Sensation, shambles, ommer and historic agreement. These were just some of the many words used to describe the green tripartite agreement when it was finalized at the end of June after months of intense negotiations.
Criticism and compromise
Some think it is far too unambitious and others that it favors either agriculture or nature too much. But the fact is that the parties have agreed, and that in itself is a great achievement that justifies the term “historic agreement”. It gives ownership to all parties and therefore also ensures support when the agreement is implemented after the upcoming political negotiations.
Content: Historically good?
But what about the content? Is it also historically good? That depends on the eyes of the beholder. There is no doubt that each of us could have wished it better in different areas, depending on where we stand. But deep down, we also know that the agreement has been the art of the possible, and that all parties have had to make compromises during the process.
Focus on the future
So, let’s forget the traditional tribal dances associated with all political agreements and look forward. Let’s forget the things that aren’t in the agreement and concentrate on the things that are actually in it.
The main points of the agreement
250,000 hectares of forest will be planted, of which 100,000 hectares will be managed as “untouched forest” – i.e. without production in mind. 140,000 hectares of low-lying land will be set aside for wild nature by 2030.
A Nature and Biodiversity Act will be drawn up to ensure, among other things, that at least 20 percent of Denmark’s area will be protected nature by 2030.
A plan must be drawn up to reverse the development of the nature that is currently in a very bad state, so that in 25 years we can ensure that it is in what is called “good condition”. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
