Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2019-20
MOF Alm.del Bilag 136
Offentligt
2106904_0001.png
OECD Environmental Performance Reviews
DENMARK
2019
U
NCH
N
LA
VE
S
R
IO
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0003.png
OECD Environmental
Performance Reviews:
Denmark
2019
U
NCH
N
LA
VE
S
R
IO
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0004.png
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of OECD member countries.
This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice
to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international
frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2019),
OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Denmark 2019,
OECD Environmental
Performance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/1eeec492-en.
ISBN 978-92-64-56803-7 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-53715-6 (pdf)
OECD Environmental Performance Reviews
ISSN 1990-0104 (print)
ISSN 1990-0090 (online)
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in
the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Photo credits:
Cover: © Jezper/Shutterstock.com and Alexander Erdbeer/Shutterstock.com.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at:
www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm.
© OECD 2019
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and
multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable
acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should
be submitted to
[email protected].
Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be
addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at
[email protected]
or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie
(CFC) at
[email protected].
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0005.png
FOREWORD
3
Foreword
The principal aim of the OECD Environmental Performance Review programme is to help
member and selected partner countries improve their individual and collective performance
in environmental management by:
helping individual governments assess progress in achieving their environmental
goals
promoting continuous policy dialogue and peer learning
stimulating greater accountability from governments towards each other and public
opinion.
This report reviews the environmental performance of Denmark since the previous review
in 2007. Progress in achieving domestic objectives and international commitments provides
the basis for assessing the country’s environmental performance. Such objectives and
commitments may be broad aims, qualitative goals or quantitative targets. A distinction is
made between intentions, actions and results. Assessment of environmental performance is
also placed within the context of Denmark’s historical environmental record, present state
of the environment, physical endowment in natural resources, economic conditions and
demographic trends.
The OECD is indebted to the government of Denmark for its co-operation in providing
information, for the organisation of the review mission to Copenhagen (26-29 November
2018) and for facilitating contacts both inside and outside government institutions.
Thanks are also due to the representatives of the two examining countries, Andrew McNee
(Australia) and Arthur ten Wolde (Netherlands).
The authors of this report were Rafal Brykowski, Nathalie Cliquot, Britta Labuhn and
Simon Apelblat Thomsen from the OECD Secretariat. Nathalie Girouard and
Gérard Bonnis provided oversight and guidance. Carla Bertuzzi provided statistical
support, Annette Hardcastle provided administrative support and Rebecca Brite
copy-edited the report. Natasha Cline-Thomas provided communications support.
Preparation of this report also benefited from inputs and comments from several members
of the OECD Secretariat, including Aad van Bohemen, Nils Axel Braathen, Ivana Capozza,
Nathalie Delrue, Kathleen Dominique, Mikkel Hermansen, Katia Karousakis, Hannah
Leckie, Xavier Leflaive, Eeva Leinala, Eugene Mazur, Will Symes, Özlem Taskin and
Jonas Teusch.
The OECD Working Party on Environmental Performance discussed the draft
Environmental Performance Review of Denmark at its meeting on 25 April 2019 in Paris
and approved the Assessment and recommendations.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0007.png
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5
Table of contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Reader’s guide
..................................................................................................................................... 11
Abbreviations and acronyms .............................................................................................................. 12
Basic statistics of Denmark ................................................................................................................. 15
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 17
Assessment and recommendations ..................................................................................................... 21
1.1. Environmental performance: Trends and recent developments .................................................. 22
1.2. Environmental governance and management ............................................................................. 29
1.3. Towards green growth ................................................................................................................ 34
1.4. Waste, materials management and the circular economy ........................................................... 42
1.5. Chemicals management .............................................................................................................. 46
Notes .................................................................................................................................................. 50
References.......................................................................................................................................... 51
Annex 1.A. Actions taken to implement recommendations from the 2007 OECD Environmental
Performance Review of Denmark ...................................................................................................... 55
Part I. Progress towards sustainable development........................................................................... 59
Chapter 1. Environmental performance: Trends and recent developments ................................. 61
1.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 62
1.2. Main economic and social developments ................................................................................... 62
1.3. Transition to an energy-efficient and low-carbon economy ....................................................... 65
1.4. Managing the natural asset base ................................................................................................. 79
Notes .................................................................................................................................................. 87
References.......................................................................................................................................... 87
Chapter 2. Environmental governance and management ............................................................... 97
2.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 98
2.2. Institutional framework............................................................................................................... 98
2.3. Legal framework ....................................................................................................................... 102
2.4. Policy evaluation framework .................................................................................................... 107
2.5. Compliance assurance............................................................................................................... 109
2.6. Promoting environmental democracy ....................................................................................... 115
References........................................................................................................................................ 118
Chapter 3. Towards green growth ................................................................................................... 123
3.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 124
3.2. Action framework for sustainable development and green growth .......................................... 124
3.3. Greening the system of taxes, charges and prices ..................................................................... 127
3.4. Support to fossil fuel consumption and agriculture .................................................................. 135
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0008.png
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.5. Investing in the environment to promote green growth ............................................................ 138
3.6. Promoting eco-innovation and green markets .......................................................................... 145
3.7. Environment, trade and development ....................................................................................... 149
Notes ................................................................................................................................................ 153
References........................................................................................................................................ 155
Part II. Progress towards selected environmental objectives ........................................................ 161
Chapter 4. Waste, materials management and the circular economy .......................................... 163
4.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 164
4.2. Trends in waste management and material consumption ......................................................... 164
4.3. Objectives, policies and institutions for waste, materials management and circular economy 171
4.4. Promoting waste reduction and recycling ................................................................................. 177
4.5. Fostering the transition to a circular economy .......................................................................... 189
Notes ................................................................................................................................................ 193
References........................................................................................................................................ 194
Chapter 5. Chemicals management ................................................................................................. 197
5.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 198
5.2. Pressures on health and the environment from chemicals ........................................................ 198
5.3. Policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks ....................................................................... 204
5.4. International forums and regional settings ................................................................................ 215
5.5. Systematic investigation of chemicals ......................................................................................... 217
5.6. Risk management ...................................................................................................................... 223
Notes ................................................................................................................................................ 227
References........................................................................................................................................ 227
Tables
Table 1.1. Medium- and long-term goals stated in the 2012 and 2018 Energy Agreements ................ 66
Table 1.2. Terrestrial protected areas of Denmark ................................................................................ 81
Table 2.1. Infringements of EU legislation ......................................................................................... 103
Table 2.2. Voluntary agreements with quantitative targets are backed by threats of regulation ......... 115
Table 2.3. Access to justice by the Environment and Nature Appeal Board was expedited ............... 116
Table 3.1. Cost-benefit analysis of selected GHG mitigation measures in agriculture ....................... 126
Table 3.2. Tax expenditure for the environment, energy and vehicles................................................ 135
Table 3.3. Environmental components of the Danish Rural Development Programme...................... 137
Table 4.1. Denmark has a mix of mandatory and indicative targets for waste and resource
management................................................................................................................................. 172
Table 4.2. Imports of waste for incineration have more than doubled in recent years ........................ 181
Table 4.3. Denmark exceeds EU targets for recovery/reuse and recycling of WEEE and batteries ... 184
Table 4.4. Collection of WEEE has decreased and is stabilising ........................................................ 185
Table 4.5. End-of-life vehicles ............................................................................................................ 185
Table 4.6. Packaging waste recycling is increasing ............................................................................ 186
Table
5.1. The EPA’s 2018 budget for chemicals
............................................................................... 210
Figures
Figure 1. Denmark has decoupled emissions of GHGs and major air pollutants from GDP growth .... 22
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0009.png
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7
Figure 2. Denmark is one of the leaders in use of renewable energy sources ....................................... 23
Figure 3. More measures to reduce GHG emissions are needed if Denmark is to achieve its long-
term goal ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 4. Good air quality remains a challenge ..................................................................................... 25
Figure 5. The state of most habitats remains unfavourable ................................................................... 26
Figure 6. The quality of coastal waters is of concern and the agricultural nitrogen surplus remains
above the OECD average .............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 7. Compliance promotion and enforcement vary across municipalities .................................... 32
Figure 8. Environmentally related tax revenue has declined ................................................................. 36
Figure 9. Denmark is a leader in green innovation................................................................................ 40
Figure 10.
Denmark’s municipal waste generation is the highest in the OECD
................................... 42
Figure 11. Denmark is active in evaluation and risk management of chemicals at the EU level .......... 48
Figure 1.1. GDP per capita remains high, but GDP growth lags behind the OECD level .................... 63
Figure 1.2. Services dominate the
economy and agriculture’s contribution to exports exceeds the
OECD average ............................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 1.3.
Denmark’s average level of current well-being:
Comparative strengths and weaknesses.. 65
Figure 1.4. Energy intensity is low and energy use has been decoupled from growth.......................... 67
Figure 1.5. The share of fossil fuels in energy supply has decreased significantly ............................... 67
Figure 1.6. The residential and transport sectors continue to be the largest energy consumers, and
renewables dominate in electricity generation .............................................................................. 68
Figure 1.7. Renewables, chiefly biofuels and wind, have been gaining significance in energy
supply, particularly in power generation ....................................................................................... 69
Figure 1.8. CO
2
emissions in transport are declining but still significant and the pace is slower than
in other sectors............................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 1.9. Stronger measures to reduce GHG emissions will be needed for Denmark to meet its
long-term goal ............................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 1.10. GHG emissions declined more than the OECD average................................................... 74
Figure 1.11. Air emissions have been on the decline but this trend has slowed ................................... 76
Figure 1.12. Air quality remains a challenge......................................................................................... 77
Figure 1.13. The surplus of agricultural nitrogen remains a source of concern .................................... 78
Figure 1.14. Some 15% of mammal, bird and fish species are threatened ............................................ 80
Figure 1.15. The state of natural habitats in Denmark remains poor .................................................... 83
Figure 1.16. The status of water bodies has improved but remains an issue ......................................... 84
Figure 1.17. Efforts needed to reduce nitrogen emissions vary ............................................................ 85
Figure 2.1. Land-use planning framework .......................................................................................... 106
Figure 2.2. The inspection system is effective in finding violations, but the share of companies
violating environmental rules is unknown .................................................................................. 111
Figure 2.3. Municipalities enforce environmental rules differently .................................................... 112
Figure 2.4. Enterprises adopting environmental management systems peaked in 2012 ..................... 114
Figure 3.1. Environmentally related tax revenue has decreased slightly ............................................ 127
Figure 3.2. Effective energy tax rates are highest in the road sector ................................................... 129
Figure 3.3. Denmark ranks about average in pricing of carbon emissions from energy use ............... 131
Figure 3.4. Environmental expenditure remains relatively constant ................................................... 139
Figure 3.5. The cost of supporting renewables has increased sharply since 2010 .............................. 140
Figure 3.6. Investment in rail infrastructure increased ........................................................................ 143
Figure 3.7. Water and wastewater tariffs are the highest in the OECD............................................... 145
Figure 3.8. Denmark is a leader in green innovation........................................................................... 146
Figure 3.9. Energy-related R&D budgets have been falling ............................................................... 148
Figure 3.10. Renewable energy production accounts for nearly half of EGS turnover ....................... 149
Figure 3.11. Environment- and climate-related ODA has declined .................................................... 152
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0010.png
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 4.1. Material consumption was decoupled from economic growth but is trending up ............ 165
Figure 4.2. Resource productivity remains low by international comparison ..................................... 166
Figure 4.3. Construction waste accounts for most of Denmark's waste generation ............................ 166
Figure 4.4. Danish per capita municipal waste generation is the highest in the OECD ...................... 167
Figure 4.5. Denmark has nearly eliminated landfilling of municipal waste ........................................ 168
Figure 4.6. Imports of waste rose significantly from 2011 but stabilised in 2014, while exports are
trending down .............................................................................................................................. 169
Figure 4.7. Expenditure and investment trends in municipal waste management ............................... 170
Figure 4.8. The cost of waste management for Danish households is high by international
comparison .................................................................................................................................. 170
Figure 4.9. Waste management expenditure by industry .................................................................... 171
Figure 4.10. Recycling of household waste is increasing in all Danish regions ................................. 179
Figure 5.1. A pharmaceuticals boom stimulated growth in the chemical sector ................................. 199
Figure 5.2. Emissions from industrial processes and product use are generally on the decline .......... 200
Figure 5.3. The number of Danish companies reporting to the E-PRTR and national PRTR/green
account programmes has fallen ................................................................................................... 204
Figure 5.4. A differentiated tax, introduced in 2013, helped reduce the pesticide load ...................... 207
Figure 5.5. Denmark is an active player in evaluation of chemicals at the EU level .......................... 220
Figure 5.6. Denmark actively contributes to risk management of chemicals at the EU level ............. 224
Boxes
Box 2.1. The 2007 municipal reform and the environment................................................................. 100
Box 2.2. Cross-party political agreements........................................................................................... 102
Box 2.3. Targeting nitrogen regulation improves cost-effectiveness .................................................. 104
Box 2.4. Green Map of Denmark ........................................................................................................ 105
Box 2.5. Monitoring sulphur pollution from ships crossing Danish waters ........................................ 111
Box 3.1. Climate mitigation in Danish agriculture .............................................................................. 126
Box 3.2. Key components of the 2018 Energy Agreement ................................................................. 141
Box 3.3. Using public-private partnerships in development co-operation .......................................... 151
Box 4.1. The advisory board on circular economy and the circular economy strategy....................... 173
Box 4.2. Taxes on landfilling and incineration ................................................................................... 178
Box 4.3. Exchanging best practices among municipalities: Genanvend platform .............................. 180
Box 4.4. Municipal waste charges ....................................................................................................... 182
Box 4.5. The Plastic Action Plan......................................................................................................... 183
Box 4.6. Platforms to mobilise the construction sector on a circular economy agenda ...................... 188
Box 4.7. Denmark has a well-developed strategy on green public procurement ................................ 191
Box 4.8. Support for circular economy innovation ............................................................................. 192
Box 5.1. Examples of chemical monitoring/biomonitoring results that have helped shape Danish
chemicals management priorities ................................................................................................ 201
Box 5.2. Danish Chemical Initiatives 2018-21.................................................................................... 205
Box 5.3. Results of the 2013 pesticide load indicator reform are not yet fully known but appear
promising ..................................................................................................................................... 206
Box 5.4. A project to protect children from harmful chemicals shows potential for further work
sharing and co-operation ............................................................................................................. 211
Box 5.5. Denmark is at the forefront of best practices stimulating public involvement in chemicals
management................................................................................................................................. 214
Box 5.6. Continuing co-operation in the Arctic is important .............................................................. 216
Box 5.7. Assessment of industrial chemicals: The Australian perspective ......................................... 218
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0011.png
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9
Box 5.8. Top priorities for Denmark: Endocrine disruptors and nanomaterials.................................. 222
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0013.png
READER’S
GUIDE
11
Reader’s guide
Signs
The following signs are used in figures and tables:
..
–
.
: not available
: nil or negligible
: decimal point
Country aggregates
OECD Europe: This zone includes all European member countries of the OECD,
i.e. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and the United Kingdom.
OECD: This zone includes all member countries of the OECD, i.e. the countries of OECD
Europe plus Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel*, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and the
United States.
Country aggregates may include Secretariat estimates.
Currency
Monetary unit: Danish krone (DKK)
In Q1 2019, USD 1 = DKK 6.572; EUR 1 = DKK 7.464
In 2018, USD 1 = DKK 6.315; EUR 1 = DKK 7.453
In 2017, USD 1 = DKK 6.603; EUR 1 = DKK 7.439
In 2016, USD 1 = DKK 6.732; EUR 1 = DKK 7.445
Cut-off date
This report is based on information and data available up to early April 2019.
Disclaimer
* The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant
Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of
the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms
of international law.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or
sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries
and to the name of any territory, city or area.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0014.png
12
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Abbreviations and acronyms
ADS
AMAP
C&D
CAP
CCS
CEHOS
CHP
CIS
CLP
CLRTAP
CO
2
DMC
DPA
EAP
ECHA
EDC
EGS
EIA
EKF
ELV
EMEP
e-MARS
EPA
ETS
EUDP
EV
GDP
GEP
GHG
GHS
GLP
HELCOM
IFU
IUCN
LOUS
LULUCF
MA
MARPOL
MEA
MEF
MCEU
MIBFA
MLRF
NEC
AffaldsDataSystemet (Danish waste data system)
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
Construction and demolition
Common Agricultural Policy
Carbon capture and storage
Danish Centre on Endocrine Disrupters
Combined heat and power
Danish Chemical Inspection Service
Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Carbon dioxide
Domestic material consumption
Danish Producer Responsibility System
Environmental Action Programme
European Chemicals Agency
Endocrine-disrupting chemical
Environmental goods and services
Environmental impact assessment
Danish Export Credit Agency
End-of-life vehicle
European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme
Major Accident Reporting System
Danish Environmental Protection Agency
Emissions Trading System
Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Programme
Electric vehicle
Gross domestic product
Good Experimental Practice
Greenhouse gas
Globally Harmonized System
Good Laboratory Practice
Helsinki Commission (Convention on Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area)
Investment Fund for Developing Countries
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Danish List of Undesirable Substances
Land use, land-use change and forestry
Maritime Authority
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
Multilateral environmental agreement
Ministry of Environment and Food
Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities
Ministry of Business, Industry and Financial Affairs
Multifunctional Land Redistribution Fund
National Emission Ceilings
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0015.png
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
NGO
NH
3
NMVOC
NOVANA
NO
X
ODA
OSPAR
PAH
PCB
PFAS
PISA
PLI
PM
2.5
POP
PPP
PRO
PRTR
PSO
PVC
(Q)SAR
R&D
RBMP
RD&D
RDP
REACH
RIA
SAICM
SDG
SEA
SMEs
SO
2
TBT
TPES
UNECE
UNFCCC
VFA
WEA
WEEE
Non-government organisation
Ammonia
Non-methane volatile organic compound
National Monitoring and Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment
Nitrogen oxide
Official development assistance
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
Programme for International Student Assessment
Pesticide load indicator
Fine particulate matter
Persistent organic pollutant
Purchasing power parity
Producer responsibility organisation
Pollutant release and transfer register
Public Service Obligation
Polyvinyl chloride
(Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship
Research and development
River Basin Management Plan
Research, development and demonstration
Rural Development Programme
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation
Regulatory impact assessment
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
Sustainable Development Goal
Strategic environmental assessment
Small and medium-sized enterprises
Sulphur dioxide
Tributyltin
Total primary energy supply
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Veterinary and Food Administration
Working Environment Authority
Waste electrical and electronic equipment
13
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0017.png
BASIC STATISTICS OF DENMARK
15
Basic statistics of Denmark
2018 or latest available year (OECD values in parentheses)
a
PEOPLE AND SOCIETY
Population (million)
Share of population by type of region:
Predominantly urban (%)
Intermediate (%)
Rural (%)
Total GDP (National currency, billion)
Total GDP (USD, billion, current prices and PPPs)
GDP compound annual real growth rate, latest 5 years
GDP per capita (1 000 USD current PPPs)
Value added shares (%)
Agriculture
Industry including construction
Services
Exports of goods and services (% of GDP)
6
23
49
29
2.2
326
2.0
57
1
23
76
55
(48)
(27)
(25)
Population density per km
2
Population compound annual growth rate, latest 5 years
Income inequality (Gini coefficient)
Poverty rate (% of pop. with less than 50% median income)
Life expectancy
Imports of goods and services (% of GDP)
Main exports (% of total merchandise exports)
134
(36)
0.4 (0.6)
0.26 (0.32)
5
(11)
81
(81)
49
28
23
16
34
16
14
29
ECONOMY AND EXTERNAL ACCOUNTS
(2.3)
(46)
(2)
(25)
(73)
(29)
Machinery and transport equipment
Chemicals and related products
Food and live animals
Main imports (% of total merchandise imports)
Machinery and transport equipment
Miscellaneous manufactured articles
Manufactured goods
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Percentage of GDP
Expenditure
Revenue
Gross financial debt
Fiscal balance
51.2
52.3
48.9
1.2
(40.6)
(37.8)
(112.5)
-(2.8)
Education expenditure
Health expenditure
Environment protection expenditure
Environmental taxes:
(% of GDP)
(% of total tax revenue)
6.5
8.4
0.4
4.0
8.7
(5.2)
(7.6)
(0.5)
(1.6)
(5.3)
LABOUR MARKET, SKILLS AND INNOVATION
Unemployment rate (% of civilian labour force)
Tertiary educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds (%)
Gross expenditure on R&D, % of GDP
5.7
39
3.1
(5.8)
(37)
(2.4)
Patent applications in environment-related technologies (% of
all technologies, average of latest 3 years
b
Environmental management
Water-related adaptation technologies
Climate change mitigation technologies
18
5
0.4
15
54
4.0
115
785
2.0
42
57
5
15
23
(10)
(4)
(0.5)
(7)
(64)
(9.7)
(804)
(524)
(2.4)
(12)
(22)
(31)
(34)
ENVIRONMENT
Energy intensity: TPES per capita (toe/cap.)
TPES per GDP (toe/1 000 USD, 2010 PPPs)
Renewables (% of TPES)
Carbon intensity (energy-related CO
2
):
Emissions per capita (t/cap.)
Emissions per GDP (t/1 000 USD, 2010 PPPs)
GHG intensity:
c
Emissions per capita (t CO
2
eq/cap.)
Emissions per GDP (
t CO
2
eq/1 000 USD, 2010 PPPs)
Mean population exposure to air pollution (PM
2.5
), µg/m
3
3.0
0.06
35
5.9
0.13
9.0
0.20
10.4
(4.1)
(0.11)
(10)
(9.0)
(0.24)
(12.0)
(0.31)
(12.5)
Road vehicle stock (vehicles./100 inhabitants)
Water stress (abstraction as % of available resources)
Water abstraction per capita (m
3
/cap./year)
Municipal waste per capita, (kg/capita)
Material productivity (USD, 2010 PPPs/DMC, kg)
Land area (1 000 km
2
)
% of arable land and permanent crops
% of permanent meadows and pastures
% of forest area
% of other land (built-up and other land)
a)
Values earlier than 2013 are not taken into consideration. OECD value: where the OECD aggregate is not provided in the source
database, a simple OECD average of the latest available data is calculated where data exist for a significant number of countries.
b)
Higher-value inventions that have sought protection in at least two jurisdictions.
c)
Excluding emissions/removals from land use, land-use change and forestry.
Source:
Calculations based on data extracted from databases of the OECD, IEA/OECD, EUROSTAT and the World Bank.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0019.png
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
17
Executive summary
Maintain efforts to manage water pollution and preserve nature
Denmark outperforms the OECD average for most of the Sustainable Development Goals.
It has decoupled its greenhouse gas (GHG) and major air pollutant emissions from
economic activity. Denmark ranks among the OECD countries with the lowest energy
intensity, thanks to a proactive energy efficiency policy. It has experienced a boom in
renewable energy resources over the last decade, with renewables rising from 15% to 35%
of total primary energy supply, driven by strong political will and public acceptability.
Denmark has become a world leader in wind energy technology thanks to the significant
and growing support of electricity consumers (via the electricity bill). It is now committed
to increasing the share of renewables in gross final energy consumption from 30% in 2020
to 55% by 2030.
Despite progress, environmental challenges persist. In spite of strong nitrogen pollution
management policies over the past decade, Denmark still faces excessive levels of nitrogen
discharges into its coastal waters, of which only 1.7% are in good ecological status.
Denmark’s spatial planning policy promotes the interconnectivity of areas of interest for
nature protection, but the nature protection policy does not set targets for protected areas
other than biodiversity forests (which represent a very small part
of Denmark’s
land).
Strengthen co-operation with municipalities to improve environmental governance
Denmark has a well-functioning environmental governance system at the central level.
Particular assets include cross-party political agreements, proactive participation by civil
society in policy making and high-quality advisory bodies. Socio-economic impact
assessment of government decisions that may have an impact on the environment is used
extensively, though not always systematically. Since 2007, Denmark’s
98
municipalities
have been responsible for increasing aspects of environmental management. However,
environmental rules have not always been applied in comparable ways countrywide. The
government has used task forces and sharing of expertise to build capacity in
municipalities. Expanding these efforts to domains and regions where municipalities face
challenges will be important going forward.
Farmland takes up more than 60% of the surface area, making the agriculture sector a key
player in the protection of the environment. Spatial planning and land banking are part of
the strategies used to manage environmental protection in agriculture. In particular,
municipalities must designate existing and potential natural areas on the Green Map and
take them into account when preparing land use plans. Efforts to convert environmentally
valuable farmland into natural sites through the Multifunctional Land Redistribution Fund
could be scaled up, including through the mobilisation of private funds.
Involve all sectors of the economy to move towards a carbon-free economy by 2050
Green growth is high on Denmark’s political agenda. The country aspires to achieve 100%
green electricity by 2030 and zero net GHG emissions by 2050. It is one of the first
countries to develop and implement a green energy strategy based on a broad political
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0020.png
18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
agreement. This Energy Agreement helps create a climate of trust for investors in clean
energy and public acceptability to support the consumer prices of such energy. The 2018
Energy Agreement aims to further develop renewables and improve energy efficiency at
market-like conditions. At the same time, energy tax concessions for businesses should be
removed as they reduce incentives to save energy and reduce CO
2
emissions.
Achieving the 2050 goal will, however, require decarbonising sectors beyond energy, such
as transport and agriculture. Tax concessions on the purchase and ownership of cars aim to
increase the market share of energy-efficient cars and electric cars in the vehicular fleet.
These concessions reduced environmentally related tax revenue to 3.7% of GDP, although
that remains the highest level in the OECD. Decarbonising the agriculture sector involves
identifying low-carbon farming practices, a path in which Denmark has engaged through
research and development programmes. Pending transition to cleaner transport and
development of mitigation measures for agriculture, Denmark is using flexibility
mechanisms to achieve its ambitious goal of reducing GHG emissions outside the
EU Emissions Trading System by 39% compared to 2005 levels by 2030.
Streamline municipal waste management to foster the circular economy
Denmark has long paved the way for circular economy approaches by promoting
eco-design, clean production, eco-innovation and sustainable consumption. In 2018, a
political agreement was reached on circular economy, with a strong focus on how business
can become its engine and how government can help. Nevertheless, total waste generation
rose by 30% between 2010 and 2016. Since 2007, Denmark has had the highest levels of
municipal waste per capita in the OECD, with 785 kg per inhabitant in 2017. At the same
time, the country has managed to nearly eliminate landfilling. It has also achieved
impressive results in material recovery of most waste streams. Household waste remains a
notable exception, however, with about half going to incineration with energy recovery.
Municipalities have considerable autonomy in waste management planning, including on
the treatment of most waste. The cost of waste management services is among the highest
in OECD Europe. Heavy investment by municipalities in incineration plants has created
excess capacity. That, along with a lack of harmonised rules on waste sorting, limits
incentives for investment in recycling and reuse.
