Blue-green algae on a lake Denmark photo by jeancliclac on istock
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 acknowledge 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”.
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, 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 ti
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.
Denmark’s Green Tripartite – Politics Plays its Role
Stakeholder Collaboration as the Cornerstone of the Green Transition The Danish Model
Paving the Way for Agriculture Emission Reductions – the Danish case
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=673c979666fa4a64a6765b6efcb9b300&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arc2020.eu%2Fpolitical-deal-reached-on-denmarks-green-tripartite-whats-in-it-and-whats-not%2F&c=13280723324479506518&mkt=de-de
Author :
Publish date : 2024-11-19 05:45:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.