Norway's agriculture sector must cut 5 million tons of CO₂ equivalents by 2030, but a key tool—mandatory methane inhibitors for dairy cows—has been scrapped by a parliamentary majority. In a move highlighting political pragmatism over prescriptive climate measures, the Green Party (MDG) has joined forces with parties across the spectrum to abandon a 2027 requirement for methane-reducing feed additives. This decision underscores a significant shift in how Norway aims to tackle agricultural emissions, moving away from a specific technological mandate toward broader, systemic changes.
A Coalition Against the Mandate
The Storting now has a clear majority instructing Agriculture Minister Nils Kristen Sandtrøen of the Labor Party (Ap) to formally drop the target. The mandate, established in the 2025 agricultural agreement, would have required dairy farmers to use methane-inhibiting feed for at least 80 days annually to qualify for livestock subsidies. MDG became the final party to endorse its removal, aligning with the Progress Party (Frp), Christian Democratic Party (KrF), Centre Party (Sp), Socialist Left Party (SV), and the Red Party (Rødt). Even without the Conservative Party (Høyre), which is deliberating its position, this cross-bloc alliance ensures the policy's demise. Une Bastholm, MDG's agricultural policy spokesperson, called the original requirement 'hasty' and stated the focus must pivot. 'One is now neatly compelled to move away from that target, but maintain the climate ambitions, and shift focus over to agronomy and livestock manure along with altered production,' Bastholm said.
The Rise and Fall of a Climate Tool
Methane inhibitors, such as the product Bovaer, were once central to Norway's strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its sizable livestock industry. Agriculture accounts for nearly 10% of the country's total emissions, with methane from cattle being a potent contributor. The 5 million ton reduction pledge was formalized in a sectoral agreement with the state, positioning feed additives as a cornerstone for progress. However, the practical implementation hit a major barrier when Tine, the dominant dairy cooperative, halted the use of Bovaer. This decision by a key industry actor created immediate pressure on policymakers, with farmers and several political groups arguing the mandate was premature or unworkable. The requirement's design tied direct subsidy access to compliance, placing significant economic pressure on milk producers and raising concerns about feasibility and cost.
Political Recalculation in Oslo
This policy reversal reveals the complex trade-offs in Norwegian environmental politics, especially when climate goals intersect with agricultural practicality. MDG's support is particularly notable, as the party traditionally champions stringent, specific environmental regulations. Their alignment with parties like Frp and Sp, which often prioritize industry flexibility, indicates a shared conclusion that the top-down mandate was misaligned with on-farm realities. The consensus emerged not from a rejection of climate targets, but from a belief that the 2027 deadline and singular technological fix were overly rigid. Storting members from supporting parties have emphasized that the 2030 emission reduction target remains intact, but the pathway must be revised. This episode reflects a broader trend in Norwegian policy: a willingness to adjust instruments when initial plans face substantial stakeholder pushback or technical hurdles.
Redefining the Path to Emission Cuts
With the methane inhibitor mandate off the table, the political directive now emphasizes agronomy, manure management, and changes in production patterns. These areas include optimizing feed composition to naturally reduce methane, improving fertilizer application to cut nitrous oxide emissions, and potentially adjusting herd sizes or farming practices. Norwegian officials and industry groups must rapidly develop alternative measures to ensure the 5 million ton COâ‚‚-equivalent cut is still achievable. The agriculture ministry will likely need to present a revised plan, potentially involving updated subsidies or support programs tied to these broader methodologies. This shift places greater emphasis on incremental, holistic farm management changes rather than a silver-bullet technology, a approach that may find broader acceptance among farmers but requires careful monitoring to verify emission reductions.
What Lies Ahead for Farmers and Emissions?
The immediate effect is regulatory relief for dairy farmers, who no longer face the 2027 deadline for feed additives. However, the underlying pressure to reduce emissions has not vanished. Industry organizations and the government must collaborate on new frameworks that incentivize the adopted focus areas. Research institutions in Norway, such as those at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, will likely see increased attention on agronomy and manure treatment technologies. The political consensus that formed to scrap the mandate may now be tested in crafting its replacement. As Bastholm noted, the climate ambitions remain, but the tools are changing. Will this pragmatic pivot lead to more sustainable and acceptable emission cuts, or will it become a setback for Norway's agricultural climate goals? The answer will unfold in the fields and fjords as new practices take root.