Prioritise chemicals management policy based on risk to health and the environment
Denmark has put in place strong institutional and policy frameworks, as well as exemplary
stakeholder co-operation, to manage the health and environmental risks associated with the
use of chemicals. The shift from an
ad-valorem
tax on pesticides to an impact-based tax in
2013 reduced by 40% the health, ecotoxicological and environmental risks of pesticides
sold, as measured by the pesticide load indicator, from 2011 to 2016. As Denmark relies
on imports of chemicals, its policy also focuses on ensuring that imported chemicals and
consumer products are safe for the environment and health. To this end, it has developed a
high level of expertise in chemical risk assessment, becoming a European and international
standard setter in this field. Denmark ranks fifth in the EU for the number of chemical
substances assessed and third for endocrine disruptors.
Increased monitoring of chemicals in the environment and in consumer products is the first
step in managing their health and environmental risks. This should not, however, be
detrimental to the predictive risk assessment of chemicals, i.e. before a negative impact can
be detected in humans or the environment. Denmark needs to manage the trade-offs
between the two
–
that is, to ensure efficient sharing of budgetary resources between
risk-based monitoring of chemicals and predictive risk assessment. Denmark must also
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0021.png
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
19
continue to combine national management of chemicals with participation in international
efforts to identify and manage the risks associated with chemicals of concern and
compliance concerning high-risk chemicals in products.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0023.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
21
Assessment and recommendations
The assessment and recommendations present the main findings of the OECD
Environmental Performance Review of Denmark. The 44 recommendations are intended
to help Denmark make further progress towards its environmental policy objectives and
international commitments. The OECD Working Party on Environmental Performance
reviewed and approved the assessment and recommendations at its meeting on 25 April
2019. Actions taken to implement selected recommendations from the 2007 Environmental
Performance Review are summarised in the Annex.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The
use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli
settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0024.png
22
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1. Environmental performance: Trends and recent developments
Denmark’s
1
population enjoys a very high living standard, one of the lowest income
inequality levels in the OECD and strong life satisfaction (OECD, 2017
[1]
; OECD, 2019
[2]
).
Denmark outperforms the OECD average on most Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). It has made good progress in decoupling environmental pressures from economic
activity. Denmark significantly reduced its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the
review period, further progressing in the decarbonisation of its economy. Levels of energy
and carbon intensity were among the lowest for International Energy Agency countries in
2017 (IEA, 2018
[3]
; IEA, 2017
[4]
). The use of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis
continues to guide environmental policy making.
Despite this progress, Denmark continues to face environmental challenges. In particular,
a significant portion of the population of large Danish cities remains exposed to PM
2.5
levels
above World Health Organization standards. Denmark will struggle to meet its target of
reducing ammonia emissions, set by European Union (EU) legislation, by 2020.
Biodiversity is under pressure in many regions, with a large number of red-listed species,
a poor state of conservation of natural habitats and low connectivity of ecosystems. Water
quality needs to be improved, especially with regard to the presence of pesticides in
groundwater and the ecological status of rivers, lakes and coastal waters.
1.1.1. The country has made progress in decarbonising its economy, with the
energy sector playing a key role
Over the review period, Denmark decoupled energy-related CO
2
emissions, GHG
emissions and emissions of major air pollutants from growth in gross domestic product
(GDP) (Figure 1). The contribution of fossil fuels to total primary energy supply (TPES)
dropped significantly, from 82% in 2005 to 60% in 2017.
Figure 1. Denmark has decoupled emissions of GHGs and major air pollutants from GDP
growth
Decoupling in GDP, air and climate, 2005-17
GDP (real)
SOₓ emissions
NMVOC emissions
2005=100
120
100
80
60
40
20
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Note:
LULUCF: Land use, land-use change and forestry.
Source:
Nielsen et al. (2019),
Denmark’s National Inventory Report 2019;
EMEP (2019),
WebDab
(database); IEA (2018),
IEA CO
2
Emissions from
Fuel Combustion
(database); OECD (2018),
OECD National Accounts Statistics
(database).
0
Energy-related CO emissions
NOₓ emissions
PM
₅
emissions
GHG emissions (excl. LULUCF)
NH₃ emissions
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001521
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0025.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
23
The energy intensity of the economy is among the lowest in the OECD and continued to
decline over the review period. Energy consumption decreased by 8% between 2005 and
2016. It fell in all sectors except residential, where it remained relatively unchanged. The
largest decrease was in the industry sector (25%). The residential and transport sectors are
the largest energy consumers, each accounting for one-third of total consumption in 2016
(IEA, 2018
[3]
).
Denmark is one of the leading OECD countries in terms of share of renewable energy
sources in TPES, even though its hydropower potential is not comparable to other leading
countries (Figure 2). Bioenergy and wind have largely replaced coal in power generation.
By 2016, Denmark had already met its 2020 renewables target of 30% of gross final energy
consumption.
However, bioenergy’s predominant role in the renewables mix raises the
issue of environmental sustainability of supply (OECD, 2018
[5]
), all the more so since
Denmark imports nearly half its solid biomass, more than any other OECD country using
this resource.
Figure 2. Denmark is one of the leaders in use of renewable energy sources
Renewables (RES) in total primary energy supply (TPES) and power generation, top ten OECD countries, 2017
Share of renewable sources in TPES
100%
100%
98%
82%
73%
58%
Share of renewable sources in electricity generation
80%
60%
88%
71%
75%
63%
46%
40%
39%
39%
35%
33%
30%
40%
20%
0%
53%
44%
26%
22%
Iceland
Norway
Latvia
New Zealand
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Austria
Chile
Switzerland
Source:
IEA (2018),
IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001540
1.1.2. Denmark has stepped up its efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
and is preparing for carbon neutrality by 2050
Between 2005 and 2017, Denmark reduced its GHG emissions by 27.7% (Nielsen et al.,
2019
[6]
) (Figure 3). In June 2018, the government and all parties in the Folketing (the
Danish Parliament) agreed a new set of measures to be introduced over 2020-24. This
Energy Agreement aims for a 55% share of renewables in primary energy supply by 2030
(Government of Denmark et al., 2018
[7]
). It specifies that, by 2030, renewables are to cover
all final electricity consumption
–
or even more, allowing for net exports to the European
grid
–
and electricity production from coal is to be phased out. Most of the GHG reductions
envisioned in the agreement, totalling 10-11 million tonnes of CO
2
equivalent (Mt CO
2
eq),
are covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
In 2016, emissions covered by the EU ETS accounted for one-third
of Denmark’s GHG
emissions. Between 2005 and 2017, EU ETS emissions from stationary sources decreased
by 43%, well above the EU average of 14% (EEA, 2018
[8]
; Nielsen et al., 2018
[9]
). The
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0026.png
24
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
reduction followed a proactive policy supporting diffusion of renewables, partly financed
by an allocation of revenue from the electricity tax paid by Danish households. Under the
Energy Agreement, feed-in tariffs will be replaced by technology-neutral one-off
investment grants in a move to solutions that are more responsive to changing market
conditions. Some DKK 4.2 billion (EUR 564 million) is to be allocated for this purpose
from the state budget for 2020-24.
Figure 3. More measures to reduce GHG emissions are needed if Denmark is to achieve its
long-term goal
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001559
The EU Effort Sharing Decision commits Denmark to reduce its non-EU ETS emissions
by 39% from the 2005 level by 2030. This is one of the most ambitious reduction targets
in the EU. Between 2005 and 2017, non-ETS emissions decreased more slowly than
EU ETS emissions, by 18% (Eurostat, 2019
[10]
). Under the Effort Sharing Decision
Denmark has chosen for the sake of cost-effectiveness to rely on flexibility mechanisms to
achieve the 39% target. Two-thirds of the GHG reductions it envisions for non-EU ETS
emissions, about 21 Mt CO
2
eq, are to be achieved through credits in the land use, land-use
change and forestry (LULUCF) sector and one-third by cancellation of EU ETS quotas.
In October 2018, the government prepared a climate and air proposal, Together for a
Greener Future, to reduce non-EU ETS GHG emissions (and air pollutants). Among other
measures, it proposes halting sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and supporting
research and development (R&D) to develop low-GHG farming (EUR 12 million) and
carbon capture and storage on farmland and in forests (EUR 14 million). Measures
approved in the Finance Act for 2019 include an increased premium for scrapping old diesel
cars, grants for investing in low-carbon barn technology and research on better estimating
carbon sequestration in soil and forests. To help reach a goal of 1 million electric vehicle
sales by 2030, electric and plug-in hybrid cars below DKK 400 000 (EUR 54 000) are
exempt from the registration tax in 2019 and 2020, and the government has established a
transport commission, giving the municipalities the option to offer cheaper and prioritised
parking of green vehicles and allowing them to drive in bus lanes. The Energy Agreement
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0027.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
25
and climate and air proposal are key steps for Denmark to make its economy climate-
neutral by 2050, in line with the long-term EU strategic vision.
1.1.3. Particle pollution in cities and agricultural ammonia emissions remain
problems
Denmark is on track to meet its 2020 targets under the EU National Emissions Ceilings
(NEC) Directive for nitrogen oxides (NO
X
), non-methane volatile organic compounds
(NMVOCs) and sulphur oxides (SO
X
). It will be more difficult for it to meet its NEC
commitments for 2020 and 2030 on fine particles (PM
2.5
) and ammonia (MEF, 2019
[11]
).
Domestic steps to improve urban air quality include low-emission zones in major cities,
registration tax exemption for electric cars, particle filters for new fossil-fuelled cars and
enhanced emission limit values for residential wood stoves. Measures have also been taken
to reduce ammonia emissions, such as banning manure application by splash plate and a
requirement to roof slurry tanks.
Denmark submitted its NEC implementation programme, the National Air Pollution
Control Programme, to the European Commission for approval in April 2019. It proposes
measures to reduce ammonia emissions, such as financial support for low-emission barns
and regulation of urea-based chemical fertilisers. The proposed measures to reduce PM
2.5
focus on cleaner transport and accelerated replacement of old residential wood stoves.
The number of premature deaths caused by ambient air pollution continues to be above the
OECD average (Figure 4). The Danish Center for Environment and Energy at Aarhus
University estimates that 3 200 premature deaths a year are attributable to air pollution,
including transboundary pollution, with exposure to PM
2.5
implicated in 90% of cases
(Ellermann et al., 2018
[12]
). The welfare cost related to PM
2.5
exposure is estimated at 3%
of GDP (OECD, 2018
[13]
).
Figure 4. Good air quality remains a challenge
Number of premature deaths caused by ambient PM
pollution in Denmark and in the OECD, 2005-17
Diabetes/kidney diseases
Cardiovascular
Respiratory infections/TB
Chronic respiratory
Neoplasms
Share of population exposed to air pollution by PM
2.5
exceeding the WHO Air Quality Guideline (10
цg/m
3
)
Aarhus
Odense
Aalborg
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Copenhagen
2005
Denmark
OECD total
2010
2017
2005
2010
2017
0
100
200
300
400
Deaths/million inhabitants
500
2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source:
OECD (2018),
“Exposure
to air pollution”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001578
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0028.png
26
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1.4. More coherent and proactive policies are needed to foster nature
conservation
The 2014 Biodiversity Strategy does not include targets for protected areas. The vast
majority of open habitats (i.e. natural areas with no tree cover and additionally most
freshwater lakes), about 10% of the country’s area, are included in Section
3 of the Nature
Protection Act, which gives them general protection against activities that can have a direct
negative impact on their integrity. This does not mean, however, that some extensive
farming practices cannot continue. The area of Section 3 habitats increased by 9% in
2006-16 (EPA
[14]
).
Until 2008, Denmark had no national parks. Five have since been created, parts of which
are privately owned. The national parks are established by assignment agreements and
managed at the local level. Their management imposes regulation on specific activities
within the parks by designating different planning zones.
The 2016-19
Nature Package envisages increasing the area of “biodiversity forests” from
11 700 ha in 2016 to 28 300 ha in 2066, mainly in state-owned forest. By January 2019,
22 800 ha had been designated in state-owned
forests. “Biodiversity forests” have a stricter
biodiversity protection target than other forests and have less intensive or no management.
The new National Forest Programme, adopted in 2018, builds on the objectives of its
predecessor: i) increase forest cover to 20-25% of the land by the end of the century (it is
now less than 15%) and ii) make protecting biodiversity the main goal for 10% of all forests
by 2040.
Natura 2000 sites cover some 8% of the land area and 18% of the exclusive economic zone.
However, 68% of the total area of habitats and 27% of species covered by the EU Habitats
Directive are in unfavourable or bad conservation status (Figure 5), and 27% of assessed
plant and animal species are red-listed.
Figure 5. The state of most habitats remains unfavourable
Overall assessment of conservation status of habitats and species, 2007 and 2013
Unfavourable/bad
%
100
80
60
40
20
0
Habitats
Unfavourable/inadequate
%
Unknown
Species
Favourable
100
80
60
40
20
0
2007
2013
2007
2013
Source:
EC (2014), National Summary for Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, Report 2007-12.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001597
Amendments to the Planning Act in 2015 and 2017 require municipalities to designate the
location of areas of special nature protection interest on a map, including Natura 2000 areas
on land and other protected natural areas as well as ecological corridors, potential natural
areas and potential ecological corridors. The complete designation constitutes the Green
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0029.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
27
Map of Denmark. Preparation of the Green Map is a key element of Danish nature
conservation policy. The map should enable targeting of municipalities’ nature protection
initiatives. It will be developed gradually as municipalities revise their land-use plans. Once
designated, it will provide a clearer picture of the extent and location of existing and
potential areas of special nature protection interest and indicate where to create such areas
and corridors to link them.
Danish reporting to international organisations has overestimated the number of protected
areas compliant with the standards of the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN). Thus any comparison with the Aichi targets under the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) is distorted. For example, it would appear that the total number of
IUCN-compliant areas protected by specific conservation orders is of the order of 400,
rather than the 1 843 previously reported under the CBD. The Ministry of Environment and
Food (MEF) estimated in April 2019 that 15% of the land area in Denmark is protected in
accordance with the Nature Protection Act or Natura 2000, or both.
Many water bodies do not achieve the good ecological status required by the EU Water
Framework Directive (WFD). This is particularly true of coastal waters, the vast majority
of which do not achieve the goal (Figure 6). Measures under the 2005-09 Action Plan for
the Aquatic Environment III and 2009-15 River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) helped
reduce the agricultural nitrogen surplus by 7% between 2005-07 and 2013-15, though it
remains above the OECD average (Figure 6).
Figure 6. The quality of coastal waters is of concern and the agricultural nitrogen surplus remains
above the OECD average
Quality of Danish water bodies, 2017
a
Good status achieved
Good status not achieved
Status unknown
Gross nitrogen balance, Denmark and OECD average,
2005-07 and 2013-15
2005-07
kg/ha of agricultural area
90
80
70
Rivers
Coastal water
Groundwater
(quantitative status)
Groundwater
(chemical status)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of water bodies
60
50
40
30
20
2013-15
Lakes
10
0
Denmark
OECD
a)
Quality of water bodies according to the standards of the EU Water Framework Directive.
Source:
Blicher-Mathiesen et al. (2019),
Landovervågningsoplande 2017: NOVANA
(Agricultural watersheds 2017); EEA (2018),
State of Water Assessment and EU
Water Policy Context;
MF (2018),
Fremdriftsrapport på handlingsplanen for implementeringen af verdensmålene
[Progress Report on the Action Plan for Implementing
SDGs];
OECD (2019), “Environmental performance of agriculture
-
indicators”,
OECD Agriculture Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001616
To achieve the WFD objectives, Denmark needs to reduce nitrogen discharges to coastal
waters to 44 700 tonnes a year by 2027, compared with around 60 000 tonnes in 2013-15.
To this end, EUR 830 million, just over half the 2015-21 RBMP budget, is devoted to
coastal water protection (wetland creation, afforestation, farmland set-asides, catch crops,
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0030.png
28
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ecological focus areas where agricultural production is prohibited), a third goes to
wastewater treatment and the remaining 13% is related to lake and river restoration.
The 2015 Food and Agriculture Package introduced a policy shift towards more
cost-effective
“targeted regulation”. Until 2017, Denmark had
a regulation where the same
rules applied to all farmers. With the targeted catch crops programme from 2017 and
targeted regulation from 2019, Denmark has implemented a differentiated system. The
targeted regulation is based on water pollution risk. This is a step in the right direction, as
it improves cost-effectiveness by focusing efforts on vulnerable areas, in line with the spirit
of the WFD and the EU Nitrates Directive. Targeted regulation aims to focus on watersheds
threatened by nitrogen pollution, leaving farmers in other watersheds more flexibility in
managing the use of their nutrients than was the case with non-targeted regulation (MEF,
2015
[15]
).
The intensity of agricultural pesticide use is below the OECD average in terms of sales.
However the presence of pesticides and their metabolites in groundwater remains a
concern. In 2015-17, prohibited (legacy) pesticides were detected in groundwater intended
for human consumption at levels exceeding the limit value for drinking water of 0.1
μg/litre
in 7.2% of the 1 086 intakes studied. By comparison, authorised pesticides and their
metabolites were detected at levels exceeding the limit of 0.1 μg/l in 1.6 % of these intakes
(GEUS, 2019
[16]
). In 2019, municipalities were asked to demarcate protection zones around
drinking water wells and enforce them using voluntary approaches. If this proves
ineffective, from 2022 a political agreement concluded in 2019 reserves the right to impose
pesticide-free agriculture in the protection zones. Some water companies have taken the
lead in deciding to pay farmers not to use pesticides in the areas concerned.
Recommendations on climate, air, biodiversity and water
Mitigating climate change
Make every effort to achieve the goal of further reducing GHG emissions by 2030,
including identifying misalignment of sectoral policies with climate policy,
mobilising private finance and seeking synergies with other environmental policies
(on air, water, waste, biodiversity).
Develop a vision for a carbon-neutral Denmark by 2050, considering the
development and export promotion of technological solutions (for energy
efficiency, renewables, and carbon capture and storage) and cost-effectiveness
(including using international carbon markets to offset emissions).
Improving air quality
Redouble efforts to reduce ammonia emissions so as to achieve the 2030 target set
by the NEC Directive; in particular, seek synergies with nitrate policies, taking into
account the nitrogen cycle; ensure policy coherence between ammonia emission
management and expansion of biogas as a renewable energy resource.
Continue efforts to address urban PM
2.5
pollution, including reducing particle
emissions from residential wood burning.
Strengthen international co-operation
to support Denmark’s efforts to control
transboundary air pollution from international ship traffic.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0031.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
29
Addressing biodiversity
Update the 2014 Biodiversity Strategy in light of initiatives put in place since its
launch (e.g. Nature Package, National Forest Programme, Rural Development
Programme, Green Map), and ensure their coherence; pending development of the
Green Map by 2050, set intermediate targets for protected areas and connectivity,
taking into account progress on the CBD Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2021-30.
Provide sufficient public financial support to achieve the goal for “biodiversity
forests” on both state-owned
and private land; evaluate their impact, as well as that
of the policy of increasing forest cover, on carbon sequestration.
Establish a natural area connectivity strategy targeting threatened species, in close
partnership with civil society and municipalities.
Improving water quality
Continue to improve the cost-effectiveness of measures to reduce nitrate pollution
of coastal waters; in particular, continue to implement the targeted regulation,
focusing on watersheds at risk; estimate the effects of this targeted regulation on
N
2
O emissions with a view to seeking synergies.
Improve the effectiveness of voluntary approaches to farmers in preventing
pesticide use around drinking water abstraction wells; in particular, incorporate the
suggestion that additional instruments will have to be applied if the objective of
pesticide-free areas is not achieved.
1.2. Environmental governance and management
Denmark has a well-functioning environmental governance and management system. It is
characterised by high levels of co-operation and consensus. Particular assets include an
informal system of cross-party political agreements, strong participation by civil society in
policy making and high-quality independent advisory bodies. Denmark also benefits from
expertise in socio-economic assessment of policies at its universities and in ministries.
Finally, it has a comprehensive risk-based inspection system in place.
There is scope to use the existing expertise in socio-economic assessment more
systematically in policy making. Despite the strong risk-based inspection system, analysis
of non-compliance among companies is limited. Given the important responsibilities of
municipalities, strengthening their capacity, including by sharing expertise, in domains and
regions where they face environmental problems must be a priority, along with ensuring
that environmental rules are applied in comparable ways countrywide.
1.2.1. Municipalities are responsible for most aspects of environmental
management
In Denmark’s environmental governance and management system, many responsibilities
are devolved to the municipalities. The national level sets the legal framework and provides
guidance on implementation. It also develops national plans, programmes and strategies.
Inter-ministerial co-ordination on environment-related policies at the central level is well
established. Following a landmark reform of the local government structure in 2007,
Denmark’s 98
municipalities became responsible for most aspects of environmental
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0032.png
30
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
management. This is consistent with a tradition of municipal autonomy, enshrined in the
Constitution. Municipal responsibilities include municipal and local planning;
implementation of policies, plans and programmes; the issuance of most environmental
permits; and related inspections. National authorities retain oversight on environmental
permits and inspections for the most complex and potentially harmful companies. The five
regions have limited environmental responsibilities, which the government has proposed
to abolish.
As the 2007 OECD Environmental Performance Review (EPR) recommended, task forces
were set up to help build municipal capacity following the 2007 reform. The introduction
of management planning at river basin level in 2009 improved inter-municipal co-operation
in water and nature management. More generally, municipalities share expertise and best
practices through Local Government Denmark, an association to which all municipalities
belong. Denmark should expand the use of task forces to areas where it faces challenges,
such as waste prevention (Section 4). Further guidance on implementation of
environmental legislation could be strengthened by learning from international best
practice, e.g.
Switzerland’s “enforcement aids” to its cantons.
1.2.2. Expertise in socio-economic assessment is extensive, but could be used
more systematically
Denmark has a good record on the speed and quality of transposition of EU environmental
legislation. The number of complaints and infringement cases is low. To enhance political
stability and policy continuity, the government often seeks to form political agreements
with parties outside government. This system is a major asset for the country. It has helped
bring about positive long-term change, such as stable investment in renewables.
Direct environmental regulation is still the most widely used policy instrument. However,
Denmark increasingly favours direct regulation based on results rather than requiring
specific practices, e.g. in its targeted approach to nitrogen regulation of farms. This gives
producers flexibility on how to comply and improves cost-effectiveness (OECD, 2018
[17]
).
Environmental impact assessment is an integral part of the permitting process.
The EU Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) Directive was transposed into Danish
law in 2004. SEAs were conducted on changes to rules on farmers’ fertiliser use under the
2015 Food and Agriculture Package and on the siting of offshore windfarms, among other
things. Important government plans and programmes typically rely on extensive prior
assessment of the cost and benefits of targets or the cost-effectiveness of measures.
Denmark also implemented a recommendation in the last EPR by prioritising monitoring
of national environmental action plans in its national monitoring programme, NOVANA.
Advisory bodies, such as the Environmental Economic Council and the Climate Council,
evaluate public policies
ex post
and make
ex ante
recommendations with a strong focus on
improving cost-effectiveness. An independent body, Rigsrevisionen, audits public
spending on behalf of Parliament.
In 2017, the government revised guidelines on socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA).
Making SEIA mandatory on government decisions that would have a significant
environmental impact could further enhance the quality of policy making. It would also
allow strengthening of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) of draft laws, which have not
always been subject to SEIA (OECD, 2018
[18]
). In addition to effects within its borders,
Denmark should consider separately quantifying the effects of its environmental policies
in other countries
–
such as health benefits in neighbouring countries resulting from Danish
air pollution measures
–
and taking them into account in RIA (OECD, 2018
[19]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0033.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
31
1.2.3. Land-use planning should target better distribution between agriculture
and nature protection
Municipalities are responsible for translating national guidelines into concrete spatial
planning. Municipal plans are issued every 4 years and have a 12 year time frame. Local
plans are the most detailed level of spatial planning. They establish rules on how land in a
local area can be used and developed (OECD, 2018
[19]
). Spatial planning must take into
account existing and potential natural areas designated on the Green Map. The aim is to
improve biodiversity by reinforcing efforts to establish larger and more interconnected
natural areas and ensure coherence between designations in neighbouring municipalities.
Farmland takes up more than 60% of the surface area and puts pressure on the environment,
especially on peatlands (drained peatlands become net GHG emission sources) and near
sensitive natural areas and water bodies. Since 1990, land consolidation and land banking
have proved essential in improving both agricultural productivity (through structural
adjustment) and nature conservation (by offsetting nature conservation land banked with
farmland) (Hartvigsen, 2014
[20]
). However, public funding for land redistribution has been
significantly reduced since the structural adjustment policy was discontinued in 2006. In
2018, a Multifunctional Land Redistribution Fund (MLRF) was established with a budget
of EUR 33 million. In February
2019, Denmark’s two main environmental and agricultural
interest groups jointly recommended raising the
fund’s
budget by at least EUR 130 million
(Danish Society for Nature Conservation and Danish Agriculture & Food Council,
2019
[21]
). The aim is to be able to seize opportunities to buy land where farming has a
significant environmental impact
–
e.g. peatlands, farms near ammonia-sensitive nature
areas or drinking water wells
–
and convert it to natural areas or grasslands as well as to
support rural development and access to landscapes and nature. This would support
Denmark’s
ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It would also deliver
co-benefits on biodiversity, water and air quality, and climate adaptation. However,
determining the merits of scaling up public funding of the MLRF with respect to expected
environmental policy benefits requires cost-effectiveness analysis.
In addition to budgetary resources, private funds could be mobilised to finance the MLRF.
Denmark has already shown leadership in this area through the Climate Investment Fund.
Recent OECD work illustrates the range of interventions public actors can use to attract
institutional investment in low-carbon infrastructure, which could include the land
purchases envisaged by the MLRF (Röttgers, Tandon and Kaminker, 2018
[22]
).
1.2.4. The environmental inspection system is effective, but enforcement is
uneven
Denmark applies a risk-based approach to environmental inspections, in line with the
EU Industrial Emissions Directive. It assigns a risk score to companies based on five
parameters. The most potentially harmful companies are inspected at least every three
years, while the least potentially harmful are inspected at least every six years. Denmark
applies a risk-based inspection system even to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
which is good practice. In a positive step, a national inspection database called Danish
Environmental Administration was set up in 2016. Inspection data from 2017 indicate that
the system is effective in finding violations. They also show that the companies posing the
biggest potential risks to the environment are subject to the most compliance promotion
and enforcement measures. Denmark is starting to use the database more strategically to
improve its inspection efforts. From 2020, it plans to target guidance to industries where
inspection data point to a need for special efforts to reduce the number of violations.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0034.png
32
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Making fuller use of the database should help Denmark gain a better understanding of
non-compliance among companies and inform policy making.
