Ole Kjaerulff Davidsen of Frie bonder – Levende Land argues that The Green Tripartite Agreement in Denmark represents a worrying step backwards for democracy and human rights, excluding small farmers and rural organisations from decisions that deeply impact their lives. In so doing, it violates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants. Instead of tackling the climate crisis, the agreement props up industrial agriculture and corporate interests, sidelining agro-ecological practices vital for biodiversity and rural survival. Parliament and public voices have been silenced, while billions are funneled into ineffective technological “solutions.” Immediate action is needed to demand genuine democratic involvement and prioritise sustainable farming practices and rural rights that benefit people, nature, and the planet.
The problems with the Green Tripartite Agreement are many and each of considerable dimensions, but the most serious is probably that the entire decision-making process so far has meant yet another step backwards for democracy in Denmark, and it has actually brought the country into conflict with human rights.
Because what does “tripartite” mean? The word is probably chosen for its positive overtones, like “green” and “sustainable”. In Denmark, “tripartite negotiations” are usually something that takes place between the government, employers and employees, but in this green case, there are as many as eight organizations involved.
However, there are two of these that have been particularly prominent and stand out as apparent antagonists, namely “Agriculture and Food Council” (L&F), the Danish member of Copa-Cogeca, and “Denmark’s Society for Nature Conservation” (DN). But things are not fully as they seem.
L&F presents itself as the farmers’ organisation, but it is not peasants who have much to say here, but rather landowners, private equity funds, processing industries (which in Denmark are formally owned by “farmers”, but which now act as independent actors) and not to forget the financial institutions. The landowners, who are for the most part deeply indebted, have the function first and foremost of playing the role of peasants, even though they have long since passed over to a life of subordinate bureaucrats.
DN is a large association with a long and honorable history, as it has carried out many excellent conservations of natural areas over the years. In recent years, however, the organisation has presented itself as the guardian and spokesperson of “nature” itself, while at the same time entering a partial collaboration with L&F. In addition, the organisation is structured according to a principle of indirect democracy and has a strong hierarchy of administrative staff.
Although three of the tripartite actors, namely the government, L&F and DN, have been more prominent than the other six, the model around which the negotiation room is built, the so-called collective impact, is a strategic approach developed in North America, but relatively recently tested – without much success – in Denmark in connection with attempts to implement a changed land distribution.
The idea is presented as ‘smart’ because you involve precisely those who are expected to be able to agree.
Of course, this also means excluding all those with whom you do not want to negotiate. In the case of the Green Tripartite, all other agricultural organisations are excluded, including Frie bonder – Levende Land, which is the Danish La Via Campesina. A whole range of environmental and climate organizations were also not allowed access, including NOAH, the Danish branch of Friends of the Earth.
Now the negotiation process played out in such a way that it was first proclaimed that the Tripartite should primarily ensure the introduction of a tax on CO2e emissions, but when the parties after long and secret negotiations published their agreement, the CO2e tax had dwindled to almost nothing, and far into the future. Instead, the agreement was primarily about new technology, compensations for the landowners and land use, including business as usual for most of the agricultural land, but with some positive opportunities in terms of land distribution, afforestation and similar. However, it was also part of the agreement that it should not be possible to change anything in the text during the subsequent negotiations with the opposition parties. In this way, Parliament was virtually sidelined.
However, negotiations on implementing the agreement into legislation dragged on, primarily because a previously reached agreement had been overlooked, so that the provisions on agricultural nitrogen emissions had to be renegotiated. The final result in this area was presented as an improvement and a victory for the environment in Danish inland waters. Environmental organizations and leading independent Danish researchers, however, were of a completely different opinion, and everything indicates that Denmark will exceed the requirements set by the EU Water Framework Directive for the condition of waters.
For a long period, from the great land reform in 1919 until around the turn of the millennium, Denmark was characterized by strong democratic traditions, which were largely developed through cooperation between the working class, represented by the Social Democratic Party, and the smallholders, who were characterised by socialist, Georgist and social liberal ideas.
However, this alliance broke down as ownership of land property was rapidly centralised, strongly encouraged by the L&F, so that today there are only about 6,500 landowners who live, wholly or mainly, from their holdings. However, the development has been characterised by the fact that while the “medium-sized” farms, i.e. those that traditionally had a “normal” size, are gradually close to extinction, the smallholdings have largely survived since their owners have been able to take other work without selling the farm, which has then typically continued as part-time farming. Therefore, about 10% of the Danish agricultural land is still owned by small farmers who still live in the country – unlike many of the new landowners.
Now, it is most remarkable that these small farmers and the other large number of people living in rural areas have had no influence whatsoever on the Tripartite negotiations. Neither small farmers’ organizations nor the rural organisation “Landdistrikternes Fællesråd” (“Rural Common Council”) have been involved in the process, nor have individuals or groups had any opportunities, as the parliament has effectively been sidelined. This, we would like to point out, is in direct contradiction to UNDROP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas.
Read – UNDROP-Book-of-Illustrations
Article 10 of the declaration states that these people must be consulted and involved when decisions that affect them are taken. And the Tripartite agreement does impact rural people and peasant farmers: its plans for land distribution, creates a strict division of the countryside into a part with exclusively industrial agriculture on the one hand and the use of the rest of the land for everything but agriculture on the other hand.
This means that there is even less room for the close-to-nature, agro-ecological small-scale farming, which benefits biodiversity and produces healthy food, and which is in the interest of the general rural population – and even the people of the cities.
Strangely, Denmark has not ratified the UNDROP, but the declaration has been adopted by the UN, and its provisions are thus also covered by the UN Charter of Human Rights. Denmark is thus obliged to comply with this declaration and since this has not happened, the country has once again come into conflict with supranational legal principles, this time not the EU’s, but the UN’s. We will put forward this when we soon reach the third phase of the tripartite, which consists of the establishment of 23 “local Tripartites” with representatives from the country’s municipalities.
There are plenty of beautiful words of “strong local roots, ownership and holistic thinking”, but it seems decided that once again only representatives of L&F and DN will have a seat here. The Tripartite Ministry’s idea that these persons “can continuously gather input from their local networks and thus ensure a broad anchoring in their hinterland” (see here: faktaark-lokale-treparter) is deeply unrealistic, also since the two organisations are generally weak among the majority of the population in rural areas. Therefore, we will insist on a different responsible involvement of the people who are closest to experiencing the consequences of the decisions that are made.
No one should be in doubt that Frie Bonder – Levende Land wants more nature, higher biodiversity, more carbon sequestration, radically less emissions of nitrogen and greenhouse gases, more forest, more meadows that are not ploughed, more cows on grass with clover, more trees with edible fruits and more small fields with a diversity of crops and surrounded by hedges.
Equally, no one should be in any doubt that we are opposed to taxpayers’ money being wasted in the form of the tripartite agreement’s multi-billion support for what we see as technological sham solutions such as biochar, GMOs or grass processed into protein in industrial plants.
To Novo Nordisk and other big capitalists, we say “no thanks” to monster agriculture, hostile to humanity and nature, and yes to proper agriculture, with many, free people in the countryside in communities and genuine democracy.
More
The Green Tripartite Agreement Locks in Industrial Ag and Biotech Solutionism
Political Deal reached on Denmark’s Green Tripartite – What’s in it and what’s not?
The Danish Green Tripartite Agreement Ignores a Necessary Transformation of EU Farming
Deep Dive into The Green Tripartite – what’s in, what’s not and the Tricky Issue of Implementation.
Stakeholder Collaboration as the Cornerstone of the Green Transition The Danish Model
Paving the Way for Agriculture Emission Reductions – the Danish case
