Three of Denmark's leading biodiversity researchers have resigned from the expert group advising on new nature national parks, claiming their scientific recommendations are being ignored in favor of political considerations.
The resignations expose tensions in Danish society between scientific expertise and political decision-making as the country rushes to establish its ambitious nature park program. Rasmus Ejrnæs, a biodiversity professor at Aarhus University, quit after just two meetings, telling Naturmonitor he felt like "a rubber stamp" for decisions already made by Naturstyrelsen (Danish Nature Agency).
"I got the feeling that we were just supposed to be a stamp, so Naturstyrelsen could wave that researchers had been heard and involved," Ejrnæs said. "I experienced it as deception to sit in an advisory expert group without what you say being taken into account."
Scientific concerns over park sizes
The core dispute centers on park size requirements that researchers say are too small to support meaningful biodiversity. Carsten Rahbek from Copenhagen University and Hans Henrik Bruun, also from KU, both resigned after Naturstyrelsen presented a shortlist of 11 potential areas in spring 2024.
The proposed parks fall well short of the Biodiversitetsrådet's (Biodiversity Council) recommendations of preferably 5,000 hectares but minimum 1,000 hectares. Current members of the working group have also criticized the small sizes in meeting minutes, with lecturer Jacob Heilmann Clausen questioning how the scientific group can provide meaningful advice when "there are such small areas included."
Denmark is establishing 15 nature national parks total, with nature and biodiversity as the first priority. Two parks, Gribskov and Fussingø, have already been approved, while three others await political approval after public consultation.
Political priorities override expertise
Naturstyrelsen's response reveals the core problem. The agency acknowledges that "the final designation and choice of, for example, animals and fencing has been decided politically as part of agreements between the parties and has not always followed the scientific working group's recommendations."
This admission confirms what the resigned researchers suspected. They were brought in to provide scientific legitimacy for decisions driven by political convenience rather than ecological necessity. The agency consults over 20 different participant organizations alongside the scientific group, diluting expert input with competing interests.
The coalition parties - government, Radikale Venstre, SF, Enhedslisten, and Alternativet - expanded the scientific working group to include animal welfare expertise, but apparently not to give it more influence over actual decisions.
Remaining scientific working group member Jens-Christian Svenning from Aarhus University confirms the group "has unfortunately only been involved to a limited extent."
Expect the final park selections to prioritize political feasibility over scientific rigor, with smaller parks like the proposed 300-hectare sites likely to win approval over the scientifically recommended minimum 1,000-hectare areas.
Read more: Danish Energy Boss Pays Angry Customers via Facebook Group.
Read more: Danish Chemical Lobby Rewrote Safety Research Before Publica....