The men's government negotiations are making headlines, while the EU is engaged in crucial talks about the future of agriculture.

The decommissioning article was originally published on Altinget.dk on May 26th. By: Sybille Kyed, Organic Land Association, and others. While the government negotiations dominate headlines in Danish media, there are some smaller, less talked about but potentially decisive negotiations taking place regarding the framework for EU's agricultural support after 2027. This is where decisions are being made that could, in practice, determine whether Danish agriculture continues on the same path as today or whether we can use the billions in agricultural support to secure the major themes of the election. These include clean drinking water, better animal welfare, and a genuine green transformation of agriculture, ensuring that we have a farming sector that more primarily supplies us with food—organic—for people, rather than using large areas for fodder and maintaining many animals. Lack of earmarked budget The European Commission kicked off the process when it presented its proposal last July. The proposal includes increased flexibility and a break with the "one size fits all" approach. "Nationalization," warns several voices that stand guard over conventional farming here in Denmark in response to the new line in EU support. "The green sector is under pressure," counters many green voices. This criticism is entirely justified because, unlike today, the proposal does not have an earmarked budget for the green sector, and because the Commission's proposal also, unlike today, requires national co-financing of green initiatives. The lack of earmarking and the requirement for co-financing risk prioritizing the green sector lower. The social support, called direct income support, is secured with a minimum budget and 100 percent EU funding. It should be the other way around. There is also concern that the Commission will give individual countries greater freedom to formulate their own green requirements for farms, where previously the requirements have been uniform across the EU. However, with the green warning and concern in mind, agricultural support can also, with the Commission's proposal, become a strong national change tool moving forward. This, however, presupposes that the Commission takes on the green flag and becomes a strong watchdog for the level of ambition. Show more courage Member states must, of course, at a minimum, meet the obligations they are subject to via EU directives and regulations aimed at increasing biodiversity, reducing pesticide impact, protecting water quality, reducing ammonia emissions, groundwater protection, and safeguarding our farm animals. They should also be encouraged to go further than that. We believe there is potential for this in the proposal if it is not watered down during negotiations. As a new development, the Commission is opening up the possibility that agricultural support can be more used to reward farmers when their production meets new requirements related to climate, environment, nature, and animal welfare. Additionally, it will support extensification of livestock production. And precisely this new aspect of the proposal could be very significant. When farmers can receive payments for meeting stricter national requirements, our politicians will be able to show more courage when making agreements to reduce agriculture's climate impact, restore life in watercourses and fjords around Denmark, bring back more bird song and buzzing insects around cultivated fields, and significantly improve animal welfare. The fuss out of Brussels The European Commission, with increased national co-decision, is trying to shift some of the disputes over agriculture out of Brussels and back to the governments of the 27 member states. This can indeed be interpreted as a form of nationalization of agricultural support. Conversely, it is undoubtedly wise to maintain support for our shared union. Resistance to an over-national governance cannot be ignored, and when it is also possible to set more targeted requirements with less harmonization, the opportunities for flexibility under certain conditions are, in our assessment, greater than the risks. This may be what is needed for everyone, including our farmers, to feel that the requirements and support conditions make more sense, and for us to get the most green value for the support funds. Rather than worrying about nationalization, Danish negotiators should fight to secure funds for the green sector with 100 percent support, strengthen animal welfare, and prioritize green infrastructure in cultivated land. They should also fight for support to be paid based on results, and—very importantly—that the Commission's role as a strong watchdog is cemented in the final regulation. We must move forward with the green transition, not backward.