Authorities have three categories of compliance promotion and enforcement measures at
their disposal: reporting companies to the police, issuing enforcement orders to prescribe
corrective actions and making non-binding recommendations. Recommendations can take
the form of an agreement between authorities and companies on specific improvements to
be undertaken. Guidance documents on the use of compliance promotion and enforcement
measures have existed since 2005 (EPA, 2005
[23]
), but in practice, municipalities vary in
which measures they use and to what degree (Figure 7). In 2017, recommendations made
up 21.5% of all reactions recorded following inspections of the potentially most
environmentally harmful companies. However, 11% of municipalities have opted for a
more instructive (less punitive) approach by choosing recommendations more often than
enforcement orders. Eight municipalities issued five times as many recommendations as
enforcement orders.
Figure 7. Compliance promotion and enforcement vary across municipalities
Compliance promotion and enforcement measures used by municipalities following environmental inspections
Reactions by type, 2017
Use of recommendations and enforcement orders by
municipal authorities, 2017
Reported to
police
0.4%
Enforcement
orders
78.1%
Recommendations
21.5%
Share of municipalities
issuing more enforcement
orders than recommendations
89%
Share of
municipalities
issuing
more
recommenda-
tions
than
enforcement
orders
11%
Note:
Data refer to inspections carried out by municipalities in the most potentially harmful companies.
Source:
Country submission.
To create a level playing field for companies, national authorities should ensure that
municipalities promote compliance with environmental rules and enforce them in a
comparable manner (Mazur, 2011
[24]
) while respecting municipal autonomy and taking
differences in the regional distribution of industries into account. In 2017, the MEF
launched a new enforcement strategy for its agencies, including the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The strategy includes scaling up guidance efforts and ensuring
transparent and uniform treatment of companies. The results of the strategy should be used
to give municipalities additional, evidence-based criteria for identifying appropriate
compliance promotion and enforcement measures. In addition, the EPA could illustrate its
guidance documents with examples from actual cases in municipalities.
No environmental police or environmental courts exist. Regular police and courts are
essentially responsible for imposing fines if violations are reported. However, as
municipalities rarely report companies to the police (Figure 7), fines are seldom used. This
may indicate that the level of fines is high enough that companies do not expose themselves
to the risk of violating environmental legislation. It may also indicate that companies take
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0035.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
33
seriously the possibility of municipalities escalating the choice of compliance promotion
and enforcement measures should violations not be corrected (OECD, 2009
[25]
)
Denmark does not have an environmental code. In 2017, a panel of legal experts
recommended simplifying the structure of environmental legislation while keeping the
current level of protection. It estimated that the number of environmental laws could be
reduced from 95 to 43. Initial
steps have been taken to follow up on the panel’s
recommendations. For example, obsolete rules on agriculture were repealed. Denmark
should pursue such efforts to simplify its environmental legislation further in order to
promote compliance and enforcement.
Voluntary environmental agreements and formalised partnerships between the public and
private sectors are in place. When agreements include quantitative targets, they are backed
by the explicit possibility of regulatory action, in line with OECD best practice (OECD,
2003
[26]
).
1.2.5. Environmental democracy is strong
Public participation in environmental matters is excellent. The Environmental Information
Act implements the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention).
The act has a broad scope of application. The ombudsman of Parliament, a citizens’
watchdog, has contributed to this by issuing opinions on public authorities’
use of the act.
In the absence of environmental courts, an appeal board of judges and experts serves as the
first instance of redress for citizens and associations against administrative decisions in the
environmental field. From 2011 to 2015, it reduced its average processing time for
complaints from 369 days to 182, making access to justice quicker. The trend was partly
reversed in 2016 when the board was relocated.
Danish authorities use information campaigns to raise public awareness of environmental
issues. In recent years, initiatives have been taken to help elementary schools educate children
on environmental issues such as the SDGs, climate change, biodiversity and food waste.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0036.png
34
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations on environmental governance and management
Supporting the institutional framework
Expand the use of task forces to build municipal capacity in the areas of
environmental management where they face challenges, such as waste prevention.
Further strengthen guidance to municipalities on implementation of environmental
legislation to make it easier to use, as Switzerland does with its enforcement aids
to cantons.
Making land use more sustainable
Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of scaling up land acquisition and redistribution of
environmentally valuable agricultural land through the MLRF.
Strengthening policy evaluation framework
Consider making SEIA mandatory for government policy decisions with a
significant environmental impact, including in the context of RIA, based on the
2017 SEIA guidelines.
Consider separately quantifying effects in other countries when conducting
cost-benefit analyses of Danish environmental policies, e.g. health benefits in
neighbouring countries resulting from Danish air pollution measures.
Promoting and ensuring compliance
While respecting municipal autonomy, create a level playing field for companies
by ensuring that municipalities apply compliance promotion and enforcement
measures based on well-established and similar criteria; in particular, update the
EPA compliance promotion and enforcement guidance documents with factual
findings from the enforcement strategy and concrete examples from municipalities.
Continue efforts to make fuller use of the Danish Environmental Administration
database on environmental inspections to gain better understanding of
non-compliance among companies and to inform policy making.
Pursue efforts to simplify environmental legislation to further promote compliance
and enforcement.
1.3. Towards green growth
1.3.1. Ambitious targets for green growth and commitment to sustainable
development
Green growth ranks high on Denmark’s political agenda. The country aspires to achieve
100% green electricity by 2030 and net zero GHG emissions by 2050. It is one of the first
countries to implement a green energy strategy based on a broad political agreement, which
helps create a climate of trust for investors. The commitment to address environmental
challenges while ensuring economic success through clean technology exports has made
Denmark a pioneer of green growth. Exports and revenue from the Danish clean tech
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0037.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
35
industry will become increasingly important for the economy as production and associated
revenue from oil and gas extraction decline.
Denmark’s green growth policy increasingly aims for cost-effectiveness
in achieving
environmental objectives while ensuring that measures benefit employment and
competitiveness. This is reflected in the recently adopted Energy Agreement for 2020-24.
Pending transition to electric vehicles and development of mitigation technology for
agriculture, Denmark has chosen to make significant use of flexibility mechanisms to
achieve its ambitious goal of reducing GHG emissions outside the EU ETS (Section 1).
Reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 requires continued investment, R&D in low-carbon
technology, and options such as carbon capture and storage and carbon sequestration.
Policy making benefits from engagement of stakeholder and expert groups, which are
frequently consulted on major policy initiatives. Denmark played a leadership role in the
development of Agenda 2030 and was among the first countries to conduct a voluntary
national review on progress towards SDGs. Efforts should continue to broaden the
statistical base for SDG reporting and to harmonise key indicators with international ones.
A comprehensive report on Green National Accounts for Denmark was published in 2018,
comprising information on the natural resource stock, resource use and resulting pollution,
and green economy aspects. It could be the basis for regular reporting on green growth.
1.3.2. In a long history of green taxation, adjustments are still necessary
Denmark’s public finances are strong. The country is known for balanced budgets and low
public debt levels. The tax burden is high: in 2017 Denmark ranked second among OECD
countries for tax/GDP ratio, after France. While revenue from environmentally related
taxes has declined in real terms over time (Figure 8) because of a decrease in revenue from
motor vehicle registration taxes (mostly due to deductions to fuel efficient cars), it still
equalled 3.7% of GDP in 2017, the highest share among OECD countries and more than
twice the OECD average.
Denmark is a pioneer in carbon pricing. Nearly all energy-related CO
2
emissions face a
price signal, except those from burning of woody biomass for heating. The use of bioenergy
is assumed to be carbon neutral, in line with EU renewables policy. Overall, 32% of
emissions faced a price above EUR 30 per tonne of CO
2
in 2015, which is similar to the
OECD average.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0038.png
36
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 8. Environmentally related tax revenue has declined
Environmentally related tax revenue by tax base, 2005-17
Energy products
DKK billion, 2010 prices
100
5.0
80
4.0
60
40
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Motor vehicles and transport
Pollution and resources
% of GDP (right axis)
%
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source:
OECD (2018),
“Environmental
policy instruments”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database); EU (2018), National Tax List (NTLs);
Statistics Denmark (2019),
“Green
economy: Environmental taxes”,
StatBank
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001635
Taxes on energy imposed on households, like other environmentally related taxes, are
generally much higher than those imposed on businesses, for reasons of competitiveness.
The ordinary household electricity tax is the most extreme example: it is some 200 times
higher than the rate on manufacturing, etc., making it the highest in the European Union.
Denmark has had a deliberate policy of allocating revenue from an additional tax on
electricity consumption (the Public Service Obligation, PSO, introduced in 2012) to
development of renewables, on a kind of “electricity pays for (renewable) electricity”
principle. Although this has disadvantages from a macroeconomic point of view (for
example, it limits budgetary flexibility), it has proved effective in supporting wind energy
deployment. Without this investment subsidy, combined with feed-in tariffs, the rapid
deployment of wind energy technology, and reduction in production costs, would not have
been possible.
The new Energy Agreement still provides for wind energy investment subsidies. As the
PSO is phased out over 2017-21, the aim is to lower electricity taxes and finance subsidies
to wind and other renewables from the general budget. The government’s plans to reduce
electricity taxes will encourage more people to abandon fossil-fuelled and wood stove
heating. The Energy Agreement also gradually reduces the electricity tax on electric
heating in a bid to make this option more attractive than fossil fuel and biomass solutions,
while reducing the tax burden.
In the context of overall high energy taxes, exemption of woody biomass from the energy
duty and CO
2
tax has led to a boom in its use in cogeneration of heat and electricity.
However, high reliance on woody biomass is problematic if it leads to unsustainable forest
management, including in third countries (almost half the biomass used is imported). Energy
utilities have put in place a voluntary programme to ensure sustainable use of biomass, which
includes sustainable management of the forests from which the biomass is derived.
As in many other OECD countries, petrol is taxed significantly more heavily than diesel,
which is not justifiable from an environmental perspective. Rather than raising diesel taxes,
Denmark applies an annual countervailing charge on private diesel cars (in addition to the
registration and annual vehicle taxes) in a bid to avoid fuel tourism to neighbouring countries.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0039.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
37
However, the charge does not fully offset the low diesel tax, notably for cars driving
above-average distances per year. Thus, the charge has not eliminated the effect of the diesel
differential. Most trucks, buses and tractors are exempt from the charge or pay a relatively
low rate. Denmark would benefit from phasing out the reduced energy duty for diesel,
especially if it co-ordinated the phase-out with similar moves in neighbouring countries.
End-user prices for diesel are lower in Germany, although higher in Sweden and Norway.
Vehicle ownership is heavily taxed, mainly through the high registration tax. This has led
to a relatively low vehicle ownership rate, but has also discouraged renewal of the car fleet:
passenger cars in Denmark average 8.9 years, above the EU average (EEA, 2018
[27]
). The
registration tax is differentiated by vehicle fuel consumption. The requirements became
more stringent in 2017. The annual vehicle tax is also based on fuel efficiency. Both taxes
have been effective in encouraging purchases of fuel-efficient cars. The gradual
abandonment of exemption of electric vehicles from the registration tax, combined with a
reduction in the rate for all vehicles, led to a drop in electric vehicle sales between 2016
and 2018. Hence it was decided to reinforce the fiscal advantage, at least for 2019 and
2020. Denmark should consider additional measures to support the diffusion of electric
vehicles, such as interoperable charging stations (each of the three main operators has its
own membership system) or free access to bus lanes, as provided for in the climate and air
proposal.
Shifting vehicle taxation from ownership to use would enhance environmental
effectiveness. The government has reduced the registration tax several times in recent years
while the annual vehicle tax has been increased. These changes have not been accompanied
by an increase in the fuel tax or introduction of tolls (other than existing tolls on two bridges
and Eurovignette for vehicles over 12 tonnes). Reducing the tax burden on vehicles can
have a rebound effect, as fleet expansion reverses the emission reductions achieved by
increasingly fuel-efficient cars. Plans in 2012 to introduce a congestion charge in
Copenhagen have been replaced by an air quality protection plan to reduce particle and
NO
X
pollution. For the past ten years, Denmark’s
four largest cities have been
implementing low-emission zones to limit diesel truck traffic in city centres. Only trucks
that meet the Euro 4 (since 2010), Euro 5 (from 2020) and Euro 6 (from 2022) standards
can circulate. Trucks are not subject to registration tax. The current taxation of trucks fails
to internalise the external environmental costs. Previous attempts to internalise such costs
(e.g. through road tolls per kilometre driven on certain roads) have been abandoned because
they were considered very costly. Public spending on rail has increased considerably to
modernise network signalling (DKK 20 billion, EUR 2.7 billion) and electrify the railway
(DKK 7 billion, EUR 0.9 billion). Announced in March 2019, a new political agreement
on infrastructure investment envisages increasing railway investment in coming years to
DKK 51.5 billion (EUR 6.9 billion). In addition, there are plans to buy new electric trains,
which could cost as much as DKK 20 billion (EUR 2.7 billion).
The climate and air proposal plans to reduce GHG emissions in non-EU ETS sectors. Its
ambition is for all new cars from 2030 onwards to be low- or zero-emission vehicles. A
commission for a green transition of all passenger cars has been asked to deliver a strategy
on how this ambition can best be realised while maintaining adequate revenue. Meanwhile,
a partnership between the government and two large agricultural organisations was
established to co-ordinate R&D on GHG mitigation techniques in agriculture and ways to
encourage such techniques, in synergy with techniques and policies for managing nitrates
and ammonia.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0040.png
38
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
However, Denmark taxes NO
X
and SO
X
emissions at rates below the indicative values used
by MEF for cost-benefit analysis. Its landfill and waste incineration taxes have reduced the
amount of waste going to landfill but not the amount for incineration (Section 4).
Nevertheless, it is one of the few countries to tax pesticides, and in 2013 it went from a
retail value tax to one that reflects health and environmental risks (Section 5). It and the
Netherlands were the first countries to regulate nitrogen and phosphorus excess through a
quota system at the farm level.
Denmark and the EU co-finance a Rural Development Programme (RDP), under which
DKK 1.1 billion (EUR 148 million) a year was spent on environment-related agricultural
activities in 2015-19, including green investment in farms, organic farming and protection
of nature and water quality. Payments for protection of the aquatic environment increased
from EUR 30 million to EUR 100 million over the period, while payments for biodiversity
protection remained in the range of EUR 30 million to EUR 50 million. Farms that convert
agricultural peatland to nature areas lose income support under the EU Common
Agricultural Policy. Denmark thus decided to compensate farmers converting peatland into
nature areas, spending DKK 65 million (EUR 8.7 million) annually in 2016-19. Denmark
should evaluate the side effects of the RDP measures on GHG emissions with a view to
seeking co-benefits. For example, conversion of peatlands could reduce some 15% of
agricultural GHG emissions through carbon sequestration (Dubgaard and Ståhl, 2018
[28]
).
Incentives could also be developed to mobilise private investment in carbon sequestration,
for instance through development of voluntary or, in the medium term, mandatory offset
markets. However, current EU policies limit the potential. The EU 2030 Climate and
Energy Framework caps how much member states can use carbon sequestration to meet
their GHG reduction targets for non-EU ETS sectors.
1.3.3. Denmark invests in renewables and is a leader in innovation
Denmark has experienced an investment boom in renewables over the last decade, driven
by strong political leadership and targeted support policies. Support expenditure for
renewables has increased significantly since 2010 due to the growing number of eligible
projects (notably in wind energy) and low electricity market prices. More than half of
electricity now benefits from public support for investment, market price support and tax
breaks (compared to 16% across 26 EU countries), mainly for wind energy and combined
heat and power (IEA, 2017
[4]
). The Energy Agreement provides for a switch to yearly
technology-neutral tenders for wind and solar-photovoltaic projects in 2018 and 2019,
which will be extended to incorporate more technologies in the coming years, reduce public
support and thus improve cost-effectiveness.
Subsidies to biogas plants have reached record levels. However, in early 2019, the political
parties that signed the Energy Agreement decided to stop support to new plants under the
present support programme as of 1 January 2020 and instead introduce a tender system.
Yet biogas does not lack environmental benefits. For example, using manure as a raw
material for biogas instead of spreading it as fertiliser reduces the risk of air pollution
(ammonia) and water pollution (nitrates), and digested manure is a high-quality natural
fertiliser that emits much less nitrous oxide than untreated manure.
Several gas, oil, electricity and district heating companies have voluntarily committed to
an annual energy savings target as part of the 2012-20 Energy Savings Agreement. This
energy efficiency obligation (EEO) is financed by end consumers through their energy bill,
on the “energy pays for energy (saving)” principle. The EEO implements the EU Energy
Efficiency Directive, which aims for 20% energy savings by 2020 at EU level, in terms of
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0041.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
39
primary and final energy consumption. Due to concerns about limited effectiveness and its
impact on consumer tariffs, Denmark decided to have the EEO cease in 2021. A new call
for tenders will take over and energy saving costs will be financed from the general budget.
Public expenditure on transport increased by more than 50% in real terms over 2005-16,
driven by a large increase in rail infrastructure investment (ITF, 2019
[30]
). This reflects a
commitment in the 2009 Transport Agreement to improve public transport, including an
extension of the metro in Copenhagen and financial support to development of light
railways in Aarhus and Odense. In addition, in 2014, the government at the time agreed on
a DKK 28.5 billion (EUR 3.8 billion) investment in new railways, upgrading of existing
railways and electrification of the rail network (IEA, 2017
[4]
). However, the Train Fund,
intended to finance these investments, was later limited in scope. A recent agreement
announced an infrastructure investment of DKK 112 billion (EUR 15 billion) for 2021-30.
Denmark should consider re-evaluating the proposed project pipeline, as it contains
projects that were found to have negative socio-economic effects.
Public spending on environmental protection amounted to about DKK 34 billion
(EUR 4.4 billion) in 2017 (SD, 2018
[31]
), or 1.5% of GDP. This includes expenditure for
waste and wastewater management (72%), protection of biodiversity and landscapes (13%)
and protection of ground and surface water, air pollution control, and public administration
of environmental protection (15%). Most waste and wastewater expenditure is recovered
from households through user fees, which is why household spending as a share of total
final consumption expenditure (1.6% in 2016) is the highest in the EU (Eurostat, 2019
[32]
).
High user fees may reflect high quality of service and full cost recovery, but also service
provision inefficiency. In the waste sector, for example, municipalities are not required to
compete with private companies for waste collection and treatment. In the water sector,
cost-effective behaviour is encouraged in the 2009 Water Sector Act, which sets
requirements with respect to companies’ operating costs based on benchmarking, as well
as a price ceiling. Recap regulation has helped halt water price increases and improve
utilities’ efficiency; tariffs have remained relatively stable since 2009.
Denmark is one of the innovation leaders in Europe, and its patents have the highest level
of specialisation in environmental technology among OECD countries (Figure 9).
Measured per capita, Denmark ranks second for environment-related inventions, after
Korea. The Danish wind industry is recognised as a world leader. The budget for innovation
in clean technology was reduced by half over 2013-16 (IEA, 2019
[33]
). However, Denmark
has committed to increasing it again under Mission Innovation. The Energy Agreement
confirms this commitment, increasing the clean energy innovation budget to
DKK 580 million (EUR 78 million) in 2020 and DKK 1 billion (EUR 134 million) in
2024, bringing it back to 2010 levels. Business R&D spending is highly concentrated in a
few large companies; incentives for R&D should also be made available to start-ups, which
are often more innovative than their larger counterparts.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0042.png
40
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 9. Denmark is a leader in green innovation
Relative advantage in the specialisation of environmental technologies, 2002-05 and 2012-15
2012-15
Index
a
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2002-05
Note:
Patent statistics are taken from the Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT) of the European Patent Office (EPO), with algorithms developed
by the OECD. Data refer to patent applications filed in the inventor's country of residence according to the priority date and apply solely to inventions of high
potential commercial value for which protection has been sought in at least two jurisdictions.
a)
Index of the specialisation in environmental innovation. It is calculated as the ratio of 1) the share of environment-related inventions on all inventions (in all
technologies) at home and 2) the share of environment-related inventions on all inventions (in all technologies) in the world. The index is equal to 1 when the
country's share of
“green”
technology is the same as the world's share; an index above 1 indicates a relative technological advantage, or specialisation, in
environment-related technology compared to the world value.
Source:
OECD (2018),
“
Patents
”
,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001654
1.3.4. Dependence on foreign trade is high, as is foreign aid
Denmark has an open economy with high dependence on foreign trade. The transition to a
low-carbon, circular economy is seen as an economic opportunity to boost exports of
environmental technology and services, notably in energy technology. Clean tech has been
the fastest-growing
export sector in recent years, supported by Denmark’s international
reputation as a front runner in green solutions and its strong framework of export promotion
and assistance for internationalisation of innovation and commercial activities. Between
2003 and 2013, Denmark granted more export credits for renewables-based power
generation projects than any other OECD country, thanks to strong support for wind
energy. The government
aims to double energy technology exports’ value to at least
DKK 140 billion (EUR 19 billion) by 2030.
Environment and climate change are well covered in Denmark’s official development
assistance (ODA). Denmark is one of the few countries that has achieved the UN target of
allocating at least 0.7% of gross national income to ODA. The ODA budget was, however,
reduced in 2015, affecting environment- and climate-related development finance, which
dropped by 44% between 2014 and 2017 in real terms (OECD, 2019
[34]
). At the same time,
the focus has been on enhancing private sector engagement and mobilising private
investment. For example, the Danish Climate Investment Fund has committed to support
projects with Danish commercial participation and has attracted Danish institutional
investors. While this is consistent with global efforts to enhance blended finance, these
activities must not come at the expense of untied ODA.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0043.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41
Recommendations on moving towards green growth
Framework for sustainable development
Continue developing green national accounts, publish them regularly and monitor
their use in decision making; strengthen the statistical underpinning of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development at the national level and ensure that
indicators are as internationally comparable as possible.
Greening the tax system
Reduce the energy taxation gap between households and businesses to equalise
incentives for energy savings and CO
2
reduction; continue efforts to make electric
solutions for heating and mobility more attractive vis-à-vis fossil-fuel-based
options.
Improve alignment of transport taxes with transport-generated externalities; in
particular, ensure that lower taxes on vehicle ownership are matched by an increase
in taxation of vehicle use (e.g. in congested areas).
Investment in a greener economy
Continue to gradually phase out subsidies to renewables technology as it becomes
economically competitive, and ensure that remaining support is technology-
neutral.
Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of and necessity for biogas subsidies; foster
synergies between biogas development policies and nutrient management policies.
Establish mechanisms to mobilise private investment in carbon capture and storage
options, including those arising from peatland rewetting.
Eco-innovation and green markets
Continue support for and ensure continuity of R&D in energy and other
environmentally relevant areas, including climate mitigation options in agriculture
and land use. Strengthen opportunities and incentives for more SMEs to engage in
R&D.
Development co-operation
Continue to use ODA to leverage private investment in projects supporting
sustainable development, ensuring that it does not come at the expense of untied
ODA.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0044.png
42
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.4. Waste, materials management and the circular economy
1.4.1. Recycling and recovery rates are high, but so is municipal waste generation
The Danish economy uses a lot of resources. In 2017, domestic material consumption per
capita was about 24 tonnes, significantly higher than the averages per capita for OECD
Europe (13 tonnes) and the OECD as a whole (16 tonnes). Domestic consumption of
materials was decoupled from economic growth in 2008 and subsequent years, coinciding
with the economic crisis. However, it has risen again since 2014. About half of national
domestic consumption is non-metallic minerals and related to construction. Driven by
large-scale infrastructure projects, construction activity is not expected to slow in coming
years.
The country is not performing well in terms of waste generation. Total waste generation
rose by 30% between 2010 and 2016, to about 20 million tonnes. This increase reflects a
rise in construction and demolition waste, which accounted for about 60% of total waste
produced in 2016. Municipal waste generation has grown faster than private final
consumption, but has been stable since the introduction of a new waste information system
in 2010. In 2017, municipal waste generation per capita reached 785 kg, far exceeding the
OECD average of 524 kg (Figure 10). Since 2007, Denmark has had the highest levels of
municipal waste among OECD countries.
Figure 10. Denmark’s municipal waste generation is the highest in the OECD
Municipal waste generation per capita, 2017
Municipal solid waste per capita
Of which: household waste
kg/capita
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
Source:
OECD (2019), "Municipal waste",
OECD Environmental Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001673
With regard to waste treatment, Denmark has nearly eliminated landfilling. Municipal
waste landfilling fell from 5% to 1% between 2005 and 2017, mainly due to incineration
with energy recovery. In addition, Denmark has achieved impressive results in material
recovery of most waste streams. In 2016, it recovered 87% of construction and demolition
waste, and recycled 73% of industrial waste, 74% of packaging waste and 89% of
end-of-life vehicles. Household waste remains a notable exception. Incineration with
energy recovery treated about half of municipal waste in 2017; the rest was recycled (27%)
or composted (19%). The government estimates that it is on track to reach its goal of
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0045.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
43
increasing the recycling share to 50% by 2022 for seven household waste fractions (plastic,
paper, cardboard, glass, metal, wood, organic waste) considered jointly. Recycling
increased from 22% in 2011 to 31% in 2016, the latest year for which figures are available.
The cost of waste management services increased significantly over the review period and
is now among the highest in OECD Europe. Total public expenditure (current and capital)
on waste management increased by 17% between 2005 and 2016. Waste management costs
have increased faster than municipal waste generation.
1.4.2. The policy and legal framework in waste management is well established
but future organisation is uncertain
Denmark has a strong policy and legal framework for waste and materials management.
The main policies are defined in waste management plans and national strategies, such as
Denmark without Waste: Recycle More, Incinerate Less (2013) and the circular economy
strategy (2018). The main mandatory targets are derived almost exclusively from EU
directives. The national regulatory framework includes a general framework law, the
Environmental Protection Act, and a specific regulation, the Statutory Order on Waste.
These are complemented by regulations on particular waste streams, treatment methods
and specific policy aspects of waste management (waste monitoring, deposit-refund
programmes).
Denmark has a long history of stakeholder platforms and think tanks, with numerous
councils, advisory boards and partnerships involving public authorities. The National
Council on the Bio-economy brings together companies, industry associations and
universities to promote development of new value chains. It is working on bio-based
products, with a focus on plastics, textiles and construction. The advisory board on circular
economy has prepared recommendations for the development of Denmark’s circular
economy strategy. Partnerships involving industry, businesses and public authorities are
set up for a wide range of practical issues related to national strategy implementation
(e.g. on green public procurement, collection of waste electrical and electronic equipment
[WEEE], sustainable construction, waste prevention, reduction of food waste).
Denmark is well equipped to monitor trends in waste and material management through a
robust information system. A waste data system, AffaldsDataSystemet (ADS), launched in
2010, has helped significantly improve data quality with an electronic register for waste
collectors, consignees, exporters and importers. Pilot projects under way on material flow
accounts, with detailed breakdowns by industry sectors and households, will be useful for
enriching information to monitor the transition to a circular economy.
