Negotiations for a new government are in full swing, and one of the topics that we look forward to being included in the government's foundation is a new biodiversity law.

The Biodiversity Act should be a law that, like the Climate Act, should set targets for how large a proportion of Denmark's land and sea area should be protected and strictly protected nature. A law that should stop the loss of species, ensure better protection of nature and give wild nature more space.

Around 1.900 species are currently threatened and at risk of disappearing from Denmark, and despite decades of efforts, the trend has not yet been reversed. The main reason for the poor state of nature on land is that nature lacks space, because we use too large a proportion of the land area for intensive agriculture, forestry and other human activities. In the sea, nature is threatened by, among other things, bottom-dragged fishing, nutrient discharge and many other activities that destroy marine ecosystems. There is a consensus among biodiversity researchers that the solution is to allocate space for nature, where it is effectively protected and managed.

The previous government failed to introduce a biodiversity law, despite the fact that it was both part of the government's foundation and was written into the Green Tripartite agreement. Therefore, it is incredibly important that the next government takes the task seriously. Because report after report shows that nature is getting worse and worse.

It is therefore also gratifying that several parties support a biodiversity law. In the election campaign, the SF, the Unity List, the Radical Left and the Alternative came out together with a clear demand that a future government adopt a nature and biodiversity law with a binding target of 30% protected nature on land and at sea, of which one third must be strictly protected nature. We hope that a broad circle of parties in the Folketing will support the ambition in the future, so that a broad and long-term agreement can be made - we owe that to nature.

During the election campaign, green organizations called for the upcoming biodiversity law to:

• Secures 30 percent protected nature on land and at sea. Protected nature must be natural areas where nature is effectively protected from threats to biodiversity. In protected nature, for example, there cannot be intensive agriculture, forestry and fishing with bottom trawls.

• Secures 10 percent strictly protected nature on land and at sea. This means that one third of the protected nature must be strictly protected. Strictly protected nature must be large, continuous natural areas where wild nature is restored. Here, nature has priority over other interests, but with new opportunities for fantastic nature experiences.

• Secures Biodiversity Council in the Act. The Council's tasks shall be to continuously assess the government's efforts and goal achievement.

A biodiversity law is an opportunity to make a real difference for the endangered Danish nature – we urge the new Folketing to seize it!

This debate post was published in Naturmonitor on April 27, 2026, and was written by Maria Reumert Gjerding from the Danish Nature Conservation Society, Mikkel Aarø-Hansen from WWF, Jakob Chronicle from the Forests of the World, Egon Østergaard from the Danish Ornithological Society, Christian Fromberg from Greenpeace, Christian Ege Jørgensen from the Green Transition Denmark, Philip Hahn-Petersen from Wild With Will, Jens Fahrendorff from the Young Biodiversity Ambassadors. Johannes Skriver Elf from the Green Youth Movement, Stine Bardeleben Helles from the Climate Movement in Denmark, Anna Rask Larsen from FLOR, Danna Borg from Denmark's Wild Nature, June Rebekka Bresson from the Environmental Movement NOAH, Martin Køhl Søholm from the Danish Botanical Society, Anton Johnsen from Danish Natural Grazing, Thomas Bjørneboe Berg from the Danish Mammal Association, Niklas Hegnsted from Nature & Youth, Jonas Colling Larsen from the Danish Species Association, Emma Emilie Andersen from the Biology Association & Christian Videnkjær from the Lepidopterological Society.

Spraying pesticides can harm both biodiversity and human health. For example, we have seen a decline of over 75 percent in insects in nature conservation areas in recent decades, and here the use of pesticides plays a significant role, as they move significantly with the wind away from the fields.

Human health is also affected. Pesticide residues are already found in over half of Denmark's drilling. A new study from Cambridge University in England shows simultaneouslythat consuming food sprayed with pesticides can harm our beneficial gut bacteria.

Now there is much evidence that we are weakening the protection that is supposed to prevent pollution from growing.. The European Commission has issued its so-called food and feed safety omnibus. It is being sold as a technical simplification. The initiative promises less bureaucracy, faster processes and a better framework for innovation. But it is a significant deregulation that risks weakening the protection of both the environment and human health. The proposal significantly weakens EU pesticide legislation and undermines the protection of human health, the environment and drinking water from harmful pesticides.

