Currently, DG Agri, which is aware of the limitations of previous greening measures, is proposing, in its new legislative proposals which have been put on the table, to transfer the issues of greening measures into two factors. Strengthening the conditions, on the one hand, and an echo-scheme. Currently, this is mentioned under article 28 of the legislative proposals. It leaves a number of questions unanswered which we consider extremely important. What may be remunerated? And behind this question, are ultimately two questions. What may be remunerated? Does this mean we will compensate for additional costs in an approach to what’s in the agro-environmental and climate measures today? Or will we actually remunerate an ecosystem service, an environmental system? If the former solution is chosen, additional costs will be compensated and a number of agronomic practices won’t actually fit into the echo-scheme. Currently, a farmer with hedges or permanent grassland, whose importance in terms of biodiversity and also fertility cycles have been recognised, may be unable to fund or seek remuneration for the presence of this agro-ecological infrastructure on their land since they don’t bear any additional costs- they’re already there. Maintaining them doesn’t bear any additional costs and so isn’t eligible for this eco-scheme, that’s how it was defined. Or do we want to move towards an eco-scheme which does remunerate ecosystem services and environmental and social amenities? In that case, we have a wide field of opportunities to promote, to encourage farmers to move towards practices and services which benefit society and the environment. But this raises the question of how compatible this eco-scheme is, if it is defined in this way, with the current commercial rules. Because you’re not currently allowed under the WTO framework, in the “Green Box”, to remunerate acts of production- to couple remuneration with production.