Responsibility for waste management policies is shared between MEF for overall policy
objectives (environmental aspects, promotion of recycling, etc.) and the Ministry of
Climate, Energy and Utilities for economic regulation of the waste management sector and
provision of waste management services.
At the local level, the 98 municipalities have considerable autonomy in waste management
planning. Since they are responsible for waste classification, they are largely free to decide
on the treatment for a high proportion of total waste. As 82 municipalities own or co-own
incineration plants and there is excess treatment capacity, there is a risk that they could be
inclined to direct their waste to their incinerator. Municipal incinerators face no market
incentives to compete on price, environmental performance or efficiency. Tipping fees
range from around EUR 45 to EUR 96 per tonne of waste incinerated. Heavy public
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0046.png
44
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
investment in municipal waste incineration has created dependence on steady deliveries of
municipal waste and limited incentives for municipal investment in recycling and reuse.
In addition, private companies and industrial sectors have complained that waste
classification differs by municipality, resulting in additional administrative burdens for
operators. What one municipality considers waste may not be classified as such in a
neighbouring municipality. Waste classified as recyclable in one municipality may be
considered suitable for incineration in another. This lack of harmonisation makes the
playing field uneven for companies operating across municipal boundaries.
The government’s 2016 Utilities for the Future strategy proposes an in-depth
reorganisation
of the waste management sector, with increased competition in incineration and a larger
private-sector role in waste collection and recycling. However, discussions on practical
implementation are stalled. This uncertainty about the future waste management
framework discourages private and public investment in the circular economy.
1.4.3. A diverse policy mix encourages recycling despite incineration dependency,
but more incentives are needed for waste prevention
Denmark has been a front runner in diverting municipal waste from landfill. It effectively
combines a ban on landfilling of waste that can be incinerated, in effect since 1997, with a
landfill tax, the rate of which has been steadily raised. This policy mix also aims to promote
energy recovery from waste.
Several taxes apply to incineration: a tax based on the amount of heat produced (waste
heating tax), an additional tax based on the energy content, a tax on CO
2
emissions for
non-biodegradable waste, and taxes on NO
X
and SO
X
emissions. Incineration taxes are
designed to ensure a level playing field in the energy sector and internalise air pollution
and carbon externalities; they also provide an incentive to divert waste towards recycling,
although no recent analysis has been made of the impact of incineration taxation on
recycling rates.
Waste taxes were initially designed with a high rate for landfilling, a lower rate for
incineration and no recycling tax, creating an incentive to recycle. The incineration tax was
later redesigned to be closer to energy product taxes. The overall difference between
incineration versus landfill taxation was kept the same so as to continue to encourage
recycling.
The Danish recycling market is characterised by small facilities recycling materials such
as glass, wood, plastic, construction materials, WEEE, metals and textiles. Aside from glass
packaging, however, most of Denmark’s recyclable waste is exported to recycling centres
abroad, including cardboard, plastic, WEEE and treated wood. The fragmentation of
recycling markets in Denmark hampers private investment, as does the lack of municipal
harmonisation on sorting.
Several municipalities apply volume- or weight-based pricing to unsorted residual
household waste. The goal is to create an incentive to reduce waste and recycle more.
However, despite the 2015 waste prevention strategy Denmark without Waste II, additional
incentives are needed in view of the still high level of municipal waste generated. They are
all the more necessary given municipal efforts to fulfil excess incineration capacity, which
is not conducive to encouraging recycling and waste minimisation.
Denmark has several extended producer responsibility programmes, in line with EU
requirements (e.g. for WEEE, end-of-life vehicles, batteries). In most cases it exceeds the
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0047.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
45
EU recycling targets. Collection of WEEE, however, remains a challenge, as in other
OECD countries, as large quantities remain outside the official collection systems.
In the construction sector, a tax on raw material extraction aims to promote rational use of
resources. However, the rate (DKK 5/m
3
) is too low to prevent waste generation. In
addition, many imported raw materials and non-taxed building materials are available.
The weight-based landfill tax and possibility of recovering demolition waste without a
permit (provided it is sorted, unpolluted and treated) favour recovery. Yet reuse of
demolition waste, e.g. using concrete and crushed bricks instead of gravel in road repairs,
often brings little added value. Several knowledge platforms and networks have been
established in an effort to foster higher-quality recovery and selective demolition.
1.4.4. Denmark has reached a new political agreement to move towards a circular
economy
Denmark has long paved the way for circular economy approaches by promoting
eco-design, clean production, eco-innovation and sustainable consumption. An EPA
analysis in 2017 showed that almost 58% of the population pays attention to ecological or
organic labels when they look for environment-friendly products. Fifteen partners from
municipal, regional and central authorities joined forces to promote green public
procurement with purchasing criteria including recyclability and recycled content. This
partnership covers 20% of all Danish public procurement. Green public procurement is
supported by mandatory purchasing rules for timber, energy-using products and road
vehicles.
In addition to product design, which must meet EU requirements, Denmark has introduced
instruments to promote circular business models. These include information tools, such as
dissemination of good practices (for example, a circular business web portal for SMEs),
and financing instruments, e.g. providing support for eco-innovation.
In October 2018, political agreement was reached on a circular economy, with a strong
focus on how business can become its engine and how government can help (e.g. through
one-stop shops, access to finance, digitalisation). The agreement recalls the objectives of
the EU waste directives and notes the commitment of the private sector to increase resource
productivity by 40% from 2014 to 2030 and to increase the recycling rate to 80% of total
waste by 2030, in accordance with recommendations of the advisory board on circular
economy. Large and small businesses are represented on the board, which the government
established in 2016.
Recommendations on waste, material management and the circular economy
Reinforce waste prevention as a key priority
For household waste, expand pricing based on volume or weight
–
as in
pay-as-you-throw programmes
–
while facilitating recycling and composting.
Accelerate R&D on sorting and recycling technology and innovative reusable and
recyclable materials (e.g. biopolymers).
Develop policies to minimise output of single-use products, such as plastics.
Foster competition in incineration and better manage excess capacity
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0048.png
46
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Improve the cost-effectiveness of incineration by reforming municipal waste
management, giving companies flexibility to choose where to incinerate their
combustible waste and making public tenders mandatory for municipal waste
incineration.
Continue efforts to steer the transition to a circular economy
Harmonise criteria for sorting and collecting municipal waste fractions and
consider unifying household and business recyclable waste markets to create
economies of scale and encourage investment in innovation and large-scale
recycling facilities.
Foster circular product design by introducing eco-modulation of fees in extended
producer responsibility systems, based on recyclability, reparability and
reusability.
Continue encouraging circular design by SMEs (e.g. through training and access to
finance) and supporting companies in establishing take-back programmes and
circular business models, e.g. with closed loops for products and materials.
Promote voluntary agreements between business and government on circular
economy, ensuring that the objectives go beyond what is required by law.
Encourage voluntary initiatives and pilot projects to reduce “downcycling”
(recycling that produces material of lesser quality and functionality than the
original material) in the construction, textile and plastic sectors.
Secure financing to develop data for circular economy (e.g. green accounts and
material flow information for industry sectors).
1.5. Chemicals management
As a small country with few chemical producers, Denmark relies heavily on imports to
meet domestic demand for chemicals. Chemical policy is therefore aimed primarily at
ensuring that imported chemicals and imported consumer products containing them are safe
for the environment and health. To this end, Denmark has developed a high level of
expertise in chemical risk assessment, becoming an EU and international standard setter.
The chemical policy framework derives largely from EU legislation, which Denmark has
helped shape through its efforts to improve regulation of chemical use both nationally and
internationally. There is good synergy and co-operation on policy implementation between
public authorities, industry and civil society. Public health and environmental protection
issues are at the heart of Denmark's chemicals management policy, which pays particular
attention to substitution of hazardous chemicals.
1.5.1. Pressures on health and the environment from chemicals are monitored,
yet remain significant
Serious pressures from chemicals on health and the environment persist. A high prevalence
of male reproductive disorders (40% of the male population have reduced semen quality)
has been linked to exposure to certain chemicals, such as endocrine disrupters (EPA,
2013
[35]
). Groundwater contamination by pesticides remains a problem (Section 1).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0049.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
47
Reducing production and use of chemicals harmful to the environment and health is a
strategic objective of the 2014-17 and 2018-21 Chemical Initiatives.
A comprehensive and long-standing monitoring system supports development of chemicals
management policies. It includes the National Monitoring and Assessment Programme for
the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment, with dedicated programmes, e.g. for
groundwater. There is also a pollutant release and transfer register (PRTR), though the
number of installations it covers has decreased considerably since 2010. Danish research
centres working on endocrine disruptor risk monitoring and prevention have developed
biomonitoring programmes; increased public financial support would help fully exploit the
centres’ potential
(Bourguignon, Hutchinson and Slama, 2017
[36]
). Since 2001, the Danish
Consumer Programme has conducted more than 160 surveys to identify chemicals in
consumer products and assess their potential risks.
More generally, allocation of public financial support to chemicals management implies
handling trade-offs between monitoring of effects on health and the environment, on one
hand, and predictive risk evaluation, on the other. The first relates to chemical use while
the second refers to the process of identifying regulatory actions needed before a negative
impact can be detected in humans or the environment.
1.5.2. Exemplary policy and institutional frameworks are coupled with
stakeholder co-operation
Multi-year policy documents
known as Chemical Initiatives set Denmark’s national
strategies, priorities and objectives for industrial chemicals management (Government of
Denmark et al., 2017
[37]
). Negotiations between the government and political parties
outside the government precede the adoption of these policy documents and guarantee a
broad commitment (and resources) for their implementation. A first
ex post
evaluation of
their effects was carried out in 2017 for the 2014-17 initiative (Sørensen et al., 2017
[42]
).
Denmark should consider making such evaluation standard and improve indicators to track
implementation progress. The current occupational health and safety strategy addresses
chemicals marginally, which is surprising given, for instance, the important interface
between EU industrial chemical and occupational health and safety legislation
(Government of Denmark et al., 2011
[39]
). The prominence of industrial chemicals in the
forthcoming strategy on occupational work and safety beyond 2020 should be enhanced.
Denmark has a comprehensive regulatory framework that includes both EU and national
instruments, with national rules sometimes going beyond the scope of EU regulations and
directives (e.g. on provision of information on chemicals and on hazardous chemical
installations).
A process is under way to reduce Danish companies’ administrative burden,
e.g. by avoiding going beyond EU requirements; it has affected the national regulatory
framework by, for example, reducing the scope of reporting for the PRTR and green accounts.
Nevertheless, Denmark has maintained the ambition of the Chemical Initiatives, whose
2018-21 budget is higher than that for 2014-17.
Denmark remains a standard setter in many areas of chemical policy, including systematic
investigation and risk management of chemicals, as evidenced by the high number of
chemicals assessed and the country’s contribution to regulation and restriction of chemicals
at the EU level, among others (Figure 11). It should continue to be proactive in developing
chemicals management policies for the benefit of the Danish population and to influence
European and other international decision makers.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0050.png
48
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 11. Denmark is active in evaluation and risk management of chemicals at the EU level
Selected countries and institutions involved in certain chemicals management activities
Substance evaluation under the Community rolling
action plan, CoRAP, 2012-21
a
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DEU FRA
ITA
BEL DNK SWE NLD ESP AUT
POL
BEL
9%
DNK
10%
Registry of restriction intentions, 2009-19
c
25
SWE
9%
Endocrine disruptor assessement under the REACH
and Biocidal Products Regulations, 2013-19
ITA
AUT 4%
6%
FIN
3%
NOR
1%
DEU
26%
GBR
9%
FRA
23%
Regulatory management option analysis, 2013-19
b
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
20
15
10
5
0
DEU DNK SWE FRA NLD ECHA AUT GBR
IRL
BEL
5
0
ECHA SWE NOR FRA DNK DEU
ITA
NLD POL GBR
a)
The list includes substances that have been evaluated or will be evaluated by 2021 (March 2019). Denmark also co-evaluated one additional substance.
b)
The list includes substances for which a regulatory management option analysis (RMOA) either is under development or has been completed.
c)
Includes co-submissions.
Source:
ECHA (2019), ECHA, Information on chemicals (website), https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001692
For example, the Danish experience with pesticide taxation could inspire many other
OECD countries. In 2013, the taxation in force since 1996 was changed from an ad valorem
tax to a differentiated-weight tax based on the effects on health and the environment
(Holtze, Hyldebrandt-Larsen and Kühl, 2018
[40]
). The new tax has four components: a basic
tax, a health tax (with rates differing by health hazards), a tax on environmental toxicity
(with rates differing by species) and a tax covering persistence, bioaccumulation and
leaching. This design has proved effective: it has reduced the pesticide load (in terms of
sales) by 40% from the 2011 level. To make it more acceptable, revenue is returned to
farmers through a reduction in land taxes.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0051.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
49
MEF and EPA are the main institutions responsible for chemical policy, supported by
several other authorities. Formal and ad hoc inter-institutional co-ordination ensures
stakeholder participation in policy development.
Co-operation of public authorities, industry and other stakeholders has been exemplary and
should be continued. Various forums, such as the Special Government Committee for the
Environment (in which stakeholders are consulted ahead of EU or international discussion
and decisions on chemicals) and the Danish Chemicals Forum, provide a platform for
involvement in chemicals management. The public has access to a vast amount of data and
information on chemicals. Many campaigns have been held to increase awareness of
hazardous chemicals and chemical exposure among the general public and vulnerable
populations (Denmark, 2018
[41]
; Sørensen et al., 2017
[38]
)
The main enforcement authorities are the EPA, the Working Environment Authority and
the Maritime Authority. The enforcement strategy is risk based. Since 2015, the
enforcement activities of the three authorities in relation to the EU REACH regulation have
been aligned with the strategy of the European Chemicals Agency Enforcement Forum.
Enforcement in relation to chemicals in products (including imported articles and
e-commerce) is a priority area for Denmark (Government of Denmark et al., 2017
[37]
), and
a major challenge. In relation to the assessment work, a reduction in budget transferred to
national authorities for their work under the EU REACH regulation is likely following the
decrease in EU REACH registration fees. Testing of emergency response plans of
hazardous installations has long been a problem (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2017
[43]
), but a
new guideline to address it was issued in 2018.
1.5.3. The country has long been active in international forums and the regional
setting
Denmark has always been at the forefront of discussions on chemicals management at the
global and regional levels and has given international co-operation an important place in
national strategic documents. It continues to contribute actively to the work of international
organisations involved in chemicals management, including the OECD, and to
UN
Environment’s Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)
(Denmark, 2018
[41]
). This leading role should be continued, e.g. in post-SAICM
discussions.
Co-operation within the EU has grown in line with the evolution of EU chemical
legislation. Denmark also continues to play its part in the development of chemical policies
in the Nordic, Arctic and Baltic Sea regions (Denmark, 2018
[41]
; Governments of Denmark,
Greenland and the Faroe Islands, 2011
[44]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0052.png
50
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations on chemicals management
Develop innovative tools to help decision making
Further expand risk-based monitoring of chemicals. For instance, enhance
monitoring of legacy pesticides and their metabolites in groundwater and approved
pesticides under the Pesticide Leaching Assessment Programme, and consider
supplementing it with surface-water monitoring (relevant for biocides). Consider
enhanced monitoring of emerging pollutants (e.g. pharmaceuticals in surface water
and groundwater) and heavy metals (e.g. zinc in soil and water).
Strengthen biomonitoring to provide better evidence of people’s actual exposure to
endocrine-disrupting chemicals and possible effects on human health to support
policy making in this area; address trade-offs between monitoring and proactive
identification of chemicals requiring regulatory action, taking into account the
science-policy nexus (e.g. identification of exposure source).
Make assessment of the Chemical Initiatives’
effects a standard procedure and
consider further development such as increasing the use of indicators to track
implementation progress.
Make better use of PRTR data (e.g. for tracking trends in releases or benchmarking
among companies).
Implement and influence EU legislation
Continue identifying national priority areas for strengthened chemicals
management and performing an active role at the EU level in identifying chemicals
of concern (including the need for substitutes) and assessment of chemicals,
including predictive risk assessment (e.g. in relation to endocrine-disrupting
chemicals and quantitative structure-activity relationships) and risk management.
Assess implications of the coming reduction in REACH registration fees on
activities that the fees are intended to support in Denmark.
Strengthen efforts at the national and international levels on compliance assurance
for high-risk chemicals in products (including imports and e-commerce), for
instance through enhanced co-operation with customs.
Assess the effectiveness of new measures to strengthen emergency response for the
most hazardous facilities (covered by the EU Seveso III Directive).
Notes
The Kingdom of Denmark consists of Denmark and the territories of the Faroe Islands and
Greenland.
Unless otherwise specified, “Denmark” refers to continental Denmark.
1
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0053.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
51
References
Amec Foster Wheeler (2017),
Analysis and Summary of Member States’ Reports on the
Implementation of Directive 96/82/EC on the Control of Major Accident Hazards Involving
Dangerous Substances,
Amec Foster Wheeler, London,
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/26c9aa63-523e-11e7-a5ca-
01aa75ed71a1
(accessed 27 August 2018).
Bourguignon, J., T. Hutchinson and R. Slama (2017),
External Evaluation of the Danish Centre
for Endocrine Disrupting Substances (CeHoS),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
www.cend.dk/files/Report-on-external-evaluation-of-CEHOS-2008-2017.pdf
(accessed
5 July 2018).
Danish Society for Nature Conservation and Danish Agriculture & Food Council (2019),
Fælles
løsninger: for natur og landbrug
(Common solutions: For nature and agriculture), Danish
Society for Nature Conservation, Copenhagen,
www.dn.dk/nyheder/dn-og-l-f-vil-sikre-100-
000-hektar-ny-natur
(accessed 19 February 2019).
Denmark (2018),
Country submission
(unpublished).
Dubgaard, A. and L.
Ståhl (2018), “Omkostninger ved virkemidler til reduktion af landbrugets
drivhusgasemissioner: Opgjort i relation til EU’s 2030-målsætning
for det ikke-kvotebelagte
område (Costs of instruments for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions: Calculated in
relation to the EU’s 2030 target for the non-quota-subject area)”, IFRO Rapport
271, Institute
of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg,
https://static-
curis.ku.dk/portal/files/204121155/IFRO_Rapport_271.pdf.
EEA (2018),
“Historical emissions”,
EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Data Viewer,
European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen,
www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/emissions-
trading-viewer-1
(accessed 13 June 2018).
EEA (2018),
Average Age of the Vehicle Fleet,
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen,
www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/average-age-of-the-vehicle-fleet/average-age-of-
the-vehicle-8
(accessed 25 October 2018).
Ellermann, T. et al. (2018),
The Danish Air Quality Monitoring Programme. Annual Summary for
2017,
Aarhus University, Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus,
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR281.pdf
(accessed 15 March 2019).
EPA (2013),
Phthalate Strategy,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2013/06/978-87-93026-22-3.pdf
(accessed 27 June 2018).
EPA (2005),
Vejledning om håndhævelse af Miljøbeskyttelsesloven
(Guidance on Enforcement of
the Environmental Protection Act), Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
www2.mst.dk/udgiv/Publikationer/2005/87-7614-833-5/pdf/87-7614-834-3.pdf
(accessed
19 February 2019).
[43]
[36]
[21]
[41]
[28]
[8]
[27]
[12]
[35]
[23]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0054.png
52
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EPA (n.d.),
Arealopgørelse over § 3 natur
(Nature area under Section 3), Environmental
Protection Agency, Odense,
https://mst.dk/natur-vand/natur/national-naturbeskyttelse/3-
beskyttede-naturtyper/arealopgoerelse
(accessed 17 April 2019).
Eurostat (2019), “Final
consumption expenditure on environmental protection services by
institutional sector”,
Environmental expenditure
(database),
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Environmental_protection_expenditure_accounts
(accessed
15 March 2019).
Eurostat (2019),
Greenhouse gas emissions in ESD sectors,
website,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_3
5.
GEUS (2019),
Grundvandsovervågning 1989-2017
(Groundwater monitoring 1989-2017),
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen,
www.geus.dk/media/20715/grundvand_1989-2017.pdf
(accessed 6 March 2019).
Government of Denmark et al. (2018),
Energy Agreement of 29 June 2018,
https://en.efkm.dk/media/12307/energy-agreement-2018.pdf
(accessed 10 October 2018).
Government of Denmark et al. (2017),
Political Agreement on New Joint Chemicals Initiatives
2018-21,
http://mst.dk/media/143466/kemiindsats-engelsk.pdf
(accessed 6 July 2018).
Government of Denmark et al. (2011),
A Strategy for Working Environment Efforts up to 2020,
http://engelsk.arbejdstilsynet.dk/~/media/AT/at/12-English/Rapporter/2020%20engelskpdf.pdf
(accessed 18 September 2018).
Governments of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands (2011),
Kingdom of Denmark:
Strategy for the Arctic 2011–2020,
http://library.arcticportal.org/1890/1/denmark.pdf
(accessed
10 September 2018).
Hartvigsen,
M. (2014), “Land Consolidation and Land Banking in Denmark: Tradition, Multi-
purpose and Perspectives”,
Danish Journal of Geoinformatics and Land Management,
Vol. 122, No. 47,
https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.tka.v122i47.987
(accessed 22 March 2019).
Holtze, M., M. Hyldebrandt-Larsen and H. Kühl (2018),
Evaluering af den differentierede
pesticidafgift
(Evaluation of the differentiated pesticide tax), Environmental Protection Agency,
Odense,
www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2018/05/978-87-93710-28-3.pdf
(accessed
10 July 2018).
IEA (2019), “RD&D Budget”,
IEA Energy Technology RD&D Statistics
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00488-en
(accessed 13 March 2019).
IEA (2018),
IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances
(database),
www.iea.org/statistics.
IEA (2017),
Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Denmark 2017 Review,
IEA/OECD Publishing,
Paris,
www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/EnergyPoliciesofIEACountriesDenmark
2017Review.pdf
(accessed 11 April 2018).
[14]
[32]
[10]
[16]
[7]
[37]
[39]
[44]
[20]
[40]
[33]
[3]
[4]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0055.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
53
[30]
ITF (2019), “Transport infrastructure investment and maintenance”,
ITF Transport Statistics
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g55573-en
(accessed 15 March 2019).
Levin, G. (2016),
Geografiske Analyser af § 3-registrerede Arealer
(Geographical analyzes of
Section 3 areas), Aarhus University, Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus,
https://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR213.pdf
(accessed 18 March 2019).
Mazur,
E. (2011), “Environmental Enforcement in Decentralised Governance Systems: Toward a
Nationwide Level Playing Field”,
OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 34,
OECD
Publishing, Paris.
MEF (2019),
Nationalt program for reduktion af luftforurening
(National Air Pollution Control
Programme), Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
https://prodstoragehoeringspo.blob.core.windows.net/4cacff15-b1cf-46cf-ae53-
9ad03692f7ca/Udkast%20til%20NEC%20program-4.docx.pdf
(accessed 13 March 2019).
MEF (2015),
Aftale om Fødevare- og landbrugspakke
(Agreement on Food and Agriculture),
Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
http://mfvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/FVM.dk/Dokumenter/Landbrug/Indsatser/Foedevare-
_og_landbrugspakke/Aftale_om_foedevare-_og_landbrugspakken.pdf
(accessed 24 May 2018).
Nielsen, O. et al. (2019),
Denmark’s National Inventory Report 2019: Emission Inventories 1990-
2017
–
Submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol,
Aarhus University, Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus,
https://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR272.pdf
(accessed 17 April 2019).
Nielsen, O. et al. (2018),
Denmark’s National Inventory Report 2018: Emission Inventories
1990-
2016
–
Submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol,
Aarhus University, Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus,
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR272.pdf
(accessed 11 May 2018).
OECD (2019),
“Creditor Reporting System:
Aid activities targeting global environmental
objectives”,
OECD International Development Statistics
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9c778247-en
(accessed 13 March 2019).
OECD (2019), “Income distribution”,
OECD Social and Welfare Statistics
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00654-en
(accessed 19 April 2019).
OECD (2018),
Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd.org/environment/cost-benefit-analysis-and-the-
environment-9789264085169-en.htm
(accessed 17 January 2019).
OECD (2018),
Effective Carbon Rates 2018: Pricing Carbon Emissions Through Taxes and
Emissions Trading,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264305304-en.
OECD (2018),
Flexibility Mechanisms in Environmental Regulations: Their Use and Impacts,
paper presented to the Working Party on Integrating Environmental and Economic Policies, 14-
15 November, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[45]
[24]
[11]
[15]
[6]
[9]
[34]
[2]
[19]
[5]
[17]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0056.png
54
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OECD (2018), “Green
Growth Indicators: Environmental dimension of quality of life
–
Welfare
costs from exposure to PM 2.5, GDP equivalent”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
OECD (2018),
OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en
(accessed 30 January 2019).
OECD (2017),
OECD Better Life Index: How’s Life?
website,
www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org
(accessed 4 May 2018).
OECD (2009),
Ensuring Environmental Compliance: Trends and Good Practices,
OECD
Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2003),
Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy,
OECD Publishing, Paris.
Röttgers, D., A. Tandon and C.
Kaminker (2018), “OECD Progress Update on Approaches to
Mobilising Institutional Investment for Sustainable Infrastructure: Background paper to the
G20 Sustainable Finance Study Group”,
OECD Environment Working Papers,
No. 138, OECD
Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/45426991-en.
Sørensen, M. et al. (2017),
Effect Assessment of the Chemicals Initiatives 2014-2017,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2017/11/978-87-
93614-34-5.pdf
(accessed 9 July 2018).
Sørensen, P. et al. (2017),
Transition Towards 2030: Building Blocks for a Low-Carbon Society,
https://klimaraadet.dk/en/rapporter/transition-towards-2030
(accessed 1 June 2018).
SD (2018),
Offentlig miljøbeskyttelse 2016 og 2017
(Public environmental protection 2016 and
2017), Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen,
www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/nyt/GetPdf.aspx?cid=28212
(accessed 19 March 2019).
[13]
[18]
[1]
[25]
[26]
[22]
[42]
[38]
[31]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0057.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
55
Annex 1.A. Actions taken to implement recommendations from the 2007
OECD Environmental Performance Review of Denmark
Actions taken
Environmental performance: Trends and recent developments
Continue to improve energy efficiency (e.g. transport and Political agreements from 2012 and 2016 oblige grid companies (including electricity,
building sectors, public sector, distribution companies). district heating and gas distribution companies), which provide energy directly to retail
Review energy taxation to establish appropriate price consumers, to report a certain amount of energy savings annually. Other actions taken
to improve energy efficiency include a Knowledge Centre for Energy Savings in
signals.
