After a long silence saturated with rumours and speculations, a broad majority Monday presented a political deal on implementing the informal green tripartite agreement (IGTA) from June. In addition to the three-party government coalition (S&D, Renew), four opposition parties (EPP, Renew, Greens) have put their signature on the final text. Some others have however walked away. The deal sees stronger reduction targets for Nitrogen pollution than were initially proposed, while maintaining the climate tax and land use changes proposed by earlier agreements. These latter taxes and changes have been criticised as far too little compared the the scale of the challenge by opponents, who also rail against the voluntary nature of the targets and reliance of future technologies and future political will. A significant if still controversial day for Denmark. Asger Mindegaard unpacks the preliminary details for ARC. (Updated with Frie Bonder – Levende Land commentary 16.10 on 19/11/24)
After a long silence saturated with rumours and speculations, a broad majority Monday presented a political deal on implementing the informal green tripartite agreement (IGTA) from June. In addition to the three-party government coalition (S&D, Renew), four opposition parties (EPP, Renew, Greens) have put their signature on the final text.
This is the preliminary culmination of a long and conflict-ridden process that saw tense blinking contests, feisty exchanges in Parliament debates between the government and an unlikely alliance of opposition parties. Much is still up in the air, as much of the actual implementation is based on voluntary incentives, but let’s have a look at the main elements of the political green tripartite agreement (PGTA).
Overview of the main elements
Nitrogen pollution reductions
After intense arm wrestling, the opposition won the higher ambition on nitrogen pollution. Under the PGTA, nitrogen emissions from agriculture will have to be reduced by 13,780 tonnes by 2027. This is close to the most ambitious scenario, ‘scenario one’, from a report by the Ministry of Finance which saw a reduction of 14,100 tonnes. Nitrogen emission reductions were the main fight between the opposition and the government, who fiercely defended ‘scenario three’ seeing a reduction of only 12,900 tonnes, and until recently it seemed likely that this disagreement would sink the ship definitively.
The final agreement is expected to yield slightly smaller reductions than the original scenario as the Baltic Sea island of Bornholm is exempt. The argument is that much of the nutrient pollution around the island is emitted by Sweden and Germany and thus requires a separate deal. This manoeuvre has sparked harsh criticism from several experts who call it ‘misguided’ and ‘peculiar’ as Bornholm is an intensely cultivated island in one of the most nutrient polluted waters in the EU.
Both ministers and parlamentarians from the signing opposition parties spent a significant part of the press meeting on highlighting the good news for marine life suffering from historic hypoxia. Nobody could, however, give a good indication of when things will actually change for the better. Asked by journalists, Minister for the Green Tripartite, Jeppe Bruus (S&D), said that the bad news is that this will take many years. And the voluntary nature of large parts of the deal adds further uncertainty.
Despite the increased ambitions, the freshly minted agreement is also unlikely to secure sufficient reductions in time for Denmark to comply with the hard 2027 deadline under the EU Water Framework Directive to ensure ‘good ecological status’ in its coastal waters. Today, only five of Denmark’s 109 areas have this status and Šefčovič has already made it clear that no more extensions are available (Denmark has already pushed the deadlines the maximum three times).
In these times where political regulation of agriculture has potential to spark civil war-like reactions, the new targets are positive and to be applauded. Also if it still is far shy of the significantly higher reductions needed according to the calculations of leading expert Stiig Markager.
The famous climate tax
The PGTA includes the world’s first climate tax on agriculture which was the original purpose of the exercise, before it slid in the background for reasons too complex to explain here. The tax will kick in in 2030 and is set at 120 kroner (16 euros) per tonne CO2 equivalent before rising to 300 kroner (40 euros) per tonne in 2035. This is in line with the IGTA from June.
In comparison, industry will pay 350 kroner (47 euros) per tonnes starting from next year with a progressive increase culminating in a climate tax of 750 kroner (100 euros) per tonne in 2030. The revenues from the climate tax will be channeled back into the sector.
Altogether, the parties to the agreement estimate that the tax will yield a total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 1.8-2.6 million tonnes by 2030. The agreement also stipulates that reductions of 2.2 million tonnes CO2e by 2030 should be guaranteed through other means in agriculture if the PGTA does not deliver.
Transforming the Danish landscapes – voluntarily
The PGTA primarily wants to achieve the nitrogen pollution reductions through a holistic approach based on targeted land use change through voluntary incentive schemes, supplemented by hard regulation from 2027 if necessary.
Ten percent of Denmark’s total area is planned to be forest and nature by 2045. The agreement includes a target to take 140,000 hectares of low-lying mineral soils and buffer areas out of production and to plant 240,000 hectares of new (production) forest. An additional 100,000 hectares should be turned into protected forest and there will be additional economic aid to restore wetlands.
This agreement foresees most of these changes to be driven voluntarily by landowners through economic incentive schemes. This has drawn criticism from many observers as Denmark has a long tradition for unsuccessful voluntary schemes to supposedly increase sustainability in agriculture. The PGTA foresees 43 billion kroner (5.8 billion euros) for various ways of financing the land use transition. Parts of this money is planned to come from the sale of EU ETS credits and from repurposing of CAP funds which depends on green light from Brussels.
