A new political agreement in Denmark aims to slash nitrogen pollution by 9,600 tonnes annually. The goal is to restore water quality and bring fish back to Danish waterways. The deal, however, has sparked deep concern in the agricultural sector, with farmers warning of severe financial consequences and questioning the promised compensation.
Asmus Klith-Forum, a dairy farmer and crop producer in Skals, Central Jutland, represents the frontline anxiety. He operates 450 hectares, growing feed for his dairy cows. The new rules target high-leaching crops like maize, which is central to his operation. 'I think the economy will get worse,' Klith-Forum states bluntly. He will be forced to grow less maize and more beets and grass.
This shift has direct business implications. Maize offers high energy density and fibre, crucial for milk yield. Less maize means lower milk production. Klith-Forum estimates his revenue could drop by three to four million Danish kroner, depending on the milk price. This highlights the direct trade-off between environmental policy and agricultural output in a major export sector.
The political agreement, backed by the government and several parties, includes compensation for farmers. Funds from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy will support land conversion costs. Yet, farmer skepticism runs high. 'I have heard many politicians back out of things they actually promised,' Klith-Forum notes, casting doubt on the final payout. This distrust between policymakers and primary producers is a recurring theme in Danish environmental negotiations.
From a trade perspective, the deal's impact on consumer prices is debated. Some politicians suggest reduced domestic food production will lead to higher prices. Klith-Forum offers a different, market-based view. 'We compete on the global market,' he explains. A drop in Danish volume, without a corresponding global price increase, simply means lower revenue for farmers, not necessarily costlier milk in Danish supermarkets. This underscores Denmark's position in the international food supply chain.
The broader economic strategy involves converting land with wetland potential out of agricultural production entirely. The so-called 'green tripartite' deal also pushes for 250,000 additional hectares of forest by 2045. Klith-Forum challenges this priority, arguing land should primarily produce food for people. He warns against increased reliance on imports from outside the EU, where production standards may differ. This debate touches on core issues of food security, sovereignty, and environmental responsibility.
The total required reduction is 14,800 tonnes to ensure a good water environment. The remaining cuts will come from converting fields to forest and nature. The timeline has shifted, with Denmark now aiming to meet EU Water Framework Directive targets by 2030, not 2027. The compensation structure includes a cap starting in 2032, gradually reduced to 2035. This long-term framework creates uncertainty for business planning in the agricultural sector, affecting investments in the Copenhagen Stock Exchange-listed food and bio-science companies that rely on stable Danish production.
The agreement represents a significant pivot for Danish agribusiness. It forces a reckoning between the country's green ambitions and its powerful agricultural export economy. The coming years will test the viability of the compensation model and whether environmental gains can be achieved without crippling a key industry. The outcome will influence similar policy debates across the Ăresund region and the wider EU.