Buildings, more stringent requirements for energy efficiency in government buildings
and a requirement for energy consumption in new construction to be reduced by 75%
in 2020 compared with 2006 figures. An evaluation of energy taxation and energy
subsidies (feed-in premiums, feed-in tariffs, contracts for difference to off-shore wind
farms, fixed yearly subsidies and one-off investment support) was performed, and as a
result, it was decided to lower electricity taxation to make electric heating and electric
cars more attractive vis-à-vis fossil-fuel-based solutions. Electricity taxes for industry
were reduced, widening the gaps in energy prices across users.
Ensure that cost-effective domestic measures will Covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the energy sector delivered
contribute to meet the Kyoto Protocol’s greenhouse gas
most domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. Measures have also been taken for
emission reduction target, especially in sectors not covered sectors outside the EU ETS. In particular, fuel efficiency has been added as a criterion
by the EU Emission Trading Scheme. Accelerate for setting the level of the vehicle registration tax and the annual vehicle tax; public
financial support has been provided for the conversion of farmed peatland into natural
afforestation.
areas, biological coverage of old landfills and afforestation.
In 2019, the Environmental Economic Council assessed disparities in exposure to PM
2,5
Assess and reduce disparities in exposure to pollution.
and NO
2
pollution. It found that income inequality played a limited role in explaining
disparities in exposure to air pollution in Denmark.
Continue to reduce emissions of NO
x
and VOCs from Taxes on NO
X
were introduced on road fuels (DKK 5.2 per kg in 2019) and for vehicles
mobile sources, including through the use of economic without a particle filter, via the annual vehicle tax (DKK 1 000 in 2019). The
instruments in the most cost-effective way.
countervailing charge on diesel vehicles was raised.
Strengthen the management of particulate matter, including Emission standards for new residential wood-burning stoves were introduced in 2008.
the monitoring of PM
10
and PM
2,5
concentrations and In 2015, it was decided to strengthen the emission values. In 2019, Denmark introduced
emissions. Develop emission standards for residential a scrapping programme for wood-burning stoves produced before 1995. The
wood burning stoves. Implement and enforce low emission Environmental Protection Agency has conducted information campaigns on proper
wood burning. The eco-innovation programme supports R&D for technologies that
zones in cities.
reduce air pollution from wood stoves and boilers. Low-emission zones were introduced
in 2010 in the four largest cities. In 2019, the rules were tightened, so that diesel trucks,
buses and vans will gradually be required to either meet Euro VI emission standards or
have a particle filter to circulate in low-emission zones.
Continue to encourage the provision of economically and It was decided to build tram networks in Copenhagen, Aarhus and Odense. The Bicycle
environmentally attractive public transport systems in urban Strategy 2007 was implemented, and a new strategy was adopted in 2014. New
areas. Strengthen transport demand management to limit international regulations and enhanced national surveillance have reduced sulphur air
passenger car use in congested areas. Implement the pollution caused by international shipping. Denmark passed legislation to make public
Bicycle Strategy 2007. Address air pollutant emissions from certain violations of the sulphur act.
ships.
Integrate transport and environmental policies. Set A number of transport enterprises and municipalities set voluntary short-term CO
2
quantitative targets, further use demand-side management, reduction targets as part of a green certification programme. Since 2012, the mandate
and facilitate co-operation among state and territorial to blend biofuels in road fuels has been raised to 5.75%. In 2018, Denmark expressed
an intention to phase out sales of fossil fuel cars by 2030 and plug-in hybrid cars by
authorities and concerned parties.
2035.
Develop a sustainable transport plan as a follow-up to the Denmark launched a sustainable transport plan in 2008. The following year, a green
transport policy agreement was concluded, allocating DKK 57 billion to public transport
forthcoming national sustainable development strategy.
investment.
Speed up identification of areas at high risk of nutrient and Groundwater mapping identified 7 000 km
2
of nitrate- and pesticide-sensitive areas. A
pesticide contamination and take measures to protect ban on spraying pesticides, fertilising and cultivating soils in a 25-meter zone around
them, including establishing groundwater protection zones, drinking water boreholes has been introduced; in 2019, Denmark aimed to extend the
10-metre buffer zones along rivers, and buffer zones protection zone. Buffer zones of 9 meters along rivers and lakes were removed in 2015
and replaced by nitrogen regulation targeting coastal waters threatened with
around lakes.
eutrophication. The first part of targeted regulation, targeted catch crops, was
introduced in 2017. Differentiation of farmers’ nitrogen quotas began
in 2019.
Recommendations
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0058.png
56
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Reinforce the interface between water management and
nature protection, in the wake of local government reform
and pursuant to Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment III
objectives. In particular, speed up creation of new wetlands
and define ecological quality objectives for rivers.
Move toward river basin management according to the new
water districts. In particular, prepare water plans as
required by the EU Water Framework Directive.
Establish national parks in priority conservation areas and
clarify their role in relation to other protected areas.
Complete management plans for all protected areas
including the Natura 2000 areas, incorporating biodiversity
objectives and ecological integrity indicators, and establish
a network of corridors linking them. Develop and adopt
ecosystem quality objectives for terrestrial and aquatic
habitats, including as part of implementation of the
EU Habitats and Water Framework Directives.
Develop time-bound objectives for the national nature and
biodiversity conservation action plan, including with regard
to integration of biodiversity considerations in agriculture,
fisheries and other sectoral policies. Develop and
implement a comprehensive planning system, with a sea
use planning component and with cumulative impact
assessment and climate change impact scenarios.
Expand restoration projects for major ecosystems,
including major rivers and future national parks, to re-
establish their capacity to produce ecological services and
to support biodiversity.
Include the public health benefits of access to nature and
outdoor recreation as an integral part of national
environment and health action plans.
Place higher priority on marine protection, including marine
ecosystem protection. Take further steps to reduce the
discharge of toxic substances and nutrients. Ensure that
Denmark’s international commitments are achieved.
Pursue efforts towards the sustainable management of
commercial fisheries and aquaculture.
Aquatic Action Plans and subsequent River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) have
led to the establishment of new wetlands. RBMPs set ecological quality objectives for
all rivers, lakes and coastal waters. In 2018, a Multifunctional Land Redistribution Fund
was established to foster the protection of nature and water on farmland.
Denmark prepared and implemented RBMPs for 2009-15 and 2015-21.
Five national parks were established by assignment agreements, managed at the local
level. They impose regulation on specific activities by designating various planning
zones. Natura 2000 plans for 2010-15 and 2016-21 were adopted, including detailed
biodiversity objectives. All 252 Natura 2000 areas have their own management plan. A
basis for a network of biodiversity corridors was established with the Green Map of
Denmark. Quality objectives for terrestrial and aquatic habitats were developed in the
Natura 2000 Plans and the RBMPs.
The headline objective of Denmark’s 2014 biodiversity plan was to stop biodiversity loss
by 2020.According to Denmark’s sixth report to the Convention
on Biological Diversity
in 2019, ambitious new goals for nature should guide the development of a new
National Strategy for Biodiversity. Involving farmers in biodiversity promotion is a goal
of both the 2014 biodiversity strategy and the 2016 Nature Package. Denmark regulates
reef fisheries in Natura 2000 areas. A law on maritime spatial planning integrating
environmental protection with planning for economic activities at sea, such as offshore
energy, fisheries and raw material extraction, entered into force in 2016.
Action was taken to restore watercourses, including by re-establishing naturally
meandering courses; EUR 85 million was allocated to watercourse restoration in the
RBMP for 2015-21.
Public health benefits of access to nature and outdoor recreation were included in plans
on physical activity and mental health prepared by the Ministry of Health in 2012, and
in the political agreement on a Nature Package in 2016.
Denmark designated more Natura 2000 areas at sea. The Danish offshore oil and gas
industry reduced releases of oil and chemicals to the North Sea. Nitrogen discharges
to coastal waters were reduced by around 10% from 2005-07 to 2013-15, in accordance
with Denmark's commitments under the Convention on the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Baltic Sea Area.
The sustainability of commercial fisheries improved, but some fish stocks are still
overexploited, especially in the Baltic Sea. More than 80% of Danish fishing is certified
by the Marine Stewardship Council. A 2014-20 aquaculture strategy aims at making the
sector more sustainable.
Denmark worked actively for appropriate implementation of multilateral environmental
agreements at national, EU and international level. It contributed financially to the
multilateral fund of the Montreal Protocol and to the Basel Convention Trust Fund. In
2019, Denmark issued a new statutory order on the national implementation of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES).
Denmark ratified a number of international agreements, e.g. the Minamata Convention
(mercury), the Hong Kong Convention (ship recycling), the Nagoya Protocol (genetic
resources) to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Gothenburg Protocol
(acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone) to the Convention on Long-
Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
Continue efforts to ensure appropriate implementation of
multilateral environmental agreements involving trade
(ozone-depleting substances, hazardous substances,
chemicals, endangered species).
Accelerate the ratification of international environmental
agreements already signed.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0059.png
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
57
Environmental governance and management
Further develop the environmental strategic and planning The national sustainable development strategy (2014) includes seven specific and
framework with specific environmental quality objectives as time-bound environmental targets. The 2017 Action Plan on the Implementation of the
well as targets and deadlines, in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals includes ten environmental targets; those of a general
sustainable development strategy. Pursue efforts to use nature still include specific indicators. Denmark uses cost-benefit and
cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses in policy cost-effectiveness analysis extensively. Regulatory impact assessment has to cover
setting and implementation.
environmental impacts.
Continue to make use of cost-benefit analysis and Cost-benefit analysis was used actively, e.g. when deciding to tighten regulations on
economic valuation in environmental health policy making; low-emission zones in cities to limit air pollution. The average adult value of statistical
life was raised from EUR 2.5 million to EUR 4.1 million, which is high by OECD
and derive relevant priorities for action.
standards.
Set up capacity building mechanisms to help municipalities The national level helped build capacity and foster exchange of expertise among
carry out new environmental management tasks resulting municipalities through a number of task forces dedicated to various environmental
from the territorial government reform. Foster exchange of management tasks.
expertise among municipalities.
Prioritise monitoring of national environmental action plans. Denmark prioritised monitoring of national environmental action plans in its National
Monitoring and Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment
(NOVANA).
Carry out a comprehensive assessment of the economic Comprehensive cost-effectiveness assessments of pollution abatement measures in
efficiency and environmental effectiveness of water the agriculture, municipal and industrial sectors were carried out in preparation of the
pollution abatement measures in different sectors Aquatic Actions Plans and RBMPs.
(municipal, industrial, agricultural), in the context of
implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive.
Accelerate the rate of environmental certification of fish A 2016 Growth Plan for Aquaculture seeks to modernise the fish farm sector with
incentives to change to sustainable production methods. In 2019, 26 of the 166 fish
farms.
farms were certified by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.
Continue to promote environmental democracy through The 2017 amendment to the Environmental Information Act (2000), which transposes
access to environmental information, public participation, the Aarhus Convention, aims to improve access to environmental information through
and access to courts for citizens and associations (e.g. better information on the state of the environment (the next quadrennial report on the
state of the environment is planned for 2019). Civil society stakeholders are actively
environmental NGOs).
involved in policy making, e.g. through advisory boards, including in the preparation of
primary legislation. Processing times for complaints against decisions of public
authorities were lowered.
Towards green growth
Continue to rely on and, where relevant, expand the use of A number of environmental taxes were introduced or adjusted to better reflect
environmental taxes to internalise externalities. Adjust tax externalities. In particular, Denmark has increased and harmonised the CO
2
tax
rates for inflation. Reduce tax concessions and the (EUR 23/t CO
2
in 2018 for most users), introduced a NO
X
tax in 2010 and reformed the
pesticide tax in 2013 to align it more closely on environmental and health externalities.
associated administrative cost of their implementation.
The energy duty and taxes on NO
X
, CO
2
and SO
X
were adjusted annually to a consumer
price index. Industry continues to enjoy sizeable environmental tax concessions.
Adopt a national action plan for promoting environmental In 2009, Denmark adopted an action plan to promote environmental technology. Steps
technology based on appropriate economic analysis, and have been taken in development and demonstration, export promotion, sector-specific
implement it.
growth plans and industry partnerships on air and water technologies.
Consider the further use of economic instruments to Direct payments to farmers to reduce diffuse water pollution as part of the Rural
address diffuse pollution. Target fiscal incentives to Development Programme (RDP) increased from EUR 27 million in 2015 to
EUR 82 million in 2019. A targeted nitrogen regulation, initiated in 2017, allows
environmental outcomes and improve cost-effectiveness.
geographically differentiated regulation (depending on the risk of eutrophication in
downstream coastal waters) to improve cost-effectiveness.
Increase the efficiency of public water supply and waste Water utilities have improved their efficiency since the introduction of tariff regulation
water management, in particular by exploiting economies (the introduction of a ceiling for user charges) in 2017. The amendment of the Water
of scale in the wake of local government reform and Sector Act (2009) in 2017 also set operating costs requirements based on
pursuant to the proposed water reform objectives.
benchmarking.
Adjust the levels of economic incentives and revise the land Under the RDP, Denmark provides financial support to landowners for the reduction of
use legal framework, so as to enhance biodiversity water pollution and, to a lesser extent, for the protection of biodiversity. Support rates
conservation, production of ecological services (e.g. should not exceed costs and income foregone. The Green Map of Denmark was
reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus leaching) and introduced in 2017 to strengthen biodiversity protection in municipal spatial planning.
groundwater protection (e.g. in priority contaminated areas)
on private land.
Continue to examine the existing support schemes from the Financial support for renewable energy was subject to a major evaluation exercise in
point of view of their environmental effectiveness and order to propose support levels better aligned with electricity market prices. In 2014,
the EU Agricultural Fund for Rural Development assessed the Danish RDP support
economic efficiency.
programmes in terms of environmental effectiveness. Denmark assessed the
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0060.png
58
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
cost-effectiveness of environmental technologies in the framework of the Energy
Technology Development and Demonstration Programme and the Danish
Eco-innovation Programme.
Denmark lowered its high vehicle registration tax, and strengthened requirements for
discounts for fuel-efficient vehicles. In 2012, the project to introduce a congestion
charge in Copenhagen was abandoned and replaced by a political agreement to lower
the price of public transport by EUR 67 million and to invest an additional
EUR 67 million yearly in public transport. The excise tax on diesel fuel used as road
fuel continues to be lower than the excise duty on gasoline. Denmark considers this
differential tax rate to be a tax expenditure. A compensatory fee (countervailing charge)
has been applied to certain diesel vehicles since 2017.
Denmark reduced official development assistance (ODA) going to environmental
projects as part of a general reduction of ODA towards the United Nations target of
0.7% of GNI. At the same time, it has strengthened technical co-operation among
governments and increased private sector participation to mobilise private investment
for sustainable development projects through the Investment Fund for Developing
Countries (established in 1967).
Review existing transport taxes with a view to restructuring
them in a more environmentally friendly way (e.g. taxing
both car use and ownership; removing the tax break for
commuting). Consider the introduction of road pricing as a
means to halt congestion.
Continue to play an exemplary role in international
environmental protection including through development
aid. Continue to contribute to sustainable development and
capacity building in developing countries through
environmental technology exports and other measures
(e.g. support for environmental education and awareness
programmes).
Waste, materials management and the circular economy
Step up efforts to promote more sustainable consumption Denmark has increased the recycling of household waste and aims to bring added
patterns (e.g. concerning waste, transportation, land use) value to construction waste (e.g. reusing bricks in construction rather than crushing
by adopting appropriate regulatory and economic them for use as road materials). Despite some initiatives on waste prevention, in
particular related to food waste, municipal waste generation per capita is still the highest
instruments, and by focusing on demand management.
in the OECD. Denmark supports the transition to a circular economy through green
public procurement, eco-labelling and facilitating SME access to information,
demonstration project grants and blended finance. The continuation of the long-
established
“Five Finger Plan” contributes to
the coherence of urban development and
urban transport planning in the Copenhagen area.
Continue efforts towards appropriate dismantling of Danish Denmark has supported international efforts to promote ship dismantling by ratifying
the Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships
end-of-life ships.
(which has yet to enter into force) and implementing Regulation 1257/2013 of the EU
on ship recycling.
Chemicals management
Set up additional targets concerning environmental factors In 2013 Denmark set a target of reducing the pesticide load by 40% from the 2011 level
related to health with related indicators. Continue to in terms of sales by 2015. A 2016 evaluation showed that the target had been met since
understand better through research and studies the 2014. Support for research on the health impacts of environmental factors was
potential links between environmental pollution and chronic continued, e.g. under the Centre for Endocrine Disrupting Substances, the National
illness or child health issues. Take action where there is Allergy Research Centre and via biomonitoring. The results were used to support
further action under the EU Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization
knowledge (e.g. particulate pollution).
and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Agreements called Chemical Initiatives are
important policy frameworks, targeting children and other vulnerable groups. For
instance an evaluation was performed of total exposure of children to selected
substances that are hormone disruptive, suspected hormone disruptive or neurotoxic.
Among other things, Danish research led to EU-level restrictions on the use of
phthalates in 2018.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0061.png
I. PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
59
Part I. Progress towards sustainable development
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0063.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
61
Chapter 1. Environmental performance: Trends and recent developments
Denmark has made visible progress in decoupling environmental pressures from economic
activity. Yet the country is still facing a number of environmental pressures that create
challenges on its path towards green growth and sustainable development. This chapter
provides a snapshot of key environmental trends in Denmark. It presents the main economic
and social developments and the country’s progress in making the transition to an
energy-efficient, low-carbon and resource-efficient economy and in managing the natural
asset base. The chapter also summarises key policy developments in specific areas,
including energy, climate, air, biodiversity and water.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The
use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli
settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0064.png
62
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
1.1. Introduction
Denmark
1
has a small open economy with gross domestic product (GDP) per capita well
above the OECD average and income inequality among the lowest in the OECD. Its
population enjoys a very high living standard and life satisfaction.
On the environmental front, Denmark decoupled greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
economic growth over the review period (since 2005). It also made impressive progress
towards decarbonising its energy sector: its energy intensity and carbon intensity are among
the lowest for any International Energy Agency country. Denmark is a top performer in the
share of wind power in electricity generation (IEA, 2017
[1]
).
Yet it still faces a number of environmental pressures. Danish citizens remain exposed to
levels of fine particulate matter (PM
2.5
) above World Health Organization standards and
the country is struggling to meet its target of reducing ammonia emissions under
EU legislation. Biodiversity is strained in many regions, reflecting a large number of
red-listed species, a poor state of conservation of natural habitats and low connectivity of
ecosystems. Water quality needs to be improved, especially with regard to the presence of
pesticides in groundwater and the ecological status of rivers, lakes and coastal waters.
This chapter provides an overview of Denmark’s main environmental achievements and
challenges on its path towards green growth and sustainable development. Drawing on
indicators from national and international sources, it reviews progress on national policy
goals and on international commitments and targets, focusing on the period since 2005. To
the extent possible, it compares the state of the environment and key environmental trends
with those of other OECD countries. The chapter sketches out major policy developments
in environmental sectors including air, climate, biodiversity and water.
1.1.1. Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals
Denmark co-chaired the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Summit that adopted the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. In 2017, the Danish government approved an action
plan that translates the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into five priority areas:
prosperity, people, planet, peace and partnerships. The action plan contains national targets
and indicators to monitor progress in achieving them. A first annual progress report was
published in 2018 and a more comprehensive status report will be prepared every four years
(MF, 2017
[2]
).
Relative to the OECD average, Denmark outperforms on most SDGs. It has already met 26
of the 94 SDG targets for which indicators are available, and the distance to target is small
for most others (OECD, 2018
[3]
). However, as in other Nordic countries, key challenges on
the road to 2030 are linked to the greening of agricultural systems, material consumption
levels and ecosystem conservation (Larsen and Alslund-Lanthén, 2017
[4]
).
1.2. Main economic and social developments
1.2.1. Economic performance
Denmark has a rich and open economy. It ranks eighth among OECD countries for GDP
per capita and maintains a large trade surplus (MEAI, 2018
[5]
). However, over 2005-18,
GDP growth was below the OECD average (Figure 1.1) and the GDP per capita gap fell
from 26% to 18% (OECD, 2018
[6]
). GDP per capita returned to pre-2008 economic crisis
levels only in 2016 (OECD, 2019
[7]
). GDP growth is projected to decelerate to 1.9% in
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0065.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
63
2019 and 1.6% in 2020. In terms of financial balance, Denmark has not returned to
pre-crisis conditions (5% of GDP surplus) but is gradually returning to equilibrium,
although a slight deficit is expected in 2020 and 2021 (OECD, 2018
[8]
). The 2019 OECD
Economic Survey points to the need to boost productivity growth, adapt to the challenges
posed by new technology and improve the efficiency of the public sector (OECD, 2019
[7]
).
Figure 1.1. GDP per capita remains high, but GDP growth lags behind the OECD level
Trends in real GDP, 2005-18
Denmark
2005=100
130
120
110
100
90
0
80
OECD
EU-28
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source:
OECD (2019),
OECD National Accounts Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001711
1.2.2. Structure of the economy and employment
The economy is dominated by the service sector, which accounted for three-quarters of
value added in 2017, above the OECD average; industry accounted for most of the rest
(Figure 1.2). The shares of imports and exports of goods and services in GDP, respectively
49% and 55%, are in line with the OECD averages. Machinery and transport equipment is
the main export sector, followed by chemicals and related products (including
pharmaceuticals) and the food and live animal sectors. The main recipients of Danish
products are Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom (OECD, 2019
[7]
).
General government expenditure reached about 51% of GDP in 2017, the fourth highest
share in the OECD after France, Finland and Belgium (OECD, 2019
[9]
). Social spending is
among the highest in the OECD (OECD, 2018
[10]
). Danes enjoy working hours below the
OECD average, and income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) remains
among the lowest in the OECD (OECD, 2019
[11]
; OECD, 2017
[12]
).
The employment rate was high at 74.2% in 2017, compared with the OECD average of
67.8%. Sustained employment growth in the private sector brought the unemployment rate
down to 5.7% in 2017; the rate is expected to fall to 4.9% in 2020 (OECD, 2019
[7]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0066.png
64
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Figure 1.2.
Services dominate the economy and agriculture’s contribution to exports exceeds
the OECD average
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001730
1.2.3. Population, well-being and quality of life
Over 2005-18, the population increased little but steadily from 5.4 million to almost
5.8 million (SD, 2018
[13]
). In 2015, there were on average 33 people of retirement age (aged
65 and over) per 100 working-age people (aged 20 to 64), compared to the OECD average
of 28%. By 2050, the ratio is expected to reach 45% in Denmark (compared to 53% in the
OECD), leading to increased public spending on health, long-term care and pensions
(OECD, 2019
[14]
). Denmark is addressing this challenge in its pension system and public
finances by, for instance, linking retirement age to life expectancy (OECD, 2019
[7]
).
The health care system is highly accessible (unmet need for medical care due to financial
or geographic reasons is low) and appears to allocate and use its resources efficiently, e.g.
reductions in the number of acute-care beds were offset by non-acute-care sectors
(OECD/EOHSP, 2017
[15]
). Cancer is one of the biggest challenges. Denmark has the fourth
highest mortality rate in the EU, with cancer accounting for 29% of all deaths among
women and 32% among men in 2014 (OECD/EOHSP, 2017
[15]
).
Denmark is consistently among the top ten countries ranked in terms of happiness
indicators, along with other Nordic countries (Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway)
(Helliwell, Layard and Sachs, 2018
[16]
), and performs well in various dimensions of
well-being (Figure 1.3) (OECD, 2017
[17]
).
Over 80% of the population consider themselves well informed on environmental issues.
Danes are particularly concerned about air and water pollution, chemicals in everyday
products, and water scarcity, but are less worried than people in many other EU countries
about the growing amount of waste (EC, 2014
[18]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0067.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
65
Figure 1.3.
Denmark’s average level of current well-being:
Comparative strengths and
weaknesses
SUBJECTIVE WELL-
BEING
INCOME AND
WEALTH
PERSONAL
SECURITY
Feeling safe
at night
Life
satisfaction
Household
income
Household
net wealth
Employment
Homicides*
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Air
quality
Water
quality
Earnings
Labour
market
insecurity*
Job strain*
JOBS AND
EARNINGS
Voter
turnout
CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT
AND GOVERNANCE
Having a
say in
government
Long-term
unemploy-
ment*
Rooms per
person
Housing
affordability
Basic
sanitation
Social
support
SOCIAL
CONNECTIONS
HOUSING
Cognitive
skills at 15
Adult skills
Educational
attainment
Working
hours
EDUCATION
AND SKILLS
Perceived
Life
health expectancy
Time off
WORK-LIFE
BALANCE
HEALTH STATUS
Note:
For both positive and negative indicators (such as homicides, marked with an “*”), longer bars always indicate better outcomes
(i.e. higher well-being), whereas shorter bars always
indicate worse outcomes (i.e. lower well-being). The indicator on income and wealth should be interpreted with caution as it excludes pension wealth.
Source:
OECD calculations based on
OECD How's Life? 2017.
1.3. Transition to an energy-efficient and low-carbon economy
1.3.1. Energy structure, intensity and use
Main policies and measures: Denmark is shifting from 2020 to 2030 goals
Denmark’s energy policy is laid out in broad commitments called Energy Agreements,
which are supported by various parties in the Parliament (Chapter 2, Box 2.2.). The 2012
Energy Agreement set the framework for 2012-20 and the 2018 Energy Agreement for
2020-24.
Both support Denmark’s long-term
goal of becoming a carbon-neutral society by
2050, a goal first set in 2011 in the Energy Strategy 2050. Intermediate goals include
reaching 30% of renewable energy resources in gross final energy consumption by 2020
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0068.png
66
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(reached in 2016) and 55% by 2030. Denmark also committed to phase out electricity
production from coal by 2030 (Table 1.1). The 2018 Energy Agreement is a key step for
Denmark to meet its 2050 target. Prior to this, the Danish Energy Agency estimated that
without additional policies, the share of renewables would stagnate and fossil fuel
consumption and GHG emissions increase after 2020 (EA, 2017
[19]
).
Table 1.1. Medium- and long-term goals stated in the 2012 and 2018 Energy Agreements
2020
Overall goal
Share of renewables in gross final energy
consumption
Renewables in electricity consumption
30%
55%
More than100%
90% share of district heating based on sources
other than coal, oil or gas
10%
50%
7.6%
Phased out
2030
2050
Carbon-neutral
society
Renewables share in the transport sector
Wind energy share in domestic electricity
supply
Reduction in gross energy consumption
in relation to 2010
Coal in electricity production*
Note:
2020 goals taken from the 2012 Energy Agreement, 2030 goals from the 2018 Energy Agreement.
*
The 2018 Energy Agreement notes the announcements made by energy companies in Denmark to phase out
coal by 2030.
Source:
(MCEB, 2012
[20]
; Government of Denmark et al., 2018
[21]
).
