What Seems to Be Working Well and Going Wrong in Denmark? A Case Study of Agreement Based Agricultural Extensification

Agri-environmental schemes have gained prominence as a governance tool in agricultural and environmental policy that bridges environmental targets and farmers’ agricultural conditions and thereby fosters trust between the policy actors (Quinn et al. 2025). The participatory techniques in the Danish implementation of specifically wetland restoration schemes have for decades provided successful uptakes, combining financial incentives with landowners’ voluntary participation (Graversgaard et al. 2021). With the political adoption of the Green Tripartite Agreement, this policy design is both expanded in scale and issues and transformed by making mandatory targets for extensification and warning taxations, all to meet climate, water and (to some extent) biodiversity goals. Meanwhile, Denmark has in the last decade experienced little farmer resistance activities compared to some other European countries. Against this backdrop, this paper zooms into participatory principles and stakeholder roles in the case of wetland restorations. Based on qualitative interview data and survey material with farmers and practitioners involved in scheme implementation in Denmark, the paper examines actor perceptions and negotiated roles within the land use transitions. The case data has already provided insights on how problems with uptake are solved and which problems they are, including an emphasis on trust-building strategies and brokerage dynamics. At the intersection of climate, water, agriculture and biodiversity agendas, the participatory approach seems to ensure a rather important component of the successful extensification. In this paper, the data serves as a critical case study for how this participatory emphasis conditions transformative potentials.