The agricultural subsidy rewards the agriculture we desire

Af Michael Kjerkegaard, chairman of the Organic Land Association When the EU's taxpayers pay agricultural subsidies, it should be to promote more of what we want and less of what we don't want. I believe many of us want a farming sector where it pays to take better care of our drinking water, create more nature, reduce nitrogen emissions, improve animal welfare, and cultivate the land without synthetic pesticides. This is not utopia. It is simply a political choice. Today, a large part of the EU's agricultural support is given as relatively passive support based on land area. The more hectares, the greater the support. In practice, this means that billions of taxpayers' money are distributed without necessarily rewarding farmers who make the greatest efforts for climate, environment, nature, and animal welfare. That no longer makes sense. Ten organizations stand together We are in the midst of a green transition in agriculture. We must protect our drinking water. We need more biodiversity. We must reduce nitrogen emissions. We must improve animal welfare. And we need a farming sector that produces more of the food we ourselves eat – not least organic food. Therefore, we are ten green organizations that have developed a concrete proposal for how EU agricultural support can be structured after 2027. The proposal is simple: Reward results. A climate account can show what is delivered in terms of climate impact. A nitrogen account can document efforts for the water environment. A nature index can measure whether more space is created for nature and biodiversity. And an animal welfare index can highlight which farms lead in animal welfare. The greater the effort and the better the results, the greater the support. In this way, agricultural support can become a driver for the transition instead of a brake. It will also be noticeable to consumers. If we spend billions of kroner supporting the green transition, it should naturally also contribute to making sustainable foods the attractive choice in supermarkets. Consumers should, of course, not pay extra for foods that deliver the best benefits to society. It should rather be the other way around. Use the money more wisely It's not about taking something from agriculture. It's about using the money more wisely. This is also the direction the government itself has pointed out. The government’s platform states that a smaller part of the agricultural support should be used as direct hectare support, while a larger part should go to, among other things, climate, environment, nature, regenerative production, and organic production. Now, these beautiful and visionary words must be translated into action. Denmark has a special opportunity to lead the way and inspire the rest of the EU. Initially, we can start here at home. We already can within the existing EU rules. If we want to accelerate development further, Denmark should also strengthen demand for foods that contribute to climate, environmental, and nature considerations, as well as better animal welfare. This can be achieved by removing VAT on organic foods, converting all public kitchens and canteens to more organic options, and linking private canteen tax benefits to new green and sustainable requirements. By both restructuring agricultural support and stimulating demand in a more sustainable direction, we create the best conditions to achieve our shared goals. At the same time, we ensure that individual farmers can confidently transition their farms in a greener direction without risking that the transition becomes an economic problem.