8a) The Commission will propose that CAP direct payments will reward the delivery of environmental public goods that go beyond cross-compliance (e.g. permanent pasture, green cover, crop rotation, ecological set-aside, Natura 2000).

The Commission proposes to improve the grant criteria relating to the environment through a mandatory ‘greening’ component of direct payments targeted at agricultural practices which address climate change and environmental objectives (permanent pasture, green cover, crop rotation, ecological set-aside, etc.).

“Permanent pasture”: shall mean land used to grow grasses or other herbaceous forage naturally (self-seeded) or through cultivation (sown) and that has not been included in the crop rotation of the holding for five years or longer, excluding land under set-aside schemes pursuant to Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 (5), land under set aside schemes pursuant to Article 54(2) and Article 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, areas set aside in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (6) and areas set aside in accordance with Articles 22, 23 and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (7); ’

Ways of mitigating the impact of nutrient wastes that deserve consideration by Member States and private enterprises include: integrating aquaculture into coastal and river basin area management, placing production facilities in areas with good water exchange, using improved feed and feeding methods, and fallowing (site rotation of cages in order to speed recovery of the bottom layer).

Farmers must also be given a sufficient number of sites to rotate in order to practice fallowing.

Whereas, in order to benefit from the compensatory payments under the 'general scheme`, producers must set aside a predetermined percentage of their arable area; whereas the set-aside should normally be organized on the basis of a rotation of areas; whereas non-rotational fallow should be permitted but at a higher percentage rate which should be determined on the basis of a scientific study of the comparitive effectiveness in terms of production restraint of rotational and non-rotational fallow; whereas the land set aside would have to be cared for so as to meet certain minimum environmental standards; whereas the areas set aside as ...[+++]temporary fallow can also be used for non-food purposes, provided effective control systems can be applied;