Implementation and follow-up
Much of the actual planning and implementation of the enormous changes to land use in Denmark will be done in local coastal water councils, or ‘local tripartites’ as the agreement calls them. Here, municipal authorities and local groups organising the farmers and green civil society will plan and implement conversions based on their local knowledge. The resulting plans have a hard deadline by the end of next year and must accumulated cover the political ambitions.
In 2026, there will be an evaluation of the land use change and the resulting improvements to the coastal ecosystems. Based on this, nitrogen emission quotas and other types of regulation might be introduced in the agriculture sector in 2027 to force through pollution reductions if the voluntary measures prove insufficient to go all the way. The efforts will also be adjusted as necessary in 2029 and every three years thereafter.
Selected reactions to the agreement
The PGTA was presented as a massive achievement by seven of the political parties in Parliament. Four opposition parties where not part of the deal, one of them having left the negotiations in protest as late as last week: the Red/Green Alliance (the Left) walked out of the room Thursday last week, citing lack of green ambitions. In the other ring corner, Danish People’s Party (Patriots) and Danmark Democrats (ECR) disavowed the tripartite from the get-go as they are against introducing a climate tax on agriculture and the Alternative (not in the European Parliament) were also not part of the process for reasons closer to those of the Red/Green Alliance.
Amongst the parties to the informal green tripartite, president of Danish Agriculture and Food Council hailed the agreement as a victory for good farming, climate, nature and environment. At the other side of the divide, President of Danish Society for Nature Conservation, Maria Reumert Gjerding, thanked the parties behind the agreement for setting up a framework for the transition of the agriculture sector.
The NGO Green Transition Denmark acknowledges the agreement as an important first step but laments that it does not contribute sufficiently to what they see as a much needed structural transition away from intensive livestock farming. Similar signals come from CONCITO, a green think tank which was affiliated as ‘knowledge party’ to the IGTA. They applaud the good elements while pointing out several areas where the agreement does not go far enough and emphasise the need to follow the implementation closely and act swiftly through regulation if it does not deliver.
Organic Denmark, the association representing organic farmers in Denmark, applauds the parties for reaching a deal with broad political support. However, they criticise several of the components of the agreement and the focus on technical solutions rather than structural reform. Animal Protection Denmark calls the agreement a missed opportunity and lament that it is based on an assumption of increased productivity of the already suffering Danish farm animals who, as per Danish political tradition, remain invisible.
The Green Youth movement however, which organised a short hunger strike against the negotiations, railed against Denmark now being “chained to conventional animal production, the most resource-demanding and climate-damaging food production of all” while also “once again betting too much on voluntary agreements.” The movement also pointed to the discrepancy between the Climate Council’s recommendations for climate tax and the far lower reality agreed too, and, like Organic Denmark, criticized reliance on “immature technologies”.
Ole Davidsen of Frie Bonder – Levende Land (The Danish La Via Campesina) told ARC that the Green Tripartite is “a masterpiece of ambiguity”. It must be criticised for “allowing too much emissions of carbon and nitrogen” for having “too little regard for biodiversity and animal welfare” too much focus and on and faith in “industrial scams such as biochar, burp powder and grass protein” while also having a negative impact on rural development and biological agriculture. Davidson also emphaisised how pressure must be applied at the local institutional level regarding implementation, while the wider world must be informed of the flaws and faults of this agreement which excludes “representatives of those affected” – aka some farmers and rural populations.
More work must be done on understanding alternatives and integrating “natural agriculture, agroecology, food and energy sovereignty and, not least, demographic change” Davidson adds, concluding the “underlying rationale in the green tripartite is unfortunately still a sharp separation between “pure” nature on the one hand and an over-industrialized agriculture on the other, and in extension of this a barely hidden goal that ordinary people should be rare guests in the countryside. We, Frie Bonder and allies, will make sure this never happens!”
Where from now?
As a preliminary summary with a day’s worth of perspective, it seems safe to conclude that the agreement is somewhat historic. It represents a departure from the unwavering increase of land under plough that has characterised land use change in Denmark for centuries. The climate tax is a solid first step and once it is law, it can be tuned and tweaked. And in the end, the reduction target for nitrogen is a clear victory for the opposition parties and for the green movement, as they are more ambitious than the government’s initial position.
But it is also the case that the agreed targets and the scale of the problem do not yet match, for nitrogen pollution or for climate. Significant change away from intensive animal agriculture and its trajectory, from feed inputs to hope in future technologies, will not happen with this agreement.
Some big things are ignored for now. An agri-industrial path dependency is maintained, an agroecological and rurally aware approach sidelined, and there is an awful lot of hope placed in voluntary targets and in future political will. Nevertheless, this is still a big deal so to speak. It is not nothing. Many – but not all – societal partners have come together, to an extent greater than most other countries have done. In these exceptionally fractious times this is something to build on.
It is a case for now of watch this space, as the Danish Dilemma unfolds.
More
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
