Mr. Pierre Bascou:

As my colleague, Mr. Haniotis, mentioned, the last two issues raised are very important. It is a concern that policy increasingly seems not to make sense to citizens of member states. The new co-decision process has complicated matters in terms of the delivery and final outcome of a legislative framework. There are now 28 member states, including Croatia which I visited recently. The needs of Croatian farmers and Croatian regions are very different from those in France and Ireland. We came to Ireland with the European Commission on three occasions in the past two years to discuss and negotiate reform of the CAP. It is clear the every country is unique within the European Union, EU. It is becoming very difficult for us and for the European Commission to design a policy that meets the needs of farmers and rural areas. It must be a policy that is common but also manageable because it requires the money of EU taxpayers. It is a difficult process that is complicated by the fact that the CAP deals not only with food production but also the management of natural resources, territorial matters and health issues that are viewed differently across the EU. The point made by Deputy Penrose is very important but it is essential to see things from this side of the table also. It has raised eyebrows in recent months but the new CAP will give more flexibility to member states and regions, I insist on the use of the word "regions", to tailor the policy framework and instruments to the needs of farmers and economic agents in rural areas. This is at the heart of our work but if we give more flexibility we must ensure there is a level playing field for farmers and companies in rural areas. There must be no major distortion of competition between areas. The aim is to ensure that what is put in place will address the overall objective of the CAP.

I will now address the issues of monoculture and ecological focus areas, EFA. It is clear that there is much grassland in Ireland, whether permanent or temporary. We are not targeting grassland. By seeking to introduce crop diversification to farming methods we are targeting arable land producers that maintain monoculture. In the south of France maize producers provide a good example. Monoculture has existed there for many years and has major environmental consequences. It is not just a matter of helping the environment, we are talking about food production and potential harvests in the medium term. If we want to ensure the production potential of the EU in five, ten and 20 years we must ensure sustainable management of natural resources like soil. We must ensure biodiversity thrives and farmers have the tools of production and are best placed to do so. Some parts of Europe have experienced problems in this regard and we are trying to address them. In other parts of the EU there is no need for such eco-diversification because there is much grassland.

In addition, farms are very small in size. This is why there are a certain number of derogations in respect of the greening obligation under Pillar 1. These derogations relate specifically to grassland. More than 75% of grassland is exempted from the obligation relating to crop diversification. If a farmer has fewer than 10 ha, his or her property will be exempted. If he or she has fewer than 20 ha, he or she will be obliged to meet only certain aspects of the crop diversification obligation. There is some flexibility and also a derogation in order to make this obligation adaptable and meaningful in countries across the entire EU.

The position is the same with regard to ecological focus areas, EFAs. The obligations relating to the latter only apply to farms with more than 15 ha of arable land and not to other types of farm. Reference was made to set-aside. We wish to re-emphasise that introducing a minimum level of EFAs at farm level is a way to protect and better deal with the non-productive land on farms. Part of every farm, whether it is land on which there is a pond or whatever, is not used for agricultural production. What we would like is to better take into account these parts of farms, which are often excluded under the payment rules that currently apply. We would like to protect it and, if possible, reintroduce it. It is not a question of setting aside productive land. It is a question of better utilising that which is not currently used for production.