.

One other element we should mention is the measure related to the advisory system, which is also linked to cross-compliance. We have a system of cross-compliance which has been streamlined and better targeted, but it should also enable farmers, with an increased level of support, to enhance significantly the delivery of environmental public goods in the future.