The 2018 Energy Agreement includes ten priorities, with several initiatives for each. The
agreement largely builds on the 2017 recommendations made by an independent energy
commission (DEnC, 2017
[22]
). It proposes, for instance, increasing flexibility of the energy
system, removing restrictions on production in the form of combined heat and power (CHP)
requirements, implementing market-based and technology neutral solutions, phasing out
subsidies (except for existing CHP plants) and pursuing international co-operation. It has a
strong focus on cost-effectiveness (OECD, 2019
[7]
). Under the agreement,
technology-neutral one-off investment grants will replace feed-in tariffs in a move to
solutions that are more responsive to changing market conditions. Some EUR 560 million
is to be allocated for this purpose from the state budget for 2020-24 (Chapter 3).
Implementing tools such as the policy, regulatory and analytical framework will
complement the agreement to contextualise certain initiatives on renewables and energy
efficiency, including the gas strategy, a new energy savings programme and the building
renovation strategy. The EU will need to approve some initiatives under its state aid rules.
A special reserve is planned under the agreement for additional actions as of 2025 (MCEB,
2012
[20]
; Government of Denmark et al., 2018
[21]
).
The 2018 Energy Agreement does not clarify how Denmark plans to cope with the energy
need and associated environmental impact of data centres under construction, which will
contribute to growing energy demand, while coal is to be phased out. It is estimated that
their projected electricity consumption will account for 21% of total electricity
consumption in 2030 and 35% in 2040 (EA, 2018
[23]
). Finally, the 2018 agreement
reconfirms continued extensive oil and gas extraction in the North Sea, although Denmark
also announced in 2018 that there would be no onshore oil, gas and shale gas exploration
(Government of Denmark et al., 2018
[21]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0069.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
67
Energy intensity is low
Denmark has decoupled energy use from GDP growth; the energy intensity of the economy
has declined by 20% since 2005 and its level is among the lowest in the OECD (Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.4. Energy intensity is low and energy use has been decoupled from growth
Energy intensity of the economy,
OECD countries with the lowest intensity, 2017
Austria
2005=100
140
120
100
Decoupling, 2005-17
Primary energy supply
GDP, constant prices
Population
Energy-related CO emissions
Israel
Italy
Japan
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Norway
Denmark
OECD
80
60
40
20
Ireland
Switzerland
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0
toe/1 000 USD (2010 PPPs)
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
Source:
IEA (2018),
IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances,
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001749
Total primary energy supply (TPES) fell between 2010 and 2015, but slightly rebounded
in 2016-17.
2
The contribution of fossil fuels to TPES dropped significantly, from 82% in
2005 to 60% in 2017. The share of renewables in TPES more than doubled over this period,
from 15% to 35% (Figure 1.5).
Figure 1.5. The share of fossil fuels in energy supply has decreased significantly
Total primary energy supply by source, 2005-17
a
Coal
Mtoe
25
20
15
10
Oil
Natural gas
Renewables
Other
Iceland
Sweden
Finland
France
Switzerland
Norway
Latvia
Denmark
New Zealand
Slovenia
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Share of fossil fuel in TPES, 2017
OECD countries with the lowest intensity
5
0
a)
Total primary energy supply (TPES). The breakdown of TPES excludes electricity trade.
Source:
IEA (2018),
IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001768
Total final consumption fell by 8% between 2005 and 2016. It decreased in all sectors
except residential, where it remained relatively unchanged. The largest decline was in the
industry sector (25%) (IEA, 2018
[24]
). The residential and transport sectors are generally
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0070.png
68
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
the largest energy consumers. Each accounted for about one-third of consumption in 2016,
while the shares of the commercial and industrial sectors were around 15% each
(Figure 1.6).
Figure 1.6. The residential and transport sectors continue to be the largest energy
consumers, and renewables dominate in electricity generation
Total final energy consumption by sector, 2016
Commercial
Non-energy
and public
use/non-
services
specified
14%
2%
Industry
16%
Residential
32%
Transport
30%
Agriculture/
forestry/
fishing
Total 14 Mtoe
5%
Energy supply
a
and electricity generation by source, 2017
Other
Wind/solar/other
Oil
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
36%
9%
Total primary energy supply
7%
3%
27%
RES
35%
(of total
TPES)
Biofuels and waste
Natural gas
Coal
2%
20%
RES
71%
8%
17%
51%
20%
Electricity generation
a)
Total primary energy supply (TPES). The breakdown of TPES excludes electricity trade. RES = renewable energy sources.
Source:
IEA (2018),
IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001787
Denmark is a leader in integrating variable renewables
Denmark is one of the leading OECD countries in terms of the renewables share in TPES,
despite not having hydropower potential comparable to other leading countries. Renewables
(mainly biofuels, waste and wind) rose in significance in energy supply and power generation
over the review period (Figure 1.7). The 2010-20 National Renewable Energy Action Plan,
implementing the relevant EU directive, set a target of 30% of renewables in gross final
consumption by 2020 (the sixth highest target in the EU). Sectoral targets complemented the
national target: 39.8% for heating and cooling, 51.9% for electricity and 10.1% for transport
in 2020 (MEC, 2010
[25]
; MCEB, 2012
[20]
). In 2018, the EU agreed
that Denmark’s binding
renewables target for 2030 was 32%. All EU countries must prepare ten-year integrated
national energy and climate plans with national targets, contributions, policies and measures
by 31 December 2019 (European Parliament, 2018
[26]
).
Over 2005-17, Denmark more than doubled the share of renewables in TPES, from 15% to
35% (IEA, 2018
[24]
). It also met its target of 30% renewables in gross final energy
consumption before the 2020 deadline, and is on track to meet its 50% target for wind
energy in domestic electricity supply for 2020 and 90% for renewables in district heating
by 2030 (EA, 2018
[27]
). Achieving the target of 10% renewable sources in transport fuels
by 2020, as required by the EU Renewable Energy Directive, would require strengthening
the biofuel blending mandate. Negotiations are taking place in Denmark on this issue, as
relying on the 2018 Energy Agreement would lead to an 8.7% share (Climate Council,
2018
[28]
; Eurostat, 2019
[29]
; Denmark, 2019
[30]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0071.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
69
Figure 1.7. Renewables, chiefly biofuels and wind, have been gaining significance in energy
supply, particularly in power generation
Renewable energy sources in total primary energy supply (TPES) and power generation, top ten OECD countries, 2017
Share of renewable energy sources in TPES
100%
100%
80%
60%
40%
53%
40%
39%
88%
82%
73%
58%
98%
Share of renewable energy sources in electricity generation
71%
75%
63%
46%
44%
30%
26%
22%
Switzerland
39%
35%
20%
0%
33%
Iceland
Norway
Latvia
New Zealand
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Austria
Chile
Renewable energy supply mix in Denmark and in the
OECD, 2005 and 2017
Municipal waste
Primary solid biofuels
Biofuels
Hydro
Geothermal
Solar, tide, wave, ocean
Wind
100%
80%
60%
40%
Share of imports of solid biomass in primary
energy suply, top five OECD countries, 2017
Denmark
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Belgium
20%
0%
Italy
2005
2017
Denmark
2005
OECD
2017
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Source:
IEA (2018),
IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001806
Electricity generation has changed fundamentally over the past two decades, with wind and
bioenergy (Figure 1.7) having largely superseded coal. Supported by its flexible domestic
power system and high level of interconnection, Denmark is now widely recognised as a
global leader in integrating variable renewables in its electricity system while maintaining
a highly reliable and secure power grid (IEA, 2017
[1]
). With the share of wind energy in the
electricity supply at over 40% in 2017, Denmark is on the way to meeting its 2020 target
of 50% of electricity from wind power, and is among the top five countries for wind in
electricity generation (REN21, 2018
[31]
; IEA, 2018
[24]
).
Denmark imports over 40% of the solid biomass it uses for energy purposes, more than any
other OECD country (Figure 1.7). The use of wood pellets increased by 187% between
2006 and 2016, and the share of imports was 94% in 2016 (Ea Energianalyse, 2017
[32]
).
The dominant role of bioenergy in the renewables mix raises the issue of environmental
sustainability of supply (OECD, 2019
[33]
), as only documented CO
2
-neutral biomass should
be counted as a renewable and favourable treatment should be ended (Chapter 3). In addition,
increasing use of biomass in the heating sector contributes to emissions of air pollutants,
including PM
2.5,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), black carbon and dioxins (IEA,
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0072.png
70
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
2017
[1]
; AU-DES, 2018
[34]
). To address such concerns, the Danish industry introduced
voluntary sustainability criteria in 2014-15 (Brack, Hewitt and Marchand, 2018
[35]
).
1.3.2. Transport
The transport sector is the second highest energy consumer (road transport accounts for
about three-quarters of energy consumption in the sector) and GHG emitter. Despite well-
developed infrastructure, Denmark has one of the lowest shares of rail in inland freight
transport in the EU (Eurostat, 2018
[36]
; ITF, 2018
[37]
). In 2014, the main message on
infrastructure of the Danish Productivity Commission was to expand user payments to
reduce congestion (Productivity Commission, 2014
[38]
).
The number of passenger cars per inhabitant is still below the OECD average, but increased
from 35 to 44 vehicles per 100 persons between 2005 and 2018. The share of diesel cars in
the total passenger car fleet rose from 10% in 2005 to 31% in 2017 (RD, 2018
[39]
). The
growth trend in the number of personal cars is expected to continue, in line with reductions
in the existing heavy tax burden (e.g. registration tax) (Chapter 3).
Although energy-related CO
2
emissions in transport have declined over the last decade
(Figure 1.8), the pace has been slower than in the energy sector. Denmark bases its climate
policy on cost-effectiveness and impact on the competitiveness of the sectors. Reducing
emissions in the energy sector, which is partly shielded from international competition, has
proved to be the least costly solution. Fewer cost-effective options have been identified in
transport and agriculture, as is the case for almost all OECD countries. By 2020, emissions
in the sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), particularly
transport, are expected to represent around 70% of overall GHG emissions (MEUC,
2017
[40]
). Moreover, before new initiatives were proposed under the 2018 Energy
Agreement and the climate and air proposal (Section 1.3.3), the Danish government had
projected that fossil fuels would still account for over 93% of transport-related energy
consumption in 2030 (compared to 95% now). Decreased dependence on fossil fuels in the
transport sector thus requires sustained efforts (EA, 2018
[41]
).
Figure 1.8. CO
2
emissions in transport are declining but still significant and the pace is
slower than in other sectors
Trends in CO
2
emissions, 2005-16
CO
2
emissions by sector, 2016
Residential
7%
Commercial
2%
Transport
35%
Agriculture
5%
Energy industries
Transport
Commercial
2005=100
140
120
100
80
60
Manufact./construction
Residential
Agriculture
40
20
0
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
Manufact./
construction
10%
Energy
industries
41%
Total 34 Mt
Note:
CO
2
emissions from energy use only.
Source:
IEA (2018),
IEA CO
2
Emissions from Fuel Combustion
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001825
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0073.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
71
Zero-emission
vehicles are considered to have great potential for supporting Denmark’s
goal of becoming a carbon-neutral society by 2050 (Sørensen et al., 2017
[42]
). The
government’s 2018 climate and air
proposal is an important step in reaching this goal. It
aims to halt sales of new diesel and gasoline vehicles by 2030 and hybrids by 2035. The
proposal includes incentives for green vehicles, such as investment in high-speed charging
stations for electric vehicles (EVs), tax incentives for green company cars (Chapter 3),
cheaper car parks with priority for green vehicles, and permission for green vehicles to
drive in bus lanes (Danish Government, 2018
[43]
). Electric and hybrid cars costing less than
DKK 400 000 (EUR 54 000) are exempt from registration tax in 2019 and 2020 (MF,
2018
[44]
). The increase in Danish renewables production should support the spread of clean
vehicles, although reaching 1 million EVs and plug-in hybrids by 2030 (a potential
outcome of the incentives) may be costly (OECD, 2019
[7]
).
While electrification of the main Danish rail lines is ongoing, it has fallen behind execution
of the 2014 Danish flagship project in the rail transport area, Train Fund DK, which has
been limited from its original scope (MF, 2017
[45]
). The project aimed at upgrading the
Danish railways by building new lines, upgrading existing lines and electrifying major lines
(MTBH, 2014
[46]
) to reduce travel times and support environmental objectives, for instance
by switching from diesel to electric trains.
1.3.3. Climate change mitigation and adaptation
Main policies and measures
Danish policy on climate comprises national goals and efforts combined with international
and EU obligations. The main Danish policy documents making up the current framework
include the 2008 Danish Strategy for Adaptation to a Changing Climate (an Action Plan
for a Climate-proof Denmark followed in 2012), the 2012 Energy Agreement for 2012-20,
the 2018 Energy Agreement for 2020-24 and the 2018 climate and air proposal. The
Climate Act regulated the preparation of an annual government climate report to
Parliament, outlined the process of setting national climate targets and established an
independent, expert-based Climate Council (MEUC, 2017
[40]
), with six members appointed
for four years by the relevant minister.
The government presented the climate and air proposal in October 2018, outlining
measures to reduce GHG emissions and air pollutants in non-EU ETS sectors up to 2030,
on the assumption that these closely linked issues needed synergistic measures. The
proposal supports the 2050 goal of a carbon-neutral society and sets out 38 activities. It
announced the phase-out of sales of new diesel and gasoline cars by 2030 and hybrids by
2035 (the aim is to have 1 million EVs and plug-in hybrids by 2030), as well as measures
on the greening of public transport; environment-friendly shipping; agriculture
(e.g. EUR 12 million for research and development [R&D] on low-GHG farming and EUR
14 million for carbon capture and storage [CCS] in Danish farmland and forests); and
greener buildings and businesses (Danish Government, 2018
[43]
).
The government has completed or initiated implementation of the majority of initiatives
proposed under the climate and air proposal (e.g. via the Finance Act for 2019). These
include a larger premium for scrapping old diesel cars and grants for investment in low-
carbon technology regarding barns or CCS research (Denmark, 2019
[30]
). Transforming the
proposal into actions in agriculture and transport, which is key for Danish non-EU ETS
reduction commitments, is under way (e.g. a consultative committee was established in
February 2019). The OECD recommended that Denmark first implement the most
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0074.png
72
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
cost-effective emission reduction measures, in agriculture (OECD, 2019
[7]
). The country
should benefit from securing a broad political commitment for its climate and air initiatives.
During the review period, Denmark’s climate policy focused on meeting international GHG
emission reduction targets in the first (2008-12) and second (2013-20) Kyoto commitment
periods. The country met its commitment in the first commitment period and announced in
2015 that it would cancel its surplus Kyoto Protocol units
3
to support the Paris Agreement
negotiating process (Government of Sweden, 2015
[47]
). In 2016, Denmark ratified the Paris
Agreement, which replaces the Kyoto Protocol.
In 2014, the EU
adopted
a
climate and energy framework committing members to achieve,
among other targets,
a
40% reduction in GHG emissions, by 2030, from 1990 base levels
–
43% for EU ETS sectors and 30% for non-ETS sectors. Emissions from EU ETS sectors
are adjusted at the EU level via a quota system, so Denmark has no specific national target.
For non-ETS sectors, Denmark defines and implements national policies and measures. In
2009, the EU adopted what is known as the effort-sharing decision, establishing binding
annual GHG emission targets for 2013–20. Denmark agreed to reach a 20% reduction from
2005 levels (the biggest commitment among EU members, with Ireland and Luxembourg)
and is on track to meet it. In the 2018 EU Effort Sharing Regulation, Denmark again agreed
one of the most ambitious reduction targets in the EU for 2030: 39% below 2005 levels
(MEUC, 2018
[48]
; EC
[49]
). This will require further mitigation efforts, and Denmark plans
to take stock of its climate and air initiatives in 2022, 2024 and 2027.
Non-EU ETS emissions are expected to account for about 70% of all GHG emissions by
2020. As allowed by the effort-sharing policy, and considering cost-effectiveness,
Denmark has chosen to make significant use of flexibility mechanisms to achieve around
80% of the expected GHG emission reductions up to 2030 (about 21 million tonnes of
carbon dioxide equivalent or Mt CO
2
eq). Two-thirds of it will be achieved through land
use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) credits and one-third through cancellation of
EU ETS quotas (Danish Government, 2018
[43]
). This approach triggered concerns among
some Danish stakeholders that it did not support the 2050 carbon-neutrality target (Climate
Council, 2018
[28]
). The 2018 Energy Agreement envisions reductions of 10-11 Mt CO
2
eq,
mainly in EU ETS sectors (MEUC, 2018
[50]
).
GHG emissions have declined significantly
Having reduced its GHG emission levels by 27.7% over 2005-17 (Figure 1.9), Denmark is
at the forefront of OECD countries in this regard. It is one of the few OECD countries that
achieved absolute decoupling of both production-based and demand-based CO
2
emissions
from real GDP. The GHG emission intensity per unit of GDP is also below the OECD
average (OECD, 2018
[51]
; IEA, 2019
[52]
; OECD, 2017
[53]
). Emissions rose in 2016,
particularly in the energy and industry sectors, due to increased economic activity and
climate conditions (SD, 2018
[54]
), but they fell again in 2017, mainly due to a significant
increase in renewables (Denmark, 2019
[30]
).
GHG emissions in EU ETS sectors decreased significantly over 2005-17 (e.g. emissions from
stationary installations fell by 43%, well above the EU average of 14%) (EEA, 2018
[55]
). The
decline was driven by a proactive policy to support diffusion of renewables, partly financed
by an additional tax on electricity consumption (the Public Service Obligation, Chapter 3).
GHG emissions fell more slowly in non-EU ETS sectors, where solutions are less available
and more costly, declining by 18% over 2005-17 (Eurostat, 2019
[56]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0075.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
73
Figure 1.9. Stronger measures to reduce GHG emissions will be needed for Denmark to meet
its long-term goal
Mt CO
2
eq
80
70
60
50
40
GHG emissions excluding LULUCF: Historical trends, projections and targets, 2005-50
Historical emissions (excl. LULUCF)
Historical emissions (excl. LULUCF,
incl. indirect emissions)
ETS (stationary)
Non-ETS
Baseline scenario (Energy Agency 2018)
Net zero emissions
target 2050
a
30
20
10
0
Climate and air proposal
Kyoto Protocol target
Non-ETS 2020 and 2030 targets
2005
2010
2015
2020
2030
2050
Note:
LULUCF: Land use, land-use change and forestry.
a)
Including LULUCF.
Source:
Nielsen et al. (2019),
Denmark’s National Inventory Report 2019;
Danish Centre for Environment and Energy (2018),
Projections of Greenhouse Gases
2017-2040;
EEA (2018),
GHG Data Viewer
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001844
Danish forests remained carbon sinks during the review period. The carbon stock increased
over 2005-17 in both live and dead forest biomass, litter and soil (Nord-Larsen et al.,
2018
[57]
). Cropland and grasslands, on the other hand, are net carbon sources, partly because
of the large area of organic soil (peatland) drained (Nielsen et al., 2018
[58]
).
The energy sector is the largest source of GHG emissions, at over 70%, but is also the one
that has seen the most notable reduction, by over 30% between 2000 and 2017 (Figure
1.10). The decrease is mainly linked to the shift from coal to natural gas and renewables,
and has mostly occurred since 2010, while for other emission sources (agriculture, industry
and waste), emissions are virtually unchanged since 2010 (Nielsen et al., 2018
[58]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0076.png
74
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Figure 1.10. GHG emissions declined more than the OECD average
GHG emissions, % change 2005-17,
Denmark and OECD
a
Denmark
Energy, of which
Energy industries
Manufacturing and construction
Transport
Fugitive emissions from fuels
IPPUᵇ
Agriculture
Waste
Total without LULUCFᶜ
Total with LULUCFᶜ
-60
-40
-20
0
%
20
IPPU
b
4%
Other energy-
related, 12%
n.a.
Agriculture
22%
GHG emissions by source, 2017
OECD
Waste
2%
Energy
industries
24%
Manufacturing
construct., 8%
Energy
72%
Transport
27%
Note:
Data for Denmark include Greenland and Faroe Islands.
a)
Data for OECD refer to 2005-16.
b)
Industrial processes and product use.
c)
Land use, land-use change and forestry.
Source:
Nielsen et al. (2019),
Denmark's National Inventory Report 2019;
OECD (2018), “Air and climate: Greenhouse gas emissions by source”,
OECD Environment
Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
https://doi.org/10.1787/888934001863
As in most countries, CO
2
accounts for the bulk of total GHG emissions (over 70% in
2016), while methane and nitrous oxide (N
2
O) from agriculture accounted for about 20%,
excluding LULUCF. Agricultural GHG emissions declined by 17% over 1990-2016, but
since 2005 have fallen only modestly, by 3%. The reduction in methane emissions since
1990 is attributable mostly to increased use of incineration instead of other waste disposal,
as methane emissions from agriculture did not change over the period. The reduction in
N
2
O emissions is related to a considerable decline in the use of nitrogen fertilisers, but the
level of emissions since 2010 has barely changed (Nielsen et al., 2018
[58]
).
Climate change poses challenges
In addition to rising temperatures, climate change is likely to bring Denmark increased
precipitation, especially in winter. Over the long term, rising sea and groundwater levels
will be of concern. One of the most significant challenges is increased frequency, intensity
and duration of extreme weather events. In fact, Denmark was more affected than any other
EU country in terms of direct economic losses per capita from weather disasters over
1980-2016 (EEA, 2018
[59]
). The value of assets at risk of flooding is expected to grow
significantly due to sea level rise and increased precipitation (OECD, forthcoming
[60]
).
The 2008 Danish Strategy for Adaptation to a Changing Climate focuses on targeting
information, co-ordinating research strategy (e.g. through the Forskernetværk for
Klimatilpasning or Climate Adaptation Research Network) and supporting co-ordinated
efforts by public authorities (Danish Government, 2008
[61]
). The Action Plan for a
Climate-proof Denmark followed in 2012, mostly focusing on enhancing state and
municipal interactions (Danish Government, 2012
[62]
). Between 2012 and 2017, the
government supported the preparation and evaluation of the climate change adaptation
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0077.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
75
plans adopted by each municipality and elaborated cost-effective and comprehensive flood
and erosion protection (MEUC, 2017
[40]
).
1.3.4. Atmospheric emissions and air quality
Main policies and measures
The 2016 EU National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive (replacing the 2001 directive
establishing emission ceilings for 2010) addresses the 2020 targets agreed under the
Gothenburg Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
(CLRTAP) and sets objectives for 2030 (EC, 2016
[63]
). It establishes national emission
reduction commitments applicable from 2020 and stricter targets as of 2030 for nitrogen
oxides (NO
X
), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), sulphur dioxide
(SO
2
), ammonia (NH
3
) and PM
2.5
(EC, 2018
[64]
). The National Air Pollution Control
Programme, an implementation measure supporting compliance with the NEC Directive,
was announced by the government in January 2019 and submitted to the European
Commission for approval in April. It is based on initiatives from the 2018 climate and air
proposal (MEF, 2019
[65]
). For instance, for NH
3
emissions it includes public financial
support for low-emission barns and regulation of urea-based chemical fertilisers. Other
domestic measures to help improve air quality include a ban on manure application by
splash plate and a requirement to roof slurry tanks. Measures to reduce PM
2.5
focus on
cleaner transport and accelerated replacement of old residential wood stoves.
Other means of addressing air quality in Denmark include national air quality monitoring
(AU-DES, 2018
[66]
) and adherence to relevant multilateral environmental agreements.
Denmark uses economic instruments to reduce emissions (e.g. a NO
X
tax), and since 2008
has applied emission standards to residential wood-burning stoves as well as supporting
international work in this area. It lobbied for stricter requirements on sulphur content of
ship fuel and reductions in NO
X
emissions from new ships. The Baltic Sea and North Sea
are now International Maritime Organization Emission Control Areas
4
for SO
X
(IMO
[67]
)
and will become NO
X
emission control areas in 2021. The 2019 budget includes a scrap
premium for old wood stoves (MF, 2018
[44]
). In addition, improved inventories of wood-
burning stoves will further support targeted reduction measures.
Air emissions have decreased but the outlook on 2030 targets is unclear
The main sources of air pollution are agriculture (NH
3
, NMVOCs), motorised transport
(NO
X
), wood combustion (PM
2.5
, PAHs) and industry (SO
X
) (Figure 1.11). With reductions
in all emissions of major air pollutants in recent decades, Denmark has decoupled emissions
from economic growth
–
most impressively in the case of SO
2
, emissions, which fell by
61% over 2005-16. However, by 2014 the reduction trend for air pollutants had slowed or
even reversed, due chiefly to increased economic activity.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0078.png
76
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Figure 1.11. Air emissions have been on the decline but this trend has slowed
Decoupling trends, 2005-17
GDP (2010 PPPs)
NH₃
NOₓ
PM
₅
NMVOCs
SOₓ
Air pollutant emissions by source, 2005 and 2017
Agriculture/waste
Other combustion
Power stations
Road transport
Targets 2030*
1 000 tonnes
250
200
IPPU
Industry combustion
Other mobile
Targets 2020*
2005 = 100
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
150
100
50
0
2005 2017 2005 2017 2005 2017 2005 2017 2005 2017
NMVOCs
NOₓ
SOₓ
NH₃
PM .₅
0
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
Note:
EMEP data reported under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
*
Emissions Reduction Commitments under the NEC Directive (final agreement, 30 June 2016).
Source:
EMEP (2019),
WebDab
(database); OECD (2018),
OECD National Account Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001882
Denmark met its 2010 targets under the old NEC Directive by 2016. Its SO
2
reductions also
exceeded the 2020 reduction commitment of 35% under CLRTAP, the revised EU NEC
Directive and even the 2030 target. Denmark is on track to meet its 2020 targets under the
new NEC Directive for NO
X
(56%) and NMVOCs (35%) (AU-DES, 2018
[68]
). However,
it will be more difficult for Denmark to meet its NEC commitments for 2020 and 2030 on
fine particles (PM
2.5,
33% and 55%, respectively) and NH
3
(24%), despite the reductions
thus far (MEF, 2019
[65]
). In line with the 2018 climate and air proposal, a committee will
be set up to propose possible actions to reach the NH
3
target (unchanged between 2020 and
2030) and initiatives have been launched to accelerate replacement of old wood-burning
stoves, which would reduce PM
2.5
emissions (Danish Government, 2018
[43]
).
Denmark also needs to address potentially carcinogenic PAH emissions, which grew by
58% between 1990 and 2016. The bulk of PAHs (68%) in 2016 came from residential wood
burning (AU-DES, 2018
[69]
). Rising residential burning also contributes to PM
2.5
and
NMVOC emissions. The actions taken to reduce PM
2.5
emissions from wood burning will
also help target PAH emissions.
