After months of negotiations between farmers, environmental organisations, political parties and the government, on 18th November, Denmark presented its Green Tripartite Agreement.  

In order to reduce its emissions from livestock and tackle nitrogen pollution, from 2030, Danish farmers will have to pay a levy of 300 kroner (40 EUR) per tonne of methane on emissions from livestock.  Denmark is of course known for its intensive bacon production – notably Danish Crown. Arla the multinational dairy company is also headquartered there. Nearly 90% of Denmark’s agricultural emissions come from animal farming, primarily from methane produced by ruminants and nitrogen pollution from fertilisers and manure. 

So, it seems promising that such a country should propose the first climate tax dedicated to the agricultural sector in the world.   

Like much of the EU, Denmark’s agricultural sector has failed to significantly reduce its emissions. In particular, the intensive livestock industry has critically impacted ecosystems, while causing immense animal suffering by confining animals in overcrowded spaces and flouting EU prohibitions on cruel practices such as tail docking in pigs.  

This Agreement is a step towards addressing the immense impact of intensive livestock farming on the environment, however, its success will depend on its ability to face certain limitations. For example, the plan relies heavily on technological fixes to reduce methane emissions from cattle such as methane-reducing feed additives. The effect of such additives on the ruminal microbiome and the overall animal health is still unclear, as is its long-term efficacy in mitigating methane emissions.  

Additionally, it will set limits on nitrogen emissions to cut around 13.780 tonnes of annual emissions and includes plans to convert around 140.000 hectares of low-lying agricultural land into natural areas, as well as expanding forests, representing 10 to 15% of farmland converted to forest. But as we have seen from farmers’ protests across the world; it is critical that the implementation of this plan includes a fair ‘buy out’ option for farmers and empowers those who adopt more sustainable farming practices.  

It is also vital to ensure that this Agreement reduces the total number of herd sizes in Denmark and does not focus on emissions intensity. The latter does not address overall emissions and can cause even more environmental damage associated with the increased intensification that such an approach would entail. 

Instead, reducing stocking densities and having extensive outdoor access brings multiple benefits and allows for natural behaviours, such as grazing and social interactions. These not only improve animal welfare, but also maintain permanent grasslands, enhancing carbon sequestration and reducing the reliance on imported feed crops. For a resilient agri-food system we must focus on long-term co-benefits such as improved soil health, air quality and biodiversity. 

It is also worth noting the complimentary policy signal of earmarking 60 million Euros for supporting production and consumption of plant-based foods through the Plant-Based Food Grant, which could be set to double after 2030. This is on top of Denmark's existing funding, totally at 115 million Euros.  

While the Danish plan sets an important precedent, scaling up reforms across Europe to phase out intensive livestock farming and transition towards agro-ecological farming practices with excellent animal welfare standards will be essential to achieving the EU’s climate goals.  

As highlighted by the European Environment Agency (EEA), the EU’s failure to enforce the polluter-pays principle in agriculture undermines broader climate efforts. EU policymakers should ensure a meaningful implementation of the principle by reorientating the CAP’s ambition and payments, while adopting new instruments to make environmental costs more tangible. 

You can learn more about the link between climate change and factory farming in our briefings “The role of animal agriculture in global methane emissions” and “Feeding false alternatives: climate, biodiversity and health risks of upscaling pig and poultry production”