Today, pesticides must be continuously re-evaluated based on new knowledge. It is through this that a number of harmful substances have been discovered and banned. Substances that were previously considered safe. The omnibus proposal turns this logic on its head.

This proposes that pesticides should be approved without a time limit. This shifts the burden of proof: Instead of producers having to document safety on an ongoing basis, it will be the responsibility of the authorities to detect problems. In practice, this will often happen long after the damage has occurred. The consequence is obvious: Dangerous substances risk remaining on the market for decades.

The proposal also involves longer transitional phases, during which already banned pesticides may still be used. In some cases up to three years, even when there is a documented risk to health and the environment. This is a fundamental departure from the precautionary principle that has been the cornerstone of EU pesticide legislation since the adoption of the Pesticides Regulation in 2011.

A Trojan horse for pesticides

The debate about PFAS substances, also known as eternal chemicals, has already revealed how bad things can go when regulation lags behind reality.

In Denmark, PFAS have been found in soil, water and humans. The consequences are long-term, as the substances remain in the environment for a very long time and can cause irreparable damage. At the same time, most PFAS pesticides break down into the harmful substance TFA, which has been detected in many Danish drinking water wells. This is precisely why it is problematic that the EU is now proposing a model where pesticides are less likely to be re-evaluated on an ongoing basis, and where new knowledge has a harder time making its way through approval processes.

The experience with PFAS speaks for itself. We often recognize the problems too late, so the challenges in terms of cleanup and environmental and health impacts become insurmountable. Therefore, ongoing reassessment is not bureaucracy – it is protection. The Commission claims that the reform should promote access to biological control agents as a sustainable alternative to synthetic pesticides and push agriculture towards more environmentally friendly plant protection.

This may be positive, but a broad and unclear definition of what biological control agents actually are can open a backdoor where safety standards are weakened rather than strengthened.

In practice, this means that synthetically produced substances can potentially be classified as a biological control agent if they are simply assessed as 'functionally identical' to natural substances. As these substances are considered to be less risky, the existing requirements for registration and documentation of the use of biological control agents will be removed. In other words: If a laboratory product behaves as if it were a natural product, the requirements for it are relaxed.

The goal of the EU's green policy is to strengthen the transition to a less pesticide-dependent agriculture. However, this proposal risks acting as a Trojan horse for the deregulation of conventional pesticides, thereby contributing to maintaining and reinforcing chemical dependence in agriculture.

Denmark risks losing the opportunity to act on new knowledge

In the election campaign here, many parties have advocated for better protection of groundwater and less pesticide pollution – and with good reason. Clean drinking water is one of the most fundamental political tasks in Denmark, where we are almost 100 percent dependent on our groundwater.

The proposal to simplify feed and food safety rules is based on a very restrictive interpretation of what constitutes the latest scientific and technical knowledge for product authorisations. Member States would be obliged to base their national authorisations on the latest assessment of the active substance carried out at EU level, rather than taking into account all the latest scientific evidence.

For example has The Environmental Protection Agency In 2025, six active substances and thus 33 pesticides will be subject to reassessment based on research projects and other professional knowledge, including from ongoing EU assessments. If the omnibus proposal is adopted, Denmark will not be able to ban substances such as PFAS pesticides on this basis.

It directly contradicts newer decisions from the European Court of Justice, which has just stated that the latest knowledge must be included. We are increasingly learning about the effects of pesticides on biodiversity and human health. This is therefore a step in the completely wrong direction.

Denmark should actively oppose the omnibus proposal

If we in Denmark want strict pesticide legislation, it may become more difficult if the Omnibus proposal is adopted. Denmark should therefore reject the EU's omnibus proposal for feed and food safety. Groundwater protection must be taken seriously. The government, the Danish Parliament and members of the European Parliament must engage much more aggressively in the negotiations.

A future Danish government should actively oppose any weakening of the requirements for risk assessment and approval of pesticides and insist that the precautionary principle remains the foundation of pesticide legislation.

We must prevent the erosion of the hard-won safeguards in the EU Regulation on the placing of pesticides on the market, which are designed to address the inherent toxic properties of pesticides. And we must ensure a high level of protection for the environment and human and animal health. At the same time, the government should promote sustainable alternatives to chemical agriculture and support farmers in the transition to practices that protect both groundwater, biodiversity and public health.

This opinion piece was published in Dagbladet Information on March 30, 2026, and was written by Emilie Ellesøe and Christian Ege.