Air quality is a recurring issue
Air quality remains a challenge (Figure 1.12). Danish estimates indicate that ambient air
pollution contributed to 3 200 premature deaths, on average, over 2014-17, though the
number is on the decline. Some 90% of cases were related to exposure to PM
2.5
(Ellermann
et al., 2018
[70]
). The welfare costs related to PM
2.5
exposure are estimated at 3% of GDP
(OECD, 2018
[71]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0079.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
77
Figure 1.12. Air quality remains a challenge
Share of population exposed to PM
2.5
, by WHO thresholds, 2017
Less than 10
μg/m³
(%)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
10-15
μg/m³
(%)
15-25
μg/m³
(%)
25-35
μg/m³
(%)
More than 35
μg/m³
(%)
Share of population exposed to PM
2.5
exceeding the
WHO Air Quality Guideline (10
цg/m
3
), 2000-17
Aarhus
Odense
Aalborg
Number of premature deaths caused by ambient PM
pollution, Denmark and the OECD, 2005-17
Diabetes/kidney diseases
Cardiovascular
Respiratory infections/TB
Chronic respiratory
Neoplasms
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Copenhagen
2005
Denmark
OECD total
2010
2017
2005
2010
2017
0
100
200
300
400
Deaths/million inhabitants
500
2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source:
OECD (2018),
“Exposure
to air pollution”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001901
1.3.5. Chemicals management
Denmark has a comprehensive regulatory framework for chemicals management, with
national rules that sometimes go beyond the scope of the EU acquis. There is good
co-operation between government, industry and other stakeholders. Public health and
environmental protection issues are at the heart of Denmark’s chemicals management
policy, which pays particular attention to substitution of hazardous chemicals and the safety
of chemicals in consumer products. A challenge is to strike the right balance between the
resources used for predictive risk assessment and the various risk-based monitoring
exercises. If Denmark put more emphasis on identifying problematic chemicals and
regulating them before a negative impact can be detected in humans or the environment, it
would avoid having to deal with the risks they pose to nature and humans (Chapter 5).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0080.png
78
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
1.3.6. Waste, materials management and circular economy
The Danish economy uses a large amount of raw materials per unit of GDP, which translates
into low resource productivity. Denmark has become more efficient in the use of materials,
but not enough to achieve the average performance of OECD countries. In 2016, resource
productivity reached USD 1.95 per kg in Denmark, compared with USD 2.42 per kg in
OECD countries (Chapter 4). In 2017, domestic consumption of materials per capita was
about 24 tonnes, well above the OECD average of 16 tonnes per capita. About half of domestic
material consumption is related to the construction sector (stone, gravel and sand extraction).
Waste generation as a whole increased by 30% between 2010 and 2016, to some 20 million
tonnes. This increase was related to growth in construction and demolition waste, which
accounted for more than 60% of the waste produced in 2016. Municipal waste generation
also increased, by 12% between 2005 and 2016, faster than private final consumption.
Landfilling has almost disappeared (it amounted to 1% of municipal waste in 2016) and
Denmark has very high levels of recycling. Waste from industry, construction and
demolition, packaging, electrical and electronic equipment and end-of-life vehicles is
recycled at rates ranging from 70% to 90%. About half of municipal waste is not recycled,
however, and feeds incinerators for energy recovery (Chapter 4).
1.3.7. Agricultural inputs and nitrogen balance
The coherence of agricultural and environmental policies needs special attention in view
of the high rate of land use by agriculture (Section 1.5.1). The share of agriculture, forestry
and fishing in GDP was halved over 2000-17, from 2.5% to 1.3%. Yet the agriculture and
agri-food sector still accounted for 25% of Danish goods exports in 2015. The national
balance of nitrogen in agriculture places Denmark above the OECD average (Figure 1.13).
The nitrogen surplus has fluctuated between 77 and 94 kg N/ha since 2005 and remains a
source of concern for nitrate pollution of coastal areas (OECD, 2018
[72]
).
Figure 1.13. The surplus of agricultural nitrogen remains a source of concern
Gross nitrogen balances, Denmark and OECD average, 2005-17
Denmark
OECD
kg/ha
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Note:
Gross nitrogen balances are calculated as the difference between the total quantity of nutrient inputs entering an agricultural system (mainly
fertiliser and manure) and the quantity of nutrient outputs leaving the system (mainly uptake of nutrients by crops and grasses). They are expressed
in tonnes of nutrient surplus or deficit. This calculation can be used as a proxy for the status of environmental pressures, such as declining soil fertility
in the case of a nutrient deficit or, for a nutrient surplus, the risk of polluting soil, water and air. OECD values are simple averages of the nitrogen
balances of OECD countries for which data are available.
Source:
Blicher-Mathiesen et al. (2019),
Landovervågningsoplande 2017: NOVANA
(Agricultural watersheds 2017); OECD (2019),
“Environmental
performance of agriculture indicators”,
OECD Agriculture Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001920
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0081.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
79
Main policies and measures
The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2014-20
is the backbone of Denmark’s
agri-environmental policy. In particular, the CAP Rural Development Programme (RDP)
supported a former goal of doubling the area under organic farming from 150 000 ha in
2007 to 300 000 ha in 2020. Nearly 280 000 ha, or 10.5% of the agricultural area, was
already under organic farming by mid-2018 (Danish Agricultural Agency, 2019
[73]
).
Beyond the public financial support provided under the RDP, increased consumer demand
for organic products is a key factor in the growth of organic farming. In 2017, Denmark
had the world’s largest market share of organic products: 13.3% of the total food market
(Willer and Lernoud, 2019
[74]
). The RDP also includes funds for 1 000 mini-wetlands to
remove nutrients from drain water at the farm level; 7 500 ha of new forests; and R&D
projects to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture (EC, 2017
[75]
).
A Food
and Agriculture Package adopted in 2015 put in place “targeted regulation” of
agricultural practices reflecting the risk of nitrate pollution of coastal waters. The aim is to
improve cost-effectiveness by focusing nitrate reduction efforts on watersheds flowing into
coastal waters threatened with eutrophication, giving farmers in other watersheds the
opportunity to fertilise to the economic optimum. Before the regulation went into force, all
farmers had to fertilise about 20% below the economic optimum (EPA, 2017
[76]
).
The agriculture sector moderately reduced its GHG emissions between 2005 and 2016,
while the OECD average increased (Figure 1.10). Efforts are still needed to reach
Denmark’s carbon neutrality target of 2050. To this end, R&D programmes have been
launched under the climate and air proposal covering non-EU ETS emissions. The goal is
to identify relevant agricultural practices and incentives for them by 2030.
The use of biogas from manure can support climate and pollution goals. For example, using
manure as a raw material for biogas instead of spreading it as fertiliser reduces the risk of
air pollution (NH
3
) and water pollution (nitrates), and digested manure provides a
high-quality natural fertiliser that emits less N
2
O than untreated manure. The 2018 Energy
Agreement includes provisions to expand the use of biogas and other green gases, for
instance in transport and industrial processes. A gas strategy is to be developed, focusing
on using the Danish gas infrastructure and examining framework conditions for a
competitive expansion of biogas and other green gases. The 2018 climate and air proposal
also contains related measures, e.g. on detecting and reducing leaks from existing biogas
plants (Government of Denmark et al., 2018
[21]
; Danish Government, 2018
[43]
).
1.4. Managing the natural asset base
1.4.1. Physical context
Croplands cover some 60% of Denmark’s area, forests 13%, light-open
habitats such as
heath, dunes, meadows and marshes 9%, and artificial surfaces (urbanised areas) and inland
waters the remaining 18% (SD, 2017
[77]
). The high proportion of croplands underlines the
importance of ensuring coherence of agricultural policies with protection of the
environment, and the 22% coverage of forests and light-open habitats indicates a need for
promoting management of their ecosystem services.
1.4.2. Biodiversity and ecosystems
Some 30 000 species of plants, animals and fungi can be found in Denmark. About 15% of
mammal, bird and freshwater species are threatened (Figure 1.14). In 2012, about 40% of
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0082.png
80
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
the animal species covered by the EU
Habitats Directive had “unfavourable” status,
compared with the EU average of 60% (Danish Government, 2014
[78]
). More than half the
species on the red list (54%) depend on forest habitats for survival (NA, 2014
[79]
). Half the
lichen species are threatened, reflecting high nitrogen deposition (NH
3
and NO
X
).
Figure 1.14. Some 15% of mammal, bird and fish species are threatened
Threatened indigenous species,
a
late 2000s
% of known species
Mammals
Birds
% of indigenous species
Total number
of known
species
67
209
55
15
2 909
Freshwater fish
Amphibians
Vascular plants
Lichens
676
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
%
40
45
50
a)
Threatened refers to the sum of
“endangered”, “critically endangered” and “vulnerable” species, i.e. species that are at greatest risk of extinction.
Source:
OECD (2018), “Threatened species”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001939
Main policies and measures
The Nature Protection Act (2013) has three objectives: to protect nature, restore or create
areas of interest for wildlife and landscapes, and give the public access to nature. It
implements the EU directives on birds and habitats. The National Strategy for Biodiversity
2014-20, also known as Danish Nature Policy (Naturplan Danmark), aims at improving
connectivity of natural habitats, strengthening wildlife protection initiatives and developing
a sense of community through outdoor activities in nature. It does not, however, include
targets for protected areas. The 2016-19 Nature Package outlines plans to increase the area
of “biodiversity forests” from 11 700 ha in 2016 to up to 28 300 ha in 2066, mainly in
state-owned forests. By January 2019, 22 800 ha of such forests had been designated in
state-owned forests; designation of other forest areas will be gradual over the next 50 years.
Biodiversity forests have a more stringent biodiversity protection objective than other
forests and less intensive or no management.
Amendments to the Planning Act in 2015 and 2017 introduced a requirement for
municipalities to plan and designate existing and potential areas of special nature protection
interest and wildlife corridors for a Green Map of Denmark (including existing Natura 2000
sites). The Green Map will reinforce efforts to establish larger and more interconnected
areas of special nature protection interest. The map is gradually being developed as
municipalities revise their land-use plans (Chapter 2). The Danish Environmental
Protection Agency has developed a planning tool to help municipalities locate threatened
species, habitats of high natural value and potential forest habitats for inclusion on the
Green Map. Once the designation process is complete, the Green Map will provide a more
accurate picture of the extent and location of existing and potential areas of particular
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0083.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
81
interest for nature conservation; it will indicate where to improve the quality of existing
natural areas, and where to create new ones and corridors to link them (Danish Government,
2014
[78]
; MEF, 2019
[80]
; MEF, 2019
[81]
).
The vast majority of light-open habitats (those with no or only limited tree cover, such as
meadows, heathlands, bogs and dry grasslands) and most freshwater lakes (totalling about
10% of the country’s area) are included in Section
3 of the Nature Protection Act (Levin,
2016
[82]
). This gives them general protection. As a general rule, all activities that could have
a direct negative impact on the integrity of habitats covered by Section 3 are prohibited.
This includes, for example, the use of fertilisers, pesticides and cultivation. Only ancestral
extensive farming practices can be maintained. The area of Section 3 habitats increased by
9% over 2006-16 (Levin, 2016
[82]
).
The Ministry of Environment and Food (MEF) estimated in April 2019 that 15% of Danish
terrestrial habitats and inland waters were protected by law (Table 1.2). This is close to the
global Aichi target of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to protect at least 17%
of terrestrial habitats by 2020. In addition to the habitats in Section 3, terrestrial protected
areas in Denmark include Natura 2000 sites and “conservation areas” (Table
1.2).
Table 1.2. Terrestrial protected areas of Denmark
2019
a
Protected area type
Natura 2000 site
b
Protected habitat according to Section 3
Conservation area
c
Total protected area (without overlap)
d
Area (ha)
366 380
445 760
114 028
644 172
% of territory
8.5
10.4
2.7
15.0
a) According to an analysis conducted by MEF in the second quarter of 2019.
b) Based on updated data on Natura 2000 sites (after boundary revision).
c) Protected area in accordance with Section 33 of the Nature Protection Act; based on data revised by an IUCN
expert group in 2018 and reported to the European Environment Agency as part of the 2019 CDDA reporting.
d) The total area of Denmark used in the analysis is 4 305 175 ha.
Source:
Country submission.
However, since most Danish protected areas have not been classified according to the
different protection categories defined by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), it is difficult to assess their degree of protection. To assign a protected area
to an IUCN category, the area must be managed. Privately owned areas protected under
Section 3 of the Nature Protection Act are not subject to statutory management
requirements. There is no information at the national level on the extent of management in
these areas, although this does not mean they are not managed. The Danish system of nature
conservation consists of both designated protected areas, including Natura 2000 sites, and
generally protected habitats. Only protected areas in accordance with Section 33 of the
Nature Protection Act have been classified into IUCN categories.
Danish reporting to the IUCN World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) overestimated
the coverage of terrestrial protected areas. In particular, an IUCN expert group in 2018
found that the total number of protected areas regulated by specific conservation orders
(within the meaning of Section 33 of the Nature Protection Act) was about 400, not 1 843
as previously reported to the WDPA (Woollhead and Petersen, n.d.
[83]
; MEF, 2019
[80]
). The
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0084.png
82
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Danish Nature Agency has undertaken a more rigorous calculation of the extent and type
of terrestrial protected areas.
Until 2008, Denmark did not have national parks. It has since designated five national
parks, the latest in 2018. Entrance is free. In general, the same rules apply inside and outside
the parks, which are not fenced. However, in most national parks, specific planning zones
impose restrictions on specific activities. The National Parks Act stipulates
ten non-prioritised objectives. Each national park is established by an executive order in
which the declared objectives appear. Each park is managed in a decentralised manner,
with a board, a council and a secretariat. The board and its chair are appointed by the
environment minister. The board prepares a plan for the operation and development of the
park. The local community is invited to participate in this process. The development of
national parks takes several years and is based on voluntary agreements with private
landowners and local support. Whenever possible, board members have close ties to the
national park area.
The 257 Natura 2000 sites cover 366 000
ha or 8.5% of Denmark’s land area, the lowest
share in the EU (EC, 2018
[84]
). They include 124 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under
the Birds Directive and 269 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats
Directive; 86 Natura 2000 sites overlap SPAs and SACs. The European Commission is to
decide on revised coverage of Natura 2000 sites (Table 1.2) by the end of 2019 (Denmark,
2019
[30]
).
The first phase of Natura 2000 plans covered 2009-15 and the second phase covers
2016-21. Prior to launch, plans are subject to a three-month public consultation exercise.
DKK 2 billion (EUR 270 million) has been allocated for implementation of the 2016-21
plans, partly from the RDP. These plans must be followed by local action plans developed
by municipalities and owners of state land. Many Natura 2000 sites overlap with other
forms of nature conservation.
The latest assessment of the state of conservation of Natura 2000 sites, published in 2014,
revealed that in 2013, almost 70% of habitats had unfavourable or bad status, compared
with the EU average of 30% (Figure 1.16). Surprisingly, only 27% of species covered by
the Habitats Directive had unfavourable or bad conservation status (Figure 1.16), which
would seem to indicate the important role played by other forms of nature conservation
(Table 1.2).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0085.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
83
Figure 1.15. The state of natural habitats in Denmark remains poor
Overall assessment of conservation status of habitats and species, 2007 and 2013
Unfavourable/bad
%
100
80
60
40
20
0
Habitats
Unfavourable/inadequate
%
Unknown
Species
Favourable
100
80
60
40
20
0
2007
2013
2007
2013
Source:
EC (2014), National Summary for Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, Report 2007-12.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001958
A new National Forest Programme (NFP) was adopted in 2018. It builds on the two
long-term objectives of the previous NFP of 2002: i) increase forest cover so that the forest
landscape covers 20% to 25% of the land area by the end of the century (compared to 13%
now) and ii) ensure that by 2040, at least 10% of the Danish forest cover has biological
diversity as its main management objective (MEF, 2018
[85]
).
Expansion of “biodiversity
forests” is thus linked, within the framework of the NFP, to extension of the total forest
area. Steps are needed to accelerate the pace of afforestation and achieve the long-term
objectives of the NFP, as forest area has increased only slightly since 2005 (Nord-Larsen
et al., 2017
[86]
). A report from 2016 estimates that at least 75 000
ha of “biodiversity forest”
is needed to stop the decline in biodiversity (Petersen et al., 2016
[87]
).
Marine protected areas (MPAs) cover 15% (881 325 ha) of the Danish North Sea area,
including Skagerrak, and 3% (35 300 ha) of the Danish Baltic Sea area. Lack of data limits
analysis of MPA network coherence in these two marine areas (Edelvang K. et al., 2017
[88]
).
Other MPAs have been proposed, covering 4% (65 000 ha) of the Danish part of Kattegat
(NA, 2015
[89]
). No designation of MPAs in the Belt Sea or the Øresund is envisaged. The
North Sea area MPAs by themselves meet the Aichi target of protecting at least 10% of
coastal and marine areas by 2020.
Denmark submitted its sixth report to the CBD in 2019. It states that ambitious new goals
for nature should guide the development of a new National Strategy for Biodiversity (MEF,
2019
[81]
).
1.4.3. Management of coastal waters and freshwater
Denmark has many coasts and fjords and uses chemically untreated groundwater for the
production of drinking water (OECD, 2017
[90]
). At the same time, it has the largest
proportion of cultivated land among OECD countries, with the associated risk of nutrient
and pesticide pollution. Until 2009, three Aquatic Action Plans targeted the leaching of
nitrogen from the root zone. Since then, Denmark has sought instead to reduce the nitrogen
load in coastal waters, irrespective of the pathway (leaching or run-off) (MEF, 2017
[91]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0086.png
84
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Water quality
The ecological status of lakes, rivers and groundwater has improved in eastern Denmark
(OECD, 2018
[92]
), but problems remain in meeting the requirements of the EU Water
Framework Directive (WFD). Measures taken under Aquatic Action Plan III (2005-09) and
River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) 2009-15 helped reduce the agricultural nitrogen
surplus by 7% between 2005-07 and 2013-15, though it remains above the OECD average
(Figure 1.13). Under the 2009-15 RBMP, nitrogen emission reduction was 27% lower than
initially planned (EC, 2016
[93]
) and nitrogen discharges into coastal waters were reduced by
only 10%. The situation has not improved significantly under the 2015-21 RBMP. In 2017,
only 1.7% of coastal waters, 20% of lakes and 30% of rivers had achieved good ecological
status (Figure 1.17). The proposed Marine Strategy II, to be adopted by 2021, focuses on
eutrophication risk management in coastal waters (MEF, 2018
[94]
). Less than half the
country’s groundwater bodies have good chemical status (Figure
1.17).
Denmark’s
performance is below the EU average, but better than that of other intensively farmed
countries in northern Europe, such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany (EEA, 2018
[95]
).
Figure 1.16. The status of water bodies has improved but remains an issue
Quality of water bodies, 2017
Good status achieved
Good status not achieved
Status unknown
Lakes
Rivers
60%
Coastal water
Groundwater
(quantitative status)
40%
20%
1st RBMP
1st RBMP
1st RBMP
1st RBMP
2nd RBMP
2nd RBMP
2nd RBMP
2nd RBMP
2nd RBMP
1st RBMP
Chemical status of water bodies by management
plan (RBMP) and river basin district
Unknown
% of surface
100%
80%
Poor
Good
Groundwater
(chemical status)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
% of water bodies
Denmark
DK1
DK2
DK3
DK4
Note:
Quality of water bodies according to the standards of the EU Water Framework Directive. Change of methodologies in 2017.
Source:
EEA (2018),
State of Water Assessment and EU Water Policy Context;
MF (2018),
Fremdriftsrapport på handlingsplanen for implementeringen af
verdensmålene
[Progress Report on the Action Plan for Implementing SDGs].
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001977
Denmark expects to achieve the WFD objectives for 50 of its 119 coastal water areas by
2021. To this end, EUR 830 million, more than half the 2015-21 RBMP budget, is devoted
to wetland creation, afforestation, set-aside of agricultural land, catch crops and ecological
focus areas (where agricultural production is prohibited). A further third of the budget goes
to wastewater treatment and the remaining 13% is related to lake and river restoration. The
third RBMP (2021-27) raises ambitions. In particular, Denmark will have to reduce
nitrogen discharges into coastal waters to 44 700 tonnes per year by 2027, compared to
around 60 000 tonnes per year in 2013-15.
The presence of pesticides and their metabolites in groundwater remains a concern. In
2015-17, prohibited (legacy) pesticides were detected in groundwater intended for human
consumption at levels exceeding the
limit value for drinking water of 0.1 μg/l in 7.2% of
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0087.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
85
the 1 086 intakes surveyed. Authorised pesticides and their metabolites were detected at
levels exceeding the limit of 0.1 μg/l in 1.6% of these intakes
(GEUS, 2019
[96]
)(Chapter 5).
In 2019, municipalities were invited to review the effectiveness of protection zones around
drinking water wells and to enforce the ban on the use of pesticides in these areas through
voluntary approaches. If voluntary approaches prove ineffective by 2022, the government
reserves the right to impose pesticide-free agriculture in the protection zones (MEF,
2019
[97]
). Some water companies have taken the lead in deciding to pay farmers not to use
pesticides in these areas.
Main policies and measures
The 2015 Food and Agriculture Package introduced a policy change known as “targeted
regulation”. Until 2017, Denmark applied the same rules to all farmers by implementing
the Nitrates Action Programme throughout the country. This regulatory base has been
supplemented by a targeted catch crops programme since 2017 and targeted regulation
since 2019. The package now provides for targeted regulation of agricultural practices,
based on the risk of pollution of coastal waters. This is a step in the right direction as it
improves cost-effectiveness by focusing efforts on vulnerable coastal areas in accordance
with WFD provisions, although Denmark still takes a full-country approach with regard to
the Nitrates Directive. Targeted regulation aims to focus nitrogen reduction efforts on
watersheds threatened by nitrogen pollution (Figure 1.17), leaving farmers in other
watersheds more flexibility in managing the use of their nutrients than was the case with
non-targeted regulation (MEF, 2015
[98]
).
Figure 1.17. Efforts needed to reduce nitrogen emissions vary
Nitrogen reduction needed to achieve environmental objectives in each sub-basin
Postponed until next RBMP (2021-27)
Targeted regulation
kg/ha
20
15
10
5
0
-5
10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88
Sub-basins
Note:
RBMP = River Basin Management Plan.
Source:
Danish Environmental Economic Council, 2017. Based on MEF (2016),
Vandområdeplan 2015-2021 for Vandområdedistrikt Jylland og Fyn.
-10
1
4
7
Other measures (e.g. wetlands, mini-wetlands, afforestation)
Environmental objectives achieved
32
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934001996
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0088.png
86
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Recommendations on climate, air, biodiversity and water
Mitigating climate change
Make every effort to achieve the goal of further reducing GHG emissions by 2030,
including identifying misalignment of sectoral policies with climate policy,
mobilising private finance and seeking synergies with other environmental policies
(on air, water, waste, biodiversity).
Develop a vision for a carbon-neutral Denmark by 2050, considering the
development and export promotion of technological solutions (for energy
efficiency, renewables, and CCS) and cost-effectiveness (including using
international carbon markets to offset emissions).
Improving air quality
Redouble efforts to reduce ammonia emissions so as to achieve the 2030 target set
by the NEC Directive; in particular, seek synergies with nitrate policies, taking into
account the nitrogen cycle; ensure policy coherence between ammonia emission
management and expansion of biogas as a renewable energy resource.
Continue efforts to address urban PM
2.5
pollution, including reducing particle
emissions from residential wood burning.
Strengthen international co-operation
to support Denmark’s efforts to control
transboundary air pollution from international ship traffic.
Addressing biodiversity
Update the 2014 Biodiversity Strategy in light of initiatives put in place since its
launch (e.g. Nature Package, National Forest Programme, RDP, Green Map), and
ensure their coherence; pending development of the Green Map by 2050, set
intermediate targets for protected areas and connectivity, taking into account
progress on the CBD Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2021-30.
Provide sufficient public financial support to achieve the goal for “biodiversity
forests” on both state-owned
and private land; evaluate their impact, as well as that
of the policy of increasing forest cover, on carbon sequestration.
Establish a natural area connectivity strategy targeting threatened species, in close
partnership with civil society and municipalities.
Improving water quality
Continue to improve the cost-effectiveness of measures to reduce nitrate pollution
of coastal waters; in particular, continue to implement the targeted regulation,
focusing on watersheds at risk; estimate the effects of this targeted regulation on
N
2
O emissions with a view to seeking synergies.
Improve the effectiveness of voluntary approaches to farmers in preventing
pesticide use around drinking water abstraction wells; in particular, incorporate the
suggestion that additional instruments will have to be applied if the objective of
pesticide-free areas is not achieved.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0089.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
87
Notes
1
The Faroe Islands and Greenland are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. For the purposes of this
review, data and figures refer only to continental Denmark unless otherwise stated.
2
Annual fluctuations in TPES are largely linked to variations in coal supply for power generation.
Denmark is part of the Nordic electricity market and variations in hydropower availability in Norway
and Sweden have traditionally been balanced by coal-fired plants in Denmark (IEA, 2017
[1]
).
3
The Kyoto Protocol established a cap-and-trade system, imposing national caps on the GHG
emissions of developed countries that ratified the protocol. Each participating country is assigned
an emission target and a corresponding number of allowances called Assigned Amount Units, which
are tradable emission permits (Carbon Market Watch, 2012
[102]
).
4
The MARPOL Convention introduced the emission control areas to reduce emissions of SO
X
and
NO
X
in designated sea areas.
References
AU-DCE (2018),
Vandmiljø og Natur 2016: NOVANA
–
Tilstand og udvikling. Faglig
sammenfatning: Videnskabelig rapport fra DCE
–
Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi, nr.
274
(Aquatic Environment and Nature 2016: NOVANA
–
Status and Trends. Technical
summary: Scientific Report from DCE
–
Danish Center for Environment and Energy, No.
274), Aarhus University, Aarhus
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR274.pdf
(accessed on
25 October 2018).
AU-DES (2018),
Air pollutants,
Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University,
Aarhus,
http://envs.au.dk/videnudveksling/luft/emissioner/air-pollutants
(accessed on
4 June 2018).
AU-DES (2018),
Air pollution monitoring programmes,
Department of Environmental Science,
Aarhus University, Aarhus,
http://envs.au.dk/en/knowledge/air/monitoring/programmes
http://envs.au.dk/en/knowledge/air/monitoring/programmes/
(accessed on 27 March 2018).
AU-DES (2018),
Emission ceilings for air pollutants,
Department of Environmental Science,
Aarhus University, Aarhus,
http://envs.au.dk/en/knowledge/air/emissions/emission-ceilings
(accessed on 23 March 2018).
AU-DES (2018),
Emission inventories. Air pollutants,
Department of Environmental Science,
Aarhus University, Aarhus,
http://envs.au.dk/en/knowledge/air/emissions/air-pollutants
(accessed on 26 March 2018).
Brack, D., J. Hewitt and T.
Marchand (2018), “Denmark”, in
Woody Biomass for Power and
Heat Demand and Supply in Selected EU Member States,
Royal Institute of International
Affairs, London,
www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2018-06-
07-woody-biomass-power-heat-eu-brack-hewitt-marchand.pdf
(accessed on 19 June 2018).
