Mr. Tassos Haniotis:

Let me clarify that the one thing that is mandatory is the farm advisory system. The reason for this is very much linked to the point made by Mr. Bascou, namely, the need to deliver both the private and the public good. We have been telling farmers that they need to produce more with less. This is a general statement, but the question is how to do it. In each member state conditions are very different, not only at national level, but at regional level. This is why, with cross-compliance, good agricultural and environmental conditions are regionalised. We do things differently where there is a lot of water and very differently where there is not so much rain.

What we want to do is to have, in every member state, a system where the obligation on the member state will be to provide advice to farmers when they ask specific questions linked to good agricultural and environmental conditions. The set of questions on which member states should provide an answer is limited. However, the question is how can they provide information on something that member states do in very different ways. Some member states are doing it through their ministries of agriculture, others doing it through private advice sessions in which farmers participate and others combine a mixture of farm organisations and universities. It is not Brussels that will decide on how advice is provided. Member states must do that.

What we want to ensure is that every member states chooses what is most pertinent for it. Farmers can go to them and ask for this information.

Then we will make a decision based on the additional money we have for research and the specific questions we target for this research that are very much linked to the issues related to greening and increasing productivity. Furthermore, the innovation partnership brings existing knowledge to the forefront. For example, a farmer who moves into greening would be able to use information on precision agriculture.

Why did we move with a requirement relating to crop diversification? It is not because farmers do not know how to do it. It is because we have seen, especially on large farms, cases of monoculture. If there is monoculture then in the short term the farmer increases productivity because he decreases the cost of production, but in the longer term this has an impact on the capacity of land to produce and it also impacts on soil erosion. This is why putting or forcing farmers to move in a direction of crop diversification comes in parallel with additional advice on how exactly to do it, why it makes sense to do it and how to move or transition in a way that would allow them to do better.

We know of the best practices applied in member states that have worked well. What we wish to do, especially with the innovation partnership, is allow this knowledge to be transferred. Someone put it well recently in a conference I attended on research. He said it was a case of money that brings knowledge and innovation and knowledge that brings money. There is a gap between the time when we put in money for research and the time that the knowledge will come. Sometimes existing knowledge in other member states or in other parts of the same member state could be transferred better to farmers and a farmer advisory system could play an important role in that regard.