Sybille Kyed, Policy director of Organic Denmark says that the Green Tripartite Agreement sets agri-food in that country onto the wrong track. It sidelines organic farming, ignores biodiversity and soil considerations on the majority of Denmark’s land, and in so doing inadvertently solidifies a questionable use of crops and land: organic can feed more people as the rules for organic farming mean extravagant amounts of crops aren’t grown to feed indoor animals. While ambivalent on technology, Kyed is concerned the agreement directly supports technology irresponsibly. Finally, she proposes another approach, one that integrates CO2e into CAP’s GAECs and eco-scheme system.
Denmark might be the first EU country to introduce a climate tax on farming. This is an important initial step toward internalizing negative externalities, which is crucial for creating a green transition within a market-based economy. The tax structure is created through a multipartite agreement involving the Danish Agricultural Food Council, the Danish society for Nature Conservation, the government, and four other stakeholders. Unfortunately, none of these are representatives for stakeholders that have a mission to change the farm system, and this leaves its mark on the agreement.
The Green Tripartite Agreement emphasises in its introduction that, in exchange for returning farmed areas to nature, the farming system should be intensified on more ‘resilient’ fields. A very good initiative was lost from the very start of the agreement.
The agreement reorganizes Danish land into reserves, ignoring the strong calls for food system transformation as expressed by the IPCC, IPBES, and stated in the Opening statement of the UN food summit 2021, which aimed to address the role of food systems in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: ‘There is no net-zero pathway for communities and countries without transformation of our food systems,’ it declared.
The Green tripartite, organic farming, soil and biodiversity
The organic area in Denmark should double to cover 21% of the farmed area or 510.00 ha by 2030. This goal has been decided on in previous political agreements and it is repeated in this latter one. The agreement does not restrict organic farming from any areas, but the signal is clear. Organic is considered a practice that can take place in areas with vulnerable ground water or a vulnerable water environment which justify additional restrictions on the use of fertilizers and pesticides. And that is it, as yields otherwise need to be raised.
It is true, soils are not all the same. Some soils better retain effluents than others, some soils have a closer connection to the water environment than others. However, organic farming, as it is described in its visions and principles, is a solution for the complete farm system. Synthetic pesticides that are common in the present conventional farm system are a problem no matter which soil we consider. Pesticides kill life. Life above the soil and life in the soil. Soon we will have a European soil health law. It is estimated that more than 60% of agricultural soil in Europe is in bad health. Intensified farming with pesticides and a big supply of nitrogen fertilizer does not help degraded soil. To revitalize the soil, we need to understand how to nourish the microbial life in the soil.
Additional to this, there is a dramatic drop of farmland biodiversity in Denmark as in EU. The biodiversity drop within the farmland area is not helped by giving land back to nature. (Farmland is currently 2/3 of all the land in Denmark).
To reverse the drop of biodiversity on farmland, we need to reintroduce the green infrastructure in the farmland, let cattle graze their feed on pasture rather than mowing their feed and bring it into the barn, eliminate pesticides and reduce the fertilizer supply. Beyond this the green infrastructure is an evitable part of a resilient farm system that is viable without or with very little use of pesticides.
Feeding more people on less land – yes with organics
A policy that only sees a future for organic farming on vulnerable soils is a devaluation of organic as an answer for the future and with no reasons. According to calculations that Organic Denmark made together with eight other NGOs, it will be possible to nourish at least as many people via organic farming from Danish farms as the present Danish farmers do today, while at the same time give up 25% of the registered farmed area.
This is possible because converting to organic farming does also mean conversion to a system with less animals in total, as organic animals cannot be locked up in a barn and cannot be fed just imported feed. With less animals, feed crops can be replaced with crops for food, and crops for food feed more people on less land. In fact, Danish animal farmers import more protein in feed than they produce to our dishes. The deficit is as big as the protein supply to 7 million people.
Technology
New technologies will be part of the next generation farm system and as such it should also be part of next generation organic farm practices. But the tripartite agreement will dedicate huge amounts of money as direct technology support to avoid a necessary transformation of the present system. This is a big mistake, which risks creating a technological lock-in effect (aka path dependency).
A responsible policy should reward the uptake of technology that reduces the negative externalities from farming, but it should not pay direct technology support. Direct support to technologies does causes market distortion, and it is very cost inefficient. New technologies will help the farms to perform, to lower their impact on climate and environment.
But new technologies will not reintroduce lost biodiversity, reestablish farmland ecosystem, provide a decent life for farm animals that are locked up in the barns. It might actually do the opposite, as new technologies risk increasing the pressure on farm animals to deliver even more for less so that improved performance like more milk, more meat, more eggs per animal pays the investment in new technologies.
Part of a sustainable farm system is also a farm system with less use of antibiotics. It is documented that a life in fresh air causes less infectious diseases; more animals in more confined spaces will elevate the use of antibiotics compared to a situation with fewer animals.
Carbon emissions and CAP – a model for Europe?
Concerning the tax structure, which was the background for the green tripartite, a wise agreement would show a way to pricing carbon emission in a model that has a fair chance to be exported to other EU countries within a few years. The implementation of CAP offers such a possibility, but the opportunity was missed by the parties involved. CAP does allow each farm to be given a CO2e quota as a GAEC threshold. Emissions above the threshold level would result in reduced basic income, and CO2e emissions below GAEC level would result in additional payment from the eco-scheme budget. This would be a result-oriented solution in line with the CAP objectives. Hopefully, the missed opportunity will be picked up later in the process.
If we are lucky, the Danish tripartite agreement succeeds in making Danish farmers give land back to nature. This will be an important result. Nature lacks space not least in a country like Denmark with so much farmed land.
But the tracks that have been laid out for a future agriculture in Denmark are wrong. It is wrong to intensify the rest of the farmland, it is wrong to reduce organic farming to a practice that can take place in areas with vulnerable ground water or vulnerable water environment. Organic farming is a solution for the complete farm system.
More
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
All Hot Air? An Organic Action Plan without Farm to Fork Targets
Dear ECA – an Organic Love Letter to Mildly Misguided Auditors
