Council to safeguard nature and climate by reducing agricultural land in Denmark by a third
If we are to make room for climate action and biodiversity and at the same time ensure healthy aquatic ecosystems, the Danish landscape will in 2050 look significantly different from today.
While 72 percent of Danish land is currently used for agriculture or forestry, approximately one third of the current agricultural land must be replaced with pristine forests, wetlands in river valleys, and large protected nature areas, according to a new analysis from the Danish Council on Climate Change. This corresponds to an area the size of Zealand and Falster combined.
“A crucial part of the plan should be determining which areas are to be reserved for biodiversity. In parallel, a greenhouse gas tax for agriculture should be adopted,” the Danish Council on Climate Change’s representative Peter Møllgaard says in a press release.
The cost of the conversion is estimated to be DKK 2.8 billion per year in lost revenue from food and animal feed. In return, it will ensure annual CO2e reductions of 6.8 million tonnes and Denmark’s compliance with its EU obligations regarding protecting nature and reducing nitrogen emissions to aquatic ecosystems.
Close study of three crises
The Council has based its analysis on three specific nature crises that Denmark will be faced with in the future.
Firstly, a climate crisis, which in terms of land area can be linked to the fact that fertilising fields and cultivating carbon-rich lowland soils emits greenhouse gases, but that we need to become a zero-emission society by 2050. This means a reduction in the number of cultivated fields and afforestation.
Secondly, a biodiversity crisis, which must be solved with more protected contiguous nature areas, and thirdly, an aquatic ecosystem crisis that needs to be solved with less nitrogen leaching from agricultural land.
The analysis is based on the so-called TargetEcon model developed by researchers at the Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Copenhagen. The model calculates what a change in land use in a specific location in the country means for greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen emissions to the aquatic ecosystems, and the protection of biodiversity (measured in a specific number of hectares). Three scenarios are analysed with the help of this model. One scenario with a focus on climate, one with a focus on climate and the aquatic ecosystems, and one with a focus on the aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity. The scenarios include different objectives individually and in combination, depending on the focus of the given scenario. The aquatic ecosystem targets are based on Denmark having to comply with the EU Water Framework Directive on ensuring a good ecological status of aquatic ecosystems by 2027. This entails a reduction of nitrogen emissions by 12,955 tonnes of nitrogen in the agriculture and forestry sector across different areas with specific reduction targets. The climate targets are based on the government’s desire to raise 250,000 hectares of forest and an illustrative, but not politically adopted target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions from land use by 2050. This corresponds to a reduction of 6.5 million tonnes of CO2e in 2050 compared to today. The biodiversity targets are based on various political agreements to secure 75,000 hectares of pristine forest by 2050 and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which includes a target to protect at least 30 percent of the EU’s total land and sea area by 2030. This corresponds to a land area of 623,228 hectares. The analysis uses the Danish Biodiversity Council’s recommended designation of a contiguous area.
Source: Danish Council on Climate Change
The Danish Council on Climate Change has input the three crises into a model that examines where land can be set aside to solve the respective crises at the lowest possible cost.
It shows that if we set aside land to solve the biodiversity and aquatic ecosystem challenges, we can at the same time achieve zero emissions from agriculture and forestry at a cost of DKK 409 per tonne of CO2e. A modest price for solving three problems at once, the Danish Council on Climate Change believes.
Location is key
Conversely, if we do not take land distribution seriously and focus exclusively on climate challenges, there is a risk of not solving the biodiversity and aquatic ecosystem challenges.
This is because biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems “must be protected in specific locations to provide the greatest possible benefits,” as the Council writes.
| Reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases [million tonnes CO2e] | Reduction in emissions of nitrogen [tonnes N] | Area reserved for biodiversity [hectares] | Total direct costs [millions DKK] | Total direct costs per tonne of CO2e [DKK per tonne CO2e] | |
| Climate scenario | 6.5 | 9,466 | 30,187 | 728 | 110 |
| Climate and aquatic ecosystem scenario | 6.5 | 15,831 | 100,214 | 1,137 | 176 |
| Biodiversity and aquatic ecosystem scenario | 6.8 | 17,087 | 623,228 | 2,761 | 409 |
Biodiversity requires large contiguous nature areas, while the aquatic ecosystems will only benefit from an intervention if soil from which leaching actually occurs is removed.
Conversely, it is not important for climate where a forest absorbs CO2—“the important thing is that there is more new forest,” as stated in the analysis.
Quick action needed
And it is important to get started quickly.
The Climate Act’s 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions must be met by 2030, the Water Framework Directive’s good ecological status of aquatic ecosystems must be ensured by 2027 at the latest, and the EU’s requirement for 30 percent protected nature area must be realised by 2030.
Therefore, the Danish Council on Climate Change believes that potential measures must be taken very quickly to achieve all three targets.
This applies especially to afforestation, which will have a greater climate impact in 2050 if planted today rather than later when it comes to most tree types.
The Danish Council on Climate Change assesses that coordinating efforts to combat the three crises would be far cheaper than trying to solve each problem separately. Coordinated efforts would be 20 percent cheaper, the Danish Council on Climate Change claims.
This is mainly due to the cost-effective effects of afforestation for biodiversity, climate, and water protection.
State “land fund” in play
To make the whole land puzzle work, existing agricultural land must be reduced. In this context, the Danish Council on Climate Change recommends that a so-called state “land fund” be set up, the purpose of which would be to buy up land that is essential for achieving the aquatic ecosystem, biodiversity, or climate targets.
Another approach to achieving the targets would be a conditional payment of agricultural subsidies. This could mean, for example, banning drainage on carbon-rich soils or increasing the incentive for farmers to have a certain amount of carbon sequestering crops in their crop rotation.
Overall, the Council believes that one of the most important measures is a CO2 tax on agriculture, which was presented in February.
According to the Danish Council on Climate Change, such a tax on agricultural emissions, especially from livestock and fertilisers, will lead to more efficient land use with less feed production, more afforestation, and the phasing out of carbon-rich soils.
