Will the Green Tripartite Alliance ensure transformative change in Denmark? That was the central question posed when IPBES in Denmark hosted the panel discussion “Transformative Change in Denmark” at this year’s Climate People’s Assembly.
The latest international IPBES reports all call for far-reaching societal, economic, and technological transformations to reverse the trends not only in the biodiversity crisis but also in the climate and pollution crises. This means we must do things significantly differently, rather than simply doing a little more or less of what we’re already doing. It therefore requires a completely different set of values and ways of thinking than we are accustomed to if we are to succeed in reversing these crises.
When considering transformative change in a Danish context, it is hard not to think of the role of the Green Tripartite in such a process. The agreement, which was introduced in the summer of 2024 and aims to ensure more nature, cleaner water, and a sustainable transition of agriculture, embodies in itself an ambition and a plan for a major, far-reaching societal transformation. But is it really a plan that can ensure transformative change in Denmark?
To examine the matter more closely, IPBES in Denmark invited Søren Egge Rasmussen, a member of the Danish Parliament for the Red-Green Alliance; Mads Kongsted Brenøe, chief policy advisor at the Danish Society for Nature Conservation; Anders S. Barfod, associate professor at Aarhus University and member of the IPBES in Denmark steering committee, and Johan Klejs, representative of the Green Youth Movement, to discuss the topic and explore the opportunities, barriers, and challenges inherent in the Green Tripartite. Justine Grønbæk Pors, associate professor at CBS and a member of the Danish steering committee for IPBES, moderated the event, which set the stage for an exciting and insightful debate.
Is one enough to bring about sufficient change?
“I believe that the Green Tripartite can help serve as a catalyst for creating natural areas that are completely different from the nature we see in Denmark today,” said Mads Kongsted Brenøe. “I believe the Tripartite Alliance can help us talk about nature in a whole new way,” he continued, and he considers precisely that to be an important step on the path toward the green transition.
However, he still expressed concern about whether the Tripartite Initiative would actually fully achieve the green transformation it aims for. He shared this concern with the rest of the panel, who emphasized the importance of ensuring that the Tripartite Initiative is thoroughly considered throughout its entire process.
Challenges Along the Way
A significant part of the discussion centered precisely on the specific challenges that could hinder the Tripartite’s ambitions and prevent it from actually achieving what it was created to do. Disparate economic incentives, uncertainties regarding the implementation itself, and knowledge sharing throughout the process were cited as potential key challenges.
Søren Egge Rasmussen pointed out that much of the agreement is based on voluntary participation and is therefore subject to uncertainty. “It has been decided that there should be a belt along the coast that is not to be cultivated. That’s easy enough, but now we have to negotiate with farmers who are in debt. There’s no guarantee that we’ll be able to pull it all off.”
Johan Klejs echoed the concerns about the plan’s implementation: “There are no guarantees that we will get the large, contiguous natural areas as planned.” He also pointed out that there is a lack of clear and up-to-date definitions of what “protected nature” actually is. Without a stricter and more specific definition to build upon, there is a risk that the ambitions for these areas will be watered down and that efforts will be inconsistent when it comes to achieving the goal of establishing 20 percent protected nature by 2030.
Another key point was highlighted by Anders S. Barfod, who emphasized that the Green Tripartite should not be viewed in isolation. Citing IPBES’s global reports on transformative change and the Nexus report, which explains the interrelationships between biodiversity, food production, health, water supply, and climate, he emphasized the need for a holistic approach and pointed out that transformative change requires a shift across the entire society. It is not enough to think solely in terms of more or less isolated solutions that fail to take into account other parallel systems in society, which in practice undermine the green transition.
Read more about the two international reports here.
“All of these subsidy programs are good examples of how people make other choices that are harmful to nature and society,” he explained, referring to agricultural subsidies that continue to support practices with significant climate and environmental costs. Real transformative change will therefore require addressing the subsidy programs and regulations that help maintain the status quo.
This point received strong support from the panel participants, and there was broad agreement that changes to the subsidy system and other forms of ambitious regulation within our social structures will be necessary to achieve genuine transformative change in Denmark.
A more holistic approach and long-term solutions
Although the debate was not entirely devoid of hope for the impact of the Green Tripartite, the message was ultimately clear: The Tripartite may be a beginning, but it is not a conclusion or a direct path to transformative change. If we want to ensure real transformative change, we must ensure that political decisions are long-term, holistic, based on sound knowledge, and—not least—ensure that this knowledge is communicated to those who will ultimately be responsible for carrying out the work in the local Tripartite Forums.As Anders S. Barfod put it in closing: “Policymakers must keep in mind that these decisions will stand for many, many years. That is why they must not become a patchwork of special interests.”
IPBES in Denmark would like to thank all panelists for contributing to a fascinating and nuanced debate. Special thanks go to the audience, who actively participated by asking questions afterward, thereby contributing to an important discussion about Denmark’s path toward transformative change.
