There was no doubt during the debate organized by IPBES in Denmark as part of this year’s People’s Climate Summit that land is a scarce resource that must be managed wisely. But what is actually the top priority—biodiversity or the climate? And can both be addressed at the same time? Get a summary of the debate here.
Nature in the Danish countryside faces difficult conditions. While about 60% of Denmark’s land area is used for agricultural production—of which approximately 80% is devoted to the production of animal feed—less than one-tenth of Denmark is set aside for nature conservation. The remaining 30% is divided roughly equally between forests and infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc.). On a global scale, we are seeing a similar trend. Humans are taking up more and more space, as reflected in the fact that humans and their livestock weigh about 24 times more than the total weight of all wild mammal species on the planet.
Internationally, several initiatives are in the works to reverse this trend, and several of them have already taken effect. It was just two months ago that the European Parliament passed a regulation on nature restoration that requires EU member states to implement restoration measures covering 20% of both the EU’s landand marine areas by 2030. At the most recent COP meeting in Montreal last December, a global framework agreement was also adopted. One of the agreement’s goals was to designate 30% of the world’s natural areas as protected by 2030.
To put land-use issues into perspective, IPBES in Denmark hosted a debate at the Folkemødet featuring Anders Frandsen, CEO of the Danish Forest Association, and Nis Kristian Hjort, chair of the Vejle-Fredericia Farmers’ Association, Chairman of the Board of Velas, and a dairy farmer. Anders Barfod, associate professor at Aarhus University and a member of IPBES Denmark’s steering committee, moderated the debate.
Implications for the Danish forestry and food industries
During the debate on the Lilla Scene, there was a consensus that national and international requirements for the designation of nature areas will undeniably have consequences for both Danish forestry and agricultural production. “This doesn’t have to be negative, but it will mean a change—perhaps we need to adjust our diet so that we eat fewer animal-based products,” was the assessment: Anders Frandsen made it clear that this is a change that must be funded by the community. It will place demands on producers, but it will also require consumers to be more willing to pay.
Nis Kristian Hjort agreed that the producer cannot do it alone. “There’s no point in reducing Denmark’s production if customers’ consumption patterns remain unchanged,” he argued: “It doesn’t matter if 30% of Denmark’s land is protected if we increase our land use by the same amount in Africa.” A change in behavior among the general public is a key component, just as it is important to get other countries on board with this effort.
Land sharing or land conservation?
During the debate, the need for changes to our current land use was quickly established, but the relevant question arose: What should such changes look like, and where should the land savings be made? The global demand for housing is expected to rise by 50% in line with growing population and increasing prosperity. Wood is a material with significant climate potential in the construction industry, as it can sequester large amounts of carbon, and Anders Frandsen therefore emphasized that he viewed wood production as a major part of the solution for the future.
For his part, Nis Kristian Hjort argued that Danish agricultural production is among the best and most climate-friendly in the world. He therefore believes that—despite declining demand for animal products in Denmark—we can certainly continue production, as global demand does not appear to be falling for the time being. The question is, where will the space for nature come from?
At a previous IPBES symposium, we addressed this very challenge by discussing the pros and cons of landscape consolidation (land sparing) and landscape division (land sharing), respectively. Whereas landscape partitioning primarily involves highly intensive agriculture and forestry on a smaller area, thereby setting aside a larger area for wilderness, landscape sharing is about coexisting with nature within the landscape.
Landscape division will lead to cultivation on larger areas under less intensive management. According to the two panelists, this model would likely require some form of subsidy scheme for producers, as production would be less efficient. Researchers also question the biodiversity benefits of this type of land-use planning. The panelists seemed to agree that the final solution should be found through a combination of the two land-use approaches.
Learn more about the IPBES symposium “Land Sharing & Land Sparing”
A shared goal
Outside the tent, topics other than land-use priorities were highlighted and debated. Several of the Climate People’s Assembly’s co-organizers discussed, among other things, how to create greater transparency regarding sustainable investments, how to avoid greenwashing, and what impact a potentialCO2 tax might have. Economic growth as the overriding goal was also called into question, and solutions such as vertical farming were debated.
The many inspiring presentations were supplemented by talks from climate researchers providing updates on the state of the climate, with reference to the latest reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The presentations repeatedly emphasized the need for sweeping systemic changes across all sectors of society.
The Climate People’s Assembly was concluded by Johannes Lundsfryd, mayor of Middelfart, with the message that solutions to the climate crisis must be found collectively: “There is no time to point fingers at one another. We need an open debate where we can talk about the difficult issues, but where everyone is working toward a single, shared goal.”
IPBES in Denmark would like to thank Anders Frandsen and Nis Kristian Hjort for participating in this fascinating debate. A big thank you also goes out to everyone who stopped by the Lilla Scene to contribute to the debate.
