Does the Agreement on a Green Denmark ensure transformative change in Denmark? This was the central question when IPBES Denmark hosted the panel debate “Transformative Change in Denmark” at this year’s Climate Summit.
Recent international IPBES reports all call for profound societal, economic and technological transformative changes if we are to reverse not only the biodiversity crisis, but also the climate and pollution crises. This means that we must do things in a significantly different way, rather than simply doing a little more or less of what we already do. Achieving this requires an entirely different set of values and ways of thinking from those we are accustomed to, if we are to succeed in turning these crises around.
When looking at transformative change in a Danish context, it is difficult not to think of the role of The Aggement on a Green Denmark in such a process. The agreement, introduced in the summer of 2024 with the aim of ensuring more nature, cleaner water and a sustainable transformation of agriculture, contains an ambition and a plan for a major, far-reaching restructuring of society. But is it really a plan that can secure transformative change in Denmark?
To explore this question further, IPBES Denmark invited Søren Egge Rasmussen, Member of Parliament for the Red–Green Alliance (Enhedslisten); Mads Kongsted Brenøe, Senior Political Adviser at the Danish Society for Nature Conservation; Anders S. Barfod, Associate Professor at Aarhus University and member of the IPBES Denmark Steering Committee; and Johan Klejs, representative of the Green Youth Movement, to discuss the topic and examine the opportunities, barriers and challenges inherent in the Agreement on a Green Denmark. The debate was moderated by Justine Grønbæk Pors, Associate Professor at Copenhagen Business School and member of the IPBES Denmark Steering Committee, who provided the framework for an engaging and thought-provoking discussion.
Sufficient potential for change?
“I believe that the Agreement on a Green Denmark can serve as a lever to create nature areas that are completely different from the nature we see in Denmark today,” said Mads Kongsted Brenøe. “I think the agreement can help us talk about nature in a completely new way,” he continued, and he sees precisely this as an important step on the road towards the green transition.
However, he also expressed concern as to whether the Agreement on a Green Denmark will, in practice, fully deliver the green change it sets out to achieve. This concern was shared by the rest of the panel, who emphasised the importance of ensuring that the Agreement is carefully thought through throughout its entire implementation.
Challenges along the way
A significant part of the discussion focused on the concrete challenges that could undermine the ambitions of the Agreement on a Green Denmark and prevent it from actually achieving what it was designed to do. Uneven economic incentives, uncertainties surrounding implementation itself, and knowledge sharing throughout the process were highlighted as potential key challenges.
Søren Egge Rasmussen pointed out that much of the agreement rests on voluntariness and therefore also uncertainty. “It has been decided that there should be a belt along the coast that must not be cultivated. That is easy enough to decide, but now you have to negotiate the land with farmers who are in debt. There is no guarantee that everything can be brought to fruition.”
Johan Klejs echoed the concern about the implementation of the plan: “There are no guarantees that we will get the large coherent nature areas as planned”. He also pointed out that there is a lack of clear and updated definitions of what ‘protected nature’ actually is. Without a stricter and more concrete definition to work from, there is a risk that ambitions for land-use areas will be diluted and that efforts to achieve the 20 per cent protected nature target by 2030 will become inconsistent.
Another key point was raised by Anders S. Barfod, who stressed the Agreement on a Green Denmark should not be viewed in isolation. Referring to IPBES’ global reports on transformative change and the Nexus Report, which explains the interconnections between biodiversity, food production, health, water supply and climate, he highlighted the need for a holistic approach and pointed out that transformative change requires change across society as a whole. It is not enough to think in terms of more or less isolated solutions that fail to take into account other parallel systems in society which, in practice, work against the green transition.
Read more about the two international reports here.
“All subsidy schemes are good examples of how we continue to make choices that are harmful to nature and society,” he explained, referring to agricultural subsidies that still support practices with significant climate and environmental costs. Genuine transformative change will therefore require addressing the subsidy schemes and regulations that help to maintain the status quo.
This point was strongly supported by the panel, with broad agreement that reforming the subsidy system and implementing other ambitious regulatory measures across society will be necessary to achieve genuine transformative change in Denmark.
Greater holistic thinking and long-term solutions
Although the debate was not without hope for the impact of the Agreement on a Green Denmark, the overall message was clear: the agreement may be a beginning, but not a conclusion or a direct route to transformative change. If we want to secure real transformative change, we must ensure that political decisions are long-term, holistic, based on the right knowledge, and not least that this knowledge is communicated to those who will ultimately be responsible for carrying out the work in the local tripartite arrangements. As Anders S. Barfod concluded: “Policymakers need to think about the fact that decisions must last for many years. Therefore, it must not become a patchwork of special interests.”
IPBES Denmark thanks all panel participants for contributing to an engaging and nuanced debate. Special thanks go to the audience, who actively participated with questions afterwards and thereby contributed to an important discussion about Denmark’s future path towards transformative change.
