Dead fjords, record amounts of oily dung and species going extinct. There are many examples of nature and the aquatic environment in Denmark being in a bad state.

This is not least because successive governments in Denmark have governed since 2015 according to five principles of doing as little as possible – as late as possible – when it comes to complying with EU rules for environmental and nature protection. These are also colloquially called “the five principles of minimum implementation”, and were introduced by former Minister of Industry and Trade Troels Lund Poulsen (V) in 2015. (See bottom of press release).

The principles actually lead to a lack of action in the environmental and nature areas. The time has come for a backward-looking approach, believe a number of green actors, who are now calling on the government to drop the five principles.

This is stated in a joint appeal from the Danish Nature Conservation Association, Animal Protection, the Danish Sports Fishing Association, the Danish Ornithological Association, Green Transition Denmark, WWF, World Forests, Greenpeace and the think tank Hav.

The call comes on the occasion of the EU's environment and climate ministers meeting in Aalborg on Thursday, July 10, because Denmark is taking over the presidency of the EU.

Quotes:

Green Transition Denmark

"The principle of minimum implementation makes no sense, but of course depends on the content of the EU regulation. If it is a directive that makes sense for more climate action, we should of course not only implement the absolutely necessary", says Jeppe Juul, head of transport policy, Green Transition Denmark.

Denmark's Nature Conservation Association,

"The government writes in the government's policy that Denmark must be a green pioneer country. But on the other hand, there are a number of principles about doing as little as possible, as late as possible, when it comes to living up to the common EU rules for environmental and nature protection. This is not consistent, and therefore we are now calling on the government to drop the principles that in practice hinder Denmark from being a leader in the green area," says Maria Reumert Gjerding, President of the Danish Nature Conservation Association.

Animal Protection

Since 1994, it has been illegal in the EU to routinely dock the tails of pigs, but it is still done on a large scale in Denmark, where at least 95 percent have their tails docked.

"It is a painful procedure for the pigs, who lose their best opportunity to show how they are feeling – namely wagging their tails. It is only necessary because the pigs are squeezed into industrial mass production that stresses them. Stressed pigs bite each other's tails, and instead of solving the problems by giving the animals proper space and rooting material, as has happened in several other EU countries, we in Denmark continue to cut off body parts of the animals. With our massive export of live but docked pigs for fattening, Denmark is thus helping to undermine the efforts for better animal welfare that are actually happening in several of our neighboring countries," says Britta Riis, director of Animal Protection.

The Danish Sport Fishermen's Association

“Our nature and aquatic environment are on a disaster course. This is precisely due to the Danish approach, where consideration for business, agriculture and industry usually takes precedence over consideration for nature. And unfortunately it has been like this for years. With this approach, we are not only suffocating our plants, animals and fish, we are suffocating the desire of the Danes to use and protect nature. We owe it to the population to change course now”, says Torben Kaas, chairman of the Danish Sports Fishing Association.

Danish Ornithological Society

"Positive development for species and habitats in the important Natura 2000 areas is either not happening or only happening very slowly. This is due to both insufficient monitoring with the possibility of reacting to danger signals and a lack of effort in adopted action plans. This means, for example, that typical meadow birds such as the great copper-winged snipe, the common cock-of-the-warbler and the meadowlark are disappearing as Danish breeding birds. Millions of migratory birds are also being pressured on the important resting places by disturbances. In short, more air is needed when the state is to implement the EU's intentions for better protection and positive development."", says Egon Østergaard, Chairman of DOF BirdLife Denmark.

WWF

"An extraordinary effort is needed from all of us to reverse the nature and climate crisis, and we know that we need to actively invest in our nature to ensure our security of supply, our economy and our health. Therefore, we call for Denmark to put nature first to a greater extent. In recent years, it has become clear to everyone that we have given nature in the sea a frighteningly low priority. Nature in the sea has not had to cost anything, and today we are very far from the goal when it comes to the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Directive and the protection of our Natura 2000 areas. It has become so bad that in many places it is no longer even possible to catch a cod," says Jacob Fjalland, interdisciplinary director at WWF.

The World's Forests:

"It is deeply disappointing to see how the Danish government can stand on the polished floors and cultivate a false narrative about Denmark as a green pioneer country, when at the same time it has decided to introduce EU green legislation as unambitiously as possible," says Pil Christensen, political advisor to the World's Forests.

Greenpeace

"Every time there is legislation from the EU that is supposed to take care of our nature and environment, Danish officials immediately start calculating how little we can get away with. It has simply been the written policy for ten years that Denmark should settle for the least possible. The consequence is that we are failing the most basic things: clean air, protected nature and a healthy water environment. It is grotesque, and it is high time to scrap that principle," says Christian Fromberg, campaign manager at Greenpeace for agriculture, forest and nature.

The Sea Think Tank

"Danish environmental policy has in the past ten years been characterized by a slow-moving approach, where successive governments have had as a principle to choose the least possible effort as late as possible. Denmark is not a green pioneer country - on the contrary, we are currently seriously lagging behind - not least in relation to our crisis-stricken marine environment. There is therefore an urgent need to do away with this minimum mindset and take responsibility for more ambitious environmental efforts," says Ditte Mandøe Andreasen, Program Manager at the think tank Hav.

Nature and aquatic environment in poor condition

The principles are previously criticized for being responsible for the fact that Denmark for many years has failed to comply with the EU Water Framework Directive on good ecological status in the aquatic environment.

Denmark should have achieved good ecological status in our aquatic environment as early as 2015, which was the agreement with the first aquatic environment plan. Yet the effort has been postponed time and again – no later than 2033According to the latest census, none of the Danish coastal waters in good ecological status.

Similarly, it has lagged in complying with the EU's Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. Denmark scrapes the bottom in the EUwhen it comes to designating protected nature on land, so-called Natura 2000. We have designated a good 9 percent of land area in Denmark.

The five principles for implementing business-oriented EU regulation in Denmark (and in brackets what they actually mean)

1. National regulation should not, as a rule, go beyond the minimum requirements of EU regulation. (Denmark should adhere to the absolute lowest permissible level of environmental protection)
2. Danish companies should not be disadvantaged in international competition, so the implementation should not be more burdensome than the expected implementation in comparable EU countries. (We should not set stricter environmental requirements than our neighbors.)
3. Flexibility and exemptions in EU regulation should be exploited. (We should bide our time and avoid bets where we can.)
4. To the extent possible and appropriate, EU regulation should be implemented through alternatives to regulation. (Companies should preferably be allowed to choose for themselves whether they want to do something for the environment.)
5. Burdensome EU regulation should enter into force as soon as possible and taking into account the common entry into force dates. (Environmental efforts should be postponed as long as possible.)