[99]
[34]
[66]
[68]
[69]
[35]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0090.png
88
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Carbon Market Watch (2012),
Assigned Amount Units (AAU) Surplus,
webpage,
https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2012/05/30/ji-and-aau-surplus
(accessed on 8 February 2019).
Climate Council (2018),
Status for Danmarks klimamålsætninger og -forpligtelser 2018
(Status
of Denmark’s climate goals and commitments 2018),
Danish Council on Climate Change,
Copenhagen,
www.klimaraadet.dk/da/system/files_force/downloads/status_for_danmarks_klimamaalsaetni
nger_og_-forpligtelser_2018.pdf
(accessed on 8 January 2019).
Danish Agricultural Agency (2019),
Statistik over økologiske jordbrugsbedrifter 2018;
Autorisation & produktion
(Statistics on organic farming 2018; Authorisation & production),
Danish Agricultural Agency, Copenhagen,
https://lbst.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Tvaergaaende/Oekologi/Statistik/Sta
tistik_over_oekologiske_jordbrugsbedrifter_2018.pdf
(accessed on 17 May 2019).
Danish Government (2018),
Sammen om en grønnere fremtid
–
Klima- og luftudspil
(Together
for a greener future: climate and air proposal), Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate,
Copenhagen,
https://efkm.dk/media/12350/klimaministeriet_klimaogluftudspil_digital.pdf
(accessed on 15 October 2018).
Danish Government (2014),
Danish Nature Policy: Our Shared Nature,
Danish Government,
Copenhagen,
https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/dk/dk-nbsap-v2-en.pdf
(accessed on
2 March 2018).
Danish Government (2012),
How to Manage Cloudburst and Rain Water: Action Plan for a
Climate-proof Denmark,
Danish Government, Copenhagen,
http://en.klimatilpasning.dk/media/590075/action_plan.pdf
(accessed on 11 May 2018).
Danish Government (2008),
Danish strategy for adaptation to a changing climate,
Danish
Energy Agency, Copenhagen,
http://en.klimatilpasning.dk/media/5322/klimatilpasningsstrategi_uk_web.pdf
(accessed on
11 May 2018).
DANVA (2017),
Water in Numbers 2017,
https://www.danva.dk/media/4662/water-in-
figures_2017.pdf
(accessed on 25 October 2018).
Denmark (2019), Country submission (not published).
EA (2018), “Preliminary Energy Statistics 2017”, Annual Energy Statistics website, Danish
Energy Agency, Copenhagen,
https://ens.dk/en/our-services/statistics-data-key-figures-and-
energy-maps/annual-and-monthly-statistics
(accessed on 6 June 2018).
EA (2018),
Analysis of Hyperscale Data Centres in Denmark: English Summary Report,
Danish
Energy Agency, Copenhagen,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/analysis_of_hyperscale_datacentres_in_denmark_-
_english_summary_report.pdf
(accessed on 8 February 2019).
[102]
[28]
[73]
[43]
[78]
[62]
[61]
[101]
[30]
[27]
[23]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0091.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
89
[41]
EA (2018),
Basisfremskrivning 2018: Energi- og klimafremskrivning til 2030 under fravær af
nye tiltag
(Background report 2018: Energy and climate projections to 2030 without new
initiatives), Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/basisfremskrivning_2018.pdf
(accessed on
5 June 2018).
EA (2017),
Denmark’s Energy and Climate Outlook 2017,
Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/denmarks_energy_and_climate_outlook_2017.pdf
(accessed on 13 April 2018).
Ea Energianalyse (2017),
Det danske træpillemarked 2016
(Danish wood pellet market 2016), Ea
Energianalyse, Copenhagen,
www.ea-
energianalyse.dk/reports/1717_det_danske_traepillemarked_2016.pdf
(accessed on
19 March 2019).
EC (2018),
Natura 2000 nature and biodiversity newsletter,
February, European Commission,
Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000newsl/nat43_en.pdf
(accessed on 27 March 2019).
EC (2018),
Reduction of National Emissions: Implementation,
European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/reduction/implementation.htm
(accessed on
17 May 2018).
EC (2017),
Factsheet on 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme for Denmark,
European
Commission, Brussels,
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/rural-
development-2014-2020/country-files/dk/factsheet_en.pdf
(accessed on 22 May 2018).
EC (2016), “EU approves new rules for Member States to drastically cut air pollution”,
press
release, European Commission, Brussels,
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-
4372_en.htm
(accessed on 9 January 2019).
EC (2016),
EU PILOT 8540/16/ENVI: Implementation in Denmark of Directives 91/676/EEC,
2000/60/EC,92/43/EEC, in relation to the recently adopted agricultural package,
European
Commission, Brussels,
https://baeredygtigtlandbrug.dk/media/187679/13273706-
dokumentation.pdf
(accessed on 24 May 2018).
EC (2014), "Attitudes
of European Citizens towards the Environment", Special Eurobarometer,
No. 416, European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instru
ments/SPECIAL/search/416/surveyKy/2008
(accessed on 21 February 2018).
EC (n.d.),
Effort Sharing: Member
States’ Emission Targets,
website, European Commission,
Brussels
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort_en
(accessed on 18 March 2019).
Edelvang, K. et al. (2017),
Analysis Of Marine Protected Areas-in the Danish Part of the North
Sea and the Central Baltic around Bornholm: Part 1
–
The Coherence of the Present Network
of MPAs,
National Institute for Aquatic Resources, Technical University of Denmark,
http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/120844754/Analysis_of_marine_protected_areas_Part_1.pdf
(accessed on 17 May 2019).
[19]
[32]
[84]
[64]
[75]
[63]
[93]
[18]
[49]
[88]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0092.png
90
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
EEA (2018), “Facility level”, European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register website,
http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/#/facilitylevels
(accessed on 28 June 2018).
EEA (2018),
Economic losses from weather disasters (dataset provided to the European
Environment Agency under institutional agreement),
EEA,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-
and-maps/indicators/direct-losses-from-weather-disasters-3/assessment-1
(accessed on
7 March 2018).
EEA (2018),
European Waters
–
Assessment of status and pressures 2018,
website,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-assessments/quality-elements-of-water-bodies
(accessed on 25 October 2018).
Ellermann, T. et al. (2018),
The Danish Air Quality Monitoring Programme: Annual Summary
for 2017,
Aarhus University, Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus,
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR281.pdf
(accessed on 15 March 2019).
DEnC (2017), English summary, in
Energikommissionens anbefalinger til fremtidens
energipolitik: Afsluttende rapport
–
April 2017
(Energy Commission’s Recommendations for
Future Energy Policy: Final report
–
April 2017), Danish Energy Commission,
http://efkm.dk/media/8275/energikommisionens-anbefalinger_opslag.pdf
(accessed on
6 June 2018).
EPA (2017),
Overview of the Danish regulation of nutrients in agriculture & the Danish Nitrates
Action Programme,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
http://eng.mst.dk/media/186211/overview-of-the-danish-regulation-of-nutrients-in-
agriculture-the-danish-nitrates-action-programme.pdf
(accessed on 6 March 2018).
European Parliament (2018), “Energy: New ambitious targets on renewables and energy
efficiency”, press release, European Parliament, Strasbourg,
www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181106IPR18315/energy-new-ambitious-
targets-on-renewables-and-energy-efficiency
(accessed on 9 February 2019).
Eurostat (2019),
Greenhouse gas emissions in ESD sectors,
website, European Commission,
Eurostat, Luxembourg,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_
35
(accessed on 15 March 2019).
Eurostat (2019),
Renewable energy statistics,
website, European Commission, Eurostat,
Luxembourg,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_statistics#Renewable_energy_produced_in_the_EU
_increased_by_two_thirds_in_2007-2017
(accessed on 13 February 2019).
Eurostat (2018),
Modal split of inland freight transport, 2016,
website, European Commission,
Eurostat, Luxembourg
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=File:Modal_split_of_inland_freight_transport,_2016_(%25_of_tota
l_inland_tonne-kilometres).png
(accessed on 15 October 2018).
GEUS (2019),
Grundvandsovervågning 1989-2017
(Groundwater monitoring 1989-2017),
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen,
www.geus.dk/media/20715/grundvand_1989-2017.pdf
(accessed on 6 March 2019).
[55]
[59]
[95]
[70]
[22]
[76]
[26]
[56]
[29]
[36]
[96]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0093.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
91
[21]
Government of Denmark et al. (2018),
Energy Agreement of 29 June 2018,
Government of
Denmark, Copenhagen,
https://en.efkm.dk/media/12307/energy-agreement-2018.pdf
(accessed on 10 October 2018).
Government of Sweden (2015),
Five EU Member States decide to cancel surplus of Kyoto
Protocol units,
, Government of Sweden, Stockholm,
www.government.se/articles/2015/12/five-eu-member-states-decide-to-cancel-surplus-of-
kyoto-protocol-units/
(accessed on 9 May 2018).
Helliwell, J., R. Layard and J. Sachs (2018),
World Happiness Report 2018,
Sustainable
Development Solutions Network, New York,
https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-
report/2018/WHR_web.pdf
(accessed on 28 March 2018).
IEA (2019), “CO
2
emissions by product and flow”,
IEA CO
2
Emissions from Fuel Combustion
Statistics
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00430-en
(accessed on
21 February 2019).
IEA (2018),
IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances
(database),
www.iea.org/statistics.
IEA (2017),
Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Denmark
–
2017 Review,
IEA/OECD Publishing,
Paris,
www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/EnergyPoliciesofIEACountriesDenma
rk2017Review.pdf
(accessed on 11 April 2018).
IMO (n.d.),
Emission Control Areas (ECAs) designated under regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex
VI,
International Maritime Organization, London,
www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Emission-
Control-Areas-%28ECAs%29-designated-under-regulation-13-of-MARPOL-Annex-VI-
%28NOx-emission-control%29.aspx
(accessed on 27 March 2018).
ITF (2018),
“Inland freight transport”
ITF Transport Statistics
(database),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trsprt-data-en
(accessed on 17 May 2018).
Larsen, M. and E. Alslund-Lanthén (2017),
Bumps on the Road to 2030: An overview of the
common challenges for the Nordic countries in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs),
Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen,
http://norden.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1138263/FULLTEXT01.pdf
(accessed on 19 December 2018).
Levin, G. (2016),
Geografiske Analyser af § 3-registrerede Arealer
(Geographical analyses of §
3 areas), Aarhus University, National Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus,
https://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR213.pdf
(accessed on 18 March 2019).
MCEB (2012),
Accelerating Green Energy towards 2020: The Danish Energy Agreement of
March 2012,
Ministry of Climate, Energy and Building, Copenhagen,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/EnergiKlimapolitik/accelerating_green_energy_towards_2020
.pdf
(accessed on 11 May 2018).
MEAI (2018),
Denmark’s National Reform Programme
2018,
Ministry for Economic Affairs
and the Interior, Copenhagen,
https://www.fm.dk/~/media/publikationer/imported/2018/dk-
nationale-reformprogram/denmarks-national-reform-programme-2018.ashx.
[47]
[16]
[52]
[24]
[1]
[67]
[37]
[4]
[82]
[20]
[5]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0094.png
92
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
MEC (2010),
National Action Plan For renewable energy in Denmark,
Ministry of Energy and
Climate, Copenhagen,
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/national-
action-plans
(accessed on 16 May 2018).
MEF (2019),
Nationalt program for reduktion af luftforurening
(National Air Pollution Control
Programme) Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
https://prodstoragehoeringspo.blob.core.windows.net/4cacff15-b1cf-46cf-ae53-
9ad03692f7ca/Udkast%20til%20NEC%20program-4.docx.pdf
(accessed on 13 March 2019).
MEF (2019),
Sixth Danish Country Report - Convention on Biological Diversity,
Ministry of
Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
www.cbd.int/doc/nr/nr-06/dk-nr-06-en.pdf
(accessed on
17 May 2019).
MEF (2019),
Tillægsaftaletekst til Aftale om Pesticidstrategi 2017-2021
(Text of the
supplementary agreement to the Agreement on Pesticide Strategy 2017-2021), Ministry of
Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
www.danva.dk/media/5136/tillaegsaftale-til-
pesticidstrategien.pdf
(accessed on 14 January 2019).
MEF (2019),
Updated biodiversity country profile, Annex to the 6th Danish Country Report To
the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
www.ft.dk/samling/20181/almdel/MOF/bilag/312/1999517.pdf
(accessed on
15 January 2019).
MEF (2018),
Danmarks Havstrategi II - Første del
(Danish Marine Strategy II - First Part),
Ministry of Environment and Food,
Copenhagen,https://prodstoragehoeringspo.blob.core.windows.net/5ecfd397-7cd3-432a-a8f5-
5590674cb003/Udkast%20til%20Danmarks%20Havstrategi%20II.pdf
(accessed on
19 December 2018).
MEF (2018),
Danmarks nationale skovprogram
(Danish national forest programme), Ministry of
Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
www.skovforeningen.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/Danmarks-nationale-skovprogram-2018.pdf
(accessed on
18 December 2018).
MEF (2017),
Bekendtgørelse af lov om miljøbeskyttelse
(Consolidated Environmental Protection
Act), Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=192058#id5fde50ec-3f41-47ac-befe-
0bc791d88726
(accessed on 3 September 2018).
MEF (2015),
Aftale om Fødevare- og landbrugspakke (Agreement on Food and Agriculture),
Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
http://mfvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/FVM.dk/Dokumenter/Landbrug/Indsatser/Foedevare-
_og_landbrugspakke/Aftale_om_foedevare-_og_landbrugspakken.pdf
(accessed on
24 May 2018).
MEUC (2018),
Energiaftale 2018: CO
2
effekter
(2018 Energy Agreement: CO
2
effects), Ministry
of Energy, Utilities and Climate, Copenhagen,
https://efkm.dk/media/12200/handout_energiaftale_co2effekter.pdf
(accessed on
20 March 2019).
[25]
[65]
[81]
[97]
[80]
[94]
[85]
[91]
[98]
[50]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0095.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
93
[48]
MEUC (2018),
Energy
–
for a green Denmark,
Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate,
Copenhagen, https://kefm.dk/media/11857/energiudspillet_eng.pdf (accessed on
6 September 2019).
MEUC (2017),
Denmark’s Seventh National Communication and Third Biennial Report under
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate, Copenhagen,
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/8057126_Denmark-NC7-BR3-2-NC7-DNK-
Denmarks-NC7-and-BR3_1January2018-12MB.pdf
(accessed on 9 May 2018).
MF (2018),
Aftale mellem regeringen og Dansk Folkeparti: Finansloven for 2019
(Agreement
between the
government and the Danish People’s Party on the 2019 budget),
Ministry of
Finance, Copenhagen,
www.fm.dk/~/media/files/nyheder/pressemeddelelser/2018/11/fl19-
aftale/aftale-om-finansloven-for-2019.ashx?la=da
(accessed on 9 January 2019).
MF (2017),
Aftaler om finansloven for 2018
(Agreements on the central government budget bill
for 2018), Ministry of Finance, Copenhagen,
www.fm.dk/publikationer/2017/aftaler-om-
finansloven-for-2018
(accessed on 7 May 2018).
MF (2017),
Report for the Voluntary National
Review: Denmark’s Implementation of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development,
Ministry of Finance, Copenhagen,
www.fm.dk/publikationer/2017/report-for-the-voluntary-national-review
(accessed on
16 February 2018).
MTBH (2014),
Aftale om TogfondenDK: Nu får danskerne en bedre, grønnere og hurtigere
jernbane
(Agreement on Train Fund DK: Now Danes will get better, greener and faster
trains), Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, Copenhagen,
www.trm.dk/da/nyheder/2014/aftale-om-togfond(accessed
on 7 May 2018).
NA (2015),
Proposal for Protected Areas in the Danish part of Kattegat,
Danish Nature Agency,
Copenhagen,
www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/remisser-och-
yttranden/esbo-arenden/kategatt/forslag-till-skyddade-omraden.pdf
(accessed on
27 March 2019).
NA (2014),
5th Danish Country Report To the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Danish
Ministry of Environment, Nature Agency, Copenhagen,
www.cbd.int/doc/world/dk/dk-nr-05-
en.pdf
(accessed on 2 March 2018).
Nielsen, O. et al. (2018),
Denmark’s National Inventory Report 2018: Emission Inventories
1990-2016
–
Submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
and the Kyoto Protocol,
Aarhus University, Danish Centre for Environment and Energy,
Aarhus,
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR272.pdf
(accessed on 11 June 2018).
Nord-Larsen, T. et al. (2017),
Skove og plantager 2016
(Forest statistics 2016), Institute of
Geosciences and Nature Management, Copenhagen University, Frederiksberg,
https://static-
curis.ku.dk/portal/files/186153734/SkoveogPlantager2016_samlet_6_jeal.pdf
(accessed on
21 December 2018).
[40]
[44]
[45]
[2]
[46]
[89]
[79]
[58]
[86]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0096.png
94
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Nord-Larsen, T. et al. (2018),
Skove og plantager 2017 (Forest statistics 2017),
Institute of
Geosciences and Nature Management, Copenhagen University, Frederiksberg,
https://static-
curis.ku.dk/portal/files/213509961/SP2017_web.pdf
(accessed on 17 May 2019).
OECD (2019),
“National Accounts at a Glance”, OECD National Accounts Statistics
(database),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00369-en
(accessed on 20 March 2019).
OECD (2019), “Income distribution”,
OECD Social and Welfare Statistics
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00654-en
(accessed on 17 May 2019).
OECD (2019),
OECD Economic Surveys: Denmark 2019,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-dnk-2019-en.
(accessed on 17 January 2019).
OECD (2019),
OECD Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels (database,
forthcoming).
OECD (2019),
Society at a Glance 2019: OECD Social Indicators,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2019-en.
OECD (2019), “Water: Wastewater treatment”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00604-en
(accessed on 21 February 2019).
OECD (2018),
“Agri-environmental indicators: Nutrients”
OECD Agriculture Statistics
(database),
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AEI_NUTRIENTS
(accessed on
21 January 2019).
OECD (2018),
“Gross domestic product (GDP)”
OECD National Accounts Statistics
(database),
https://stats.oecd.org/
(accessed on 7 February 2019).
OECD (2018),
Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy
Use,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd.org/environment/cost-benefit-analysis-and-the-
environment-9789264085169-en.htm
(accessed on 17 January 2019).
OECD (2018),
Flexibility Mechanisms in Environmental Regulations: Their Use and Impacts,
paper presented to the Working Party on Integrating Environmental and Economic Policies,
Paris, 14-15 November, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2018),
“Green Growth Indicators: Environmental dimension of quality of life –
Welfare
costs from exposure to
PM 2.5, GDP equivalent”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
OECD (2018),
Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets 2017: An Assessment of Where OECD
Countries Stand,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264308183-en
(accessed on 16 May 2018).
OECD (2018),
OECD Economic Outlook,
Vol. 2018, No. 2, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_outlook-v2018-2-en.
OECD (2018), “Water: Lake and river quality”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00693-en
(accessed on 23 May 2018).
OECD (2017),
Governance at a Glance,
OECD Publishing, Paris.
[57]
[9]
[11]
[7]
[33]
[14]
[100]
[72]
[6]
[51]
[10]
[71]
[3]
[8]
[92]
[17]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0097.png
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
95
[53]
OECD (2017), “Green Growth Indicators 2017”,
OECD Green Growth Studies,
OECD
Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268586-en
(accessed on 31 May 2018).
OECD (2017), “Groundwater Allocation: Managing Growing Pressures on Quantity and
Quality”,
OECD Studies on Water,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264281554-en.
OECD (2017),
How’s Life? 2017: Measuring Well-being,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/how_life-2017-en
(accessed on 28 March 2018).
OECD (forthcoming), “Water-related
investment needs and financing capabilities in EU member
states. Provisional Denmark country factsheet”,
OECD Studies on Water,
OECD Publishing,
Paris.
OECD/EOHSP (2017),
Denmark: Country Health Profile 2017,
OECD Publishing/European
Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Paris/Brussels,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264283343-en.
Petersen, A. et al. (2016),
Bevarelse af biodiversiteten i de danske skove,
(Biodiversity
conservation in Danish forests),
http://macroecology.ku.dk/pdf-
files/Villum_Skovrapport_2016.pdf
(accessed on 23 May 2018).
Productivity Commission (2014),
Infrastruktur. Analyserapport 5 Infrastruktur: Analyserapport
5
(Infrastructure: Analtyical report 5), Danish Productivity Commission,
http://produktivitetskommissionen.dk/media/160574/Rapport%205%20-%20Infrastruktur.pdf
(accessed on 8 February 2019).
RD (2018),
Nøgletal om vejtransport
(Key figures on road transport), Vejdirektoratet (Road
Directorate), Copenhagen,
www.vejdirektoratet.dk/DA/viden_og_data/statistik/trafikken%20i%20tal/Noegletal_om_vejt
ransport/Sider/default.aspx
(accessed on 21 June 2018).
REN21 (2018),
Renewables 2018 Global Status Report,
REN21 Secretariat, Paris,
www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/17-8652_GSR2018_FullReport_web_-1.pdf
(accessed on 5 June 2018).
SD (2018),
Green National Accounts for Denmark 2015-2016,
Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen,
www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/GetPubFile.aspx?id=27468&sid=gnatuk
(accessed on
5 July 2018).
SD (2018),
Population figures from the censuses by time (2005-2018),
Statistics Denmark,
Copenhagen,
www.statbank.dk/10021
(accessed on 9 October 2018).
SD (2017),
Nyt fra Danmarks Statistik, Nr. 42
(News from Statistics Denmark, No. 42),
Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen,
www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/nyt/GetPdf.aspx?cid=28143
(accessed on 17 May 2019).
[90]
[12]
[60]
[15]
[87]
[38]
[39]
[31]
[54]
[13]
[77]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0098.png
96
I.1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: TRENDS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Sørensen, P. et al. (2017),
Transition Towards 2030. Building Blocks for a Low-Carbon Society
(An excerpt of the full report consisting of foreword and main conclusions),
Danish Council
on Climate Change, Copenhagen,
https://klimaraadet.dk/en/rapporter/transition-towards-
2030
(accessed on 6 September 2019).
Willer, H. and J. Lernoud (2019),
The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging
Trends 2019,
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL)/IFOAM
–
Organics
International, Frick/Bonn,
www.organic-world.net/yearbook/yearbook-2019.html
(accessed
on 27 March 2019).
Woollhead, J. and A. Petersen (n.d.),
Rapport om rubricering af danske fredninger i IUCN-
kategorier
(Report on the classification of Danish protected areas in IUCN categories), Danish
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://mst.dk/media/165950/endelig-rapport-om-
rubricering-af-danske-fredninger.pdf
(accessed on 11 January 2019).
[42]
[74]
[83]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0099.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
97
Chapter 2. Environmental governance and management
Denmark has a well-functioning environmental governance and management system
characterised by high levels of co-operation and consensus. However, there is scope to use
existing strengths, such as expertise in socio-economic assessments and a comprehensive
risk-based inspection system, to further strengthen policy making and gain a better
understanding of non-compliance with environmental rules. This chapter provides an
overview of developments in environmental governance and management in Denmark. It
describes the institutional and legal framework, use of policy evaluation tools and
mechanisms for compliance assurance. Finally, it examines efforts to promote
environmental democracy through public participation, environmental information and
access to justice.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The
use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli
settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0100.png
98
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
2.1. Introduction
Denmark has a well-functioning environmental governance and management system. It
benefits from high levels of co-operation and consensus. Particular strengths include an
informal system of cross-party political agreements, strong participation of civil society in
policy making and high-quality independent advisory bodies. Inter-ministerial
co-ordination on environment-related policies at the central level is well established. The
country also has a comprehensive risk-based inspection system covering not only large
installations, but also small and medium-sized enterprises.
Since a 2007 reform, Denmark’s 98
municipalities have been responsible for most aspects
of environmental management. To manage the transition, the country implemented a
recommendation in the previous OECD Environmental Performance Review (2007) by
setting up task forces to help municipalities carry out their new tasks. It also integrated
monitoring of national environmental action plans in the National Monitoring and
Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment (NOVANA), in line
with another recommendation. Finally, it used cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis
widely, e.g. based on updated guidelines on socio-economic assessment from 2017.
However, Denmark has not yet made it mandatory to apply the guidelines on
socio-economic assessment when making government decisions touching on the
environment or in regulatory impact assessment. While its risk-based inspection system is
effective, the country does not yet make full use of inspection data to understand
non-compliance among companies. Finally, there is a continued need for capacity building
as well as guidance on implementation and the use of enforcement measures to help
municipalities manage environmental challenges.
This chapter provides an overview of environmental governance and management in
Denmark. It describes the institutional and legal framework, use of policy evaluation tools
and mechanisms for compliance assurance. Finally, it examines efforts to promote
environmental democracy through public participation, environmental information and
access to justice.
2.2. Institutional framework
Denmark has a decentralised environmental governance system in which jurisdiction on
the environment is shared among the national, local and, to a lesser extent, regional levels.
The national level sets the legal framework and provides guidance on implementation. It
also develops national plans, programmes and strategies. Local authorities are responsible
for municipal and local planning; implementation of policies, plans and programmes; and
issuance of most environmental permits and related inspection.
2.2.1. National institutions
The review period saw a number of changes in the distribution of environmental
responsibilities at the national level. In 2007, a Ministry of Climate and Energy was
established. Previously, climate change had been part of the Ministry of Environment. The
rationale for a separate climate ministry was mainly the need to prepare for the 15
th
Session
of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, held in Copenhagen in December 2009. The merging of the climate and energy
portfolios facilitated reform of energy policy to support climate objectives, as evidenced
by the ambitious Energy Agreements of 2012 and 2018. In 2015, economic regulation of
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0101.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
99
waste and water utilities was added to the portfolio, creating the Ministry of Climate,
Energy and Utilities (MCEU).
In 2015, the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Food and Agriculture were merged
into the Ministry of Environment and Food (MEF), similar to the UK Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The rationale was to help balance the sometimes
competing interests of the environment and agricultural policy. At the same time, the
Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs (MIBFA) took on responsibility for
the Danish Planning Act and national guidelines for spatial planning.
MEF and MCEU share jurisdiction on the waste and water sectors. MEF is responsible for
environmental standards related to these sectors, while MCEU oversees their economic
regulation, including the setting of rules on charges for the use of water services and waste
collection services. The division of responsibilities took effect in 2015 to unite all utility
sectors in one ministry and thereby facilitate a focus on improving their efficiency across
the economy. In addition, a utility regulator under MCEU was established in July 2018. It
oversees the electricity, natural gas and district heating sectors with a view to ensuring
efficiency, the lowest possible prices for consumers, stable and secure energy supply, cost-
effective technological development and green transition. The Utilities Secretariat in the
Competition and Consumer Authority under MIBFA sets price caps and efficiency gain
requirements for the water and wastewater sectors.
The Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing is responsible for policies in its portfolio
areas. The Ministry of Taxation is responsible for