Four different farmers' associations think in a post to the Althingi that we are wrong when we, in a previous post advocates for targeted nitrogen regulation, which will mean that the fields that pollute the most are also the fields that have the greatest requirements for nitrogen reduction.

In the tripartite agreement "Agreement on a Green Denmark", the new stricter requirements for agricultural nitrogen emissions are otherwise described as "targeted regulation" that is intended to "provide a major incentive for removal". But now local agricultural organizations believe the opposite – that regulation should not be targeted. We'll leave that aside for a moment.

The four debaters also write that their model is more “fair.” But the question is: fair for whom – and how?

Because yes, a targeted model hits some harder than others. It's in the name. Those who pollute the most must contribute the most. The farmers' associations' model, on the other hand, means that we all pay the same in taxes regardless of income. It may sound simple, but try explaining to the low-wage earner why they should pay the same as the billionaire. It's simply not fair.

Distribution between state and business

It's a bit the same here: Why should farmers on the most vulnerable soils have the same nitrogen quota as those on robust land? Where's the fairness in that? And when we talk about fairness, it's not just about the neighbor, but about the distribution between state and business.

The state, i.e. the taxpayers, has already paid 43 billion kroner for agriculture to take the most problematic lands out of operation, so that our distressed marine environment can get a much-needed break and get more nature for the money.

One could easily argue that the nitrogen requirements should be implemented as so-called compensation-free regulation, where the polluter must bear the costs of stopping the pollution, as is known from the vast majority of other industries in Denmark. This was also the case with the previously reduced nitrogen standards for agriculture, which were removed with the agricultural package in 2015, which switched to a so-called "polluter pays" model.

The most robust soils

Now a historic green tripartite agreement has been decided, where 400.000 hectares of agricultural land will be converted into forest and nature. As mentioned, the state has allocated 43 billion tax kroner, but nitrogen regulation must provide the final push so that we can once and for all reclaim agricultural land for the benefit of biodiversity, the marine environment and Danish citizens.

But what the farmers' associations are actually proposing is that the state should pay even more money to agriculture to cover up the fact that it does not want to regulate where the problems are greatest. And then there is the argument about food production. The farmers' associations write that "agriculture must continue to be able to produce and export food and thus have strong production that is profitable and contributes to jobs in dairies and slaughterhouses."

But there is something here that they must have misunderstood. Because in the targeted nitrogen regulation we propose, it is precisely the most robust soils that are affected the least – that is, precisely where it makes the most sense to produce food. In the farmers' associations' own model, on the other hand, it is the robust soils that take the biggest hit. In other words, they make it less attractive to grow where food production is actually most appropriate from a socio-economic perspective.

Let's get one thing straight.

And let's get one thing straight: If we really want to create new jobs, exports, and enough food to feed more people, according to the researchers, it requires investments in plant-based foods, not more dairies and slaughterhouses.

According to Christian Bugge Henriksen, associate professor at the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark can create 9.000 to 27.000 new jobs if we just manage to occupy one to three percent of the global plant-based market. At the same time, it will enable us to produce far more meals per hectare than we do today, where 80 percent of agricultural land is used to grow animal feed. It is a system that is neither area-efficient, future-proof, nor contributes to food supply security.

So when the farmers' associations talk about green tripartite, fairness and honesty, one could wish for a little honesty in return. Because if you really don't believe that the goals of the tripartite should be achieved, then feel free to say so straight away. Because with their model, it will simply be impossible within the framework of the green tripartite. And if we are to borrow the debaters' own rhetoric again, one could ask:

Is it really "fair" that the rest of society has to pay for people to continue to pollute - despite the fact that they themselves have signed a pledge not to do so?

This debate paper was presented in the Althing on November 24 and was written by Trine Langhede, Green Transition Denmark, Anna Bak Jäpelt, Danish Nature Conservation Association, Christian Fromberg, Greenpeace, Torben Hansen, Danish Sport Fishing Association and Thomas Kirk Sørensen, WWF World Wildlife Fund.