In this piece, Asger Mindegaard (former Green Advisor in the European Parliament) brings us up to speed with the state of play for implementation of the Green Tripartite Agreement. After much fanfare back in June, pressure is mounting from many sides. The tricky issue of Nitrogen plays a role – alongside political parties and stakeholders of many hues.
‘It is the strongest generational contract written in my almost 25 years in the Parliament.’ Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had dusted off the grandiose vocabulary when she set the stage for the political negotiations of the ‘green tripartite’ agreement on October 1.
In an indignant tone, she went on to describe it as ‘a mystery’ that some of the opposition parties seemingly did not wish to realise the agreement politically.
The PM’s frustration then hints at a government that has lost control with the negotiations of the tripartite. Because, contrary to the impression amongst some in Brussels, the process has been defined by deep disagreements. From the get-go to now.
The following is an attempt to summarise the main lines of the political struggles following the tripartite agreement announced on June 24 and some of the key areas of contestation. Far from an all-encompassing analysis it is meant as an introduction and point of entry.
Stay away with your politics
The government went to great lengths emphasising the delicate balance holding the agreement together. Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Minister of Foreign Affairs and president of one of the three government parties, more than hinted that there was very limited room for political manoeuvre for the Parliament when converting the informal agreement into law.
He underscored how exceptional the deal was, referring to the violent farmers protests in European capitals and to actions of desperate climate activists. Now, representatives for both the farming community (the Danish Agriculture and Food Council) and the green organisations (the Danish Society for Nature Conservation) had found unexpected common grounds and backed the deal.
The message was clear: this is a ‘take it or leave it’ scenario and changing anything substantial would likely cause the house of cards to collapse. Could the opposition please forget about politics and be so kind as to sign the deal into law? Not so fast.
Nitrogen blocking an agreement
In the moment of writing (November 6) everyone is waiting for the government (S&D and Renew) to invite the self-proclaimed ‘green opposition’ (EPP, Greens, Renew and Left) to a new round of negotiations. There are numerous disagreements, but one hurdle seems to be dominating: the concrete numbers for reducing nitrogen pollution from agriculture.
Nitrogen has long been a conflict in the negotiations. Largely because of the diverging positions between the government, fighting for a weaker model, and the opposition who, backed by a wide range of experts, civil society organisations and other sectors, insist on more ambitious reductions.
But also because of a growing mistrust. Several experts’ have criticised the data used by the government as misleading after a bombshell report by the National Audit Office in late October. The auditors direct harsh criticism at the Danish authorities’ knowledge of, and control of, nitrogen emissions from agricultural fertilisers, while finding faulty implementation by farmers in an alarmingly large number of the controlled cases.
This, naturally, has raised a lot of questions and the opposition has used it to increase the pressure on the government.
Political spokesperson for the Left Green, Signe Munk, commented that: ‘it would be rather odd if we spend towards 40 billion dkk…and don’t deliver more. And spokesperson for the Conservative People’s Party, Frederik Block Münster, echoed this making it clear that the government will have to give concessions.
Mounting pressure from all sides
It is a public secret that it primarily is Ventre (Renew) that resists stricter nitrogen reductions inside the government. A party that is closely connected to the agricultural community throughout its organisation.
And although the two other parties in the governing coalition are standing by its official line, resistance is growing within. Especially in the Social Democrats, where a number of mayors in municipalities particularly affected by nitrogen pollution have rebelled publicly against the government position.
Also amongst the parties to the tripartite, fault lines are rapidly spreading and the original delicately equilibrated compromise seems still more likely to topple with each passing day. The president of the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, Maria Reumert Gjerding, recently made it clear that they will forsake the agreement if the government does not crank up nitrogen reductions.
And recently, three major members of the Danish Agriculture and Food Council sent a letter to the government making it clear that they expect DAFC to make its support conditional on a complete financial compensation of any loss of value resulting from environmental regulation.
Some context for non-Danes
It is important to know that the tripartite was never meant to deal with nitrogen pollution in the first place. The process was set up to find a way forward, following the final report from an expert group tasked with exploring different models for a green tax reform, prominently featuring a climate tax for agriculture. The group’s terms of reference notably focuses exclusively on climate and not other relevant issues such as nitrogen or biodiversity.
The hope was that the tripartite process, a model borrowed from labour market negotiations, could fulfill ‘mission impossible’: to land a political deal based on the expert group’s models that was palatable to both the agricultural sector and the green organisations. Nitrogen pollution was later introduced as a way to bring these parties together by ensuring that large swathes of agricultural land is taken out of production while allowing for some financial compensation for farmers.
This paved the way for an agreement between usually opposing interests. But in many ways it also scattered slippery banana peels all over the negotiation sidewalk to come. Because Denmark has a humongous nitrogen problem with coastal waters currently suffering from apocalyptic hypoxia.
This is primarily caused by nitrogen emissions from agriculture, turbocharged by climate change, and has disastrous consequences for the ecosystems. The problems have escalated the past years and have caused a massive public outcry meaning that nitrogen pollution is top of mind for many and thus a hot political topic.
Finally, it is necessary to mention that the current government is an experiment, formed by parties from both sides of the political aisle. This is unprecedented in recent history and the government struggles to justify this novel approach to the Danes. With bad polls mounting, the government has put a lot of political capital into the tripartite, repeatedly praising it extensively. The negotiations in many ways are an existential struggle for the government.
Showdown approaching?
It seems evident that something will have to happen soon. And the pressure on the government is only increasing, something that became obvious on Tuesday when PM Mette Frederiksen took questions from the Parliament.
Frederiksen, who was visibly on edge, made it clear that a political agreement is urgently needed to avoid a definitive collapse of the process. She also made it clear that she thinks this would be on the opposition and that nature, not the government, will be the loser.
How the situation will develop the coming days and weeks is anyone’s guess, but whatever happens in the negotiations will have lasting consequences for Denmark. The ‘generational contract’, written without consulting youth in any significant way, may fall or survive in one form or another. We are many who hold our breaths.
More
Paving the Way for Agriculture Emission Reductions – the Danish case
Stakeholder Collaboration as the Cornerstone of the Green Transition The Danish Model
Impact and Opportunities of the 2023-27 CAP Reform in Denmark
Missing Targets and Making Partnerships – Denmark and Climate Change
