The Danish Green Tripartite could lock in the existing industrial farming system, based on the promises of questionable (bio)technologies. However, Denmark’s farming system needs a structural transformation and the use of GMOs should be tightly regulated to prevent further ecological damage. By June Rebekka Bresson (Noah, Denmark) and Franziska Achterberg (SOS, Germany).
Factory farming untouched
The Green Tripartite Agreement aims to convert 10 percent of Denmark’s agricultural land to forest and nature by 2045. Whilst this is not enough, and it is unclear whether it can be achieved without regulation, and there are concerns about what type of forestry and where, the intention itself is good news for a nature-depleted country like Denmark.
At the same time, the Agreement will do nothing to reign in Denmark’s outsized livestock industry. It is not meant to reduce livestock numbers, as Niels Peter Nørring from the DAFC notes in an earlier contribution to this series. The Agreement may in fact punish farmers who want to reduce their herds. This is because farmers receive a slaughter premium for each animal and farmers who reduce the number of animals will receive less money.
Denmark is the world’s largest meat producer per capita. The livestock industry is the main cause of nutrient run-offs and dead zones along the Danish coast, and a main contributor to Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions. Half of Denmark’s land area is used to produce animal feed. On top of that, the country imports massive amounts of soy from overseas, thereby contributing to climate and environmental damage in far-away places like the Amazon.
Higher yields with biotechnology?
As livestock numbers are not meant to decrease, but some of the land used for feed production will be converted to other uses, Denmark is likely to import more animal feed from overseas. That will add to existing pressures for deforestation.
Parties to the Agreement now want to find ways to intensify production on the remaining 90 percent of farmland. The Tripartite Agreement states that it “essential” to increase agricultural yields and to make agricultural production “increasingly sustainable, high-tech and land-efficient … so that Denmark continues to have a competitive industry with attractive business potential and jobs.”
How do they want to do that? A DKK 10 billion grant from Novo Nordisk Foundation may give us some clues. Novo Nordisk Foundation’s stated aim is to “make biotechnology a spearhead for the green transformation of industry and agriculture”. The Foundation is, through Novo Holdings, the controlling shareholder in the biotechnology company Novonesis, which offers all sorts of “biosolutions” (in fact: biotech solutions) including for farming.
Pro-deregulation stance
Among the seven parties involved in the Tripartite Agreement there is a broad consensus that biotechnology is the way forward in farming. These parties also agree that EU standards, regulating biotechnology, aimed at protecting our health and the environment, form an unnecessary obstacle to the use of agricultural biotechnology.
Biotech company Novonesis (former Novozymes) has long argued that EU GMO regulations “prevent innovation and the development of new solutions that can contribute to a sustainable future” and that the Danish government should “take the lead” in the revision of the EU GMO Directive. Novo Nordisk Foundation echoes this, complaining about “long approval processes” in Europe.
When the European Commission proposed to exempt a whole new generation of GM plants from the EU’s GMO regulations, Thor Gunnar Kofoed of DAFC boasted that 95 percent of the controversial proposal was “written in Denmark”. “We have almost reached a consensus in Denmark on this proposal,” he said. Even the Danish Society for Nature Conservation (one of the seven parties to the Agreement) and the Danish organic farming association are onboard, he claimed.
Empty promises, real risks
However, it is doubtful that biotechnology can deliver higher yields whilst saving Denmark’s soils, groundwater and coastal waters. Previous GMO promises have not been kept. Instead, the envisaged release of untested and unlabelled GM organisms could further burden Denmark’s ecosystems.
Despite developers claims to the contrary, these GM plants are not generally “nature-identical” and there can well be risks associated with them. Consumers, also in Denmark, want to be able to avoid GMOs on their plate. A 2021 opinion survey shows that a majority of people who have heard of new GM techniques want food produced with these techniques labelled as GM.
This is why some organisations have come together in Denmark to defend existing GMO regulations. The GMO-Free Food Network does not oppose biotechnology but argues that legal requirements like GMO risk assessment and labelling must be applied to ensure biosafety and consumer choice.
Structural changes and precautionary laws
Any analysis of the Tripartite Agreement, touted by DAFC as “a victory for good farming, climate, nature and the environment“, should not only look at the land converted to forests and nature but also the land that remains under farming. Will the oversupply of nutrients be reduced? Will soils and water bodies be able to recover? Or will Denmark become a testing ground for GMOs and other patented “biosolutions” whose long-term effects on nature and climate are yet unknown?
The Danish government has announced a “cross-sectoral growth plan” to support a “strong, competitive and development-oriented agricultural and food industry”. This could shed more light on the government’s plans.
In the meantime, we must remain vigilant when the Danish government, as part of the upcoming EU Presidency, promotes the Tripartite model – nature-depleting farming paired with starry-eyed technology promises – across the EU.
If Denmark is to achieve its climate and environmental objectives and contribute its fair share to those of the EU, the Danish farming sector needs to undergo a structural transformation. It cannot rely on the promises of unproven technologies and open the door to untested and unlabelled GMOs across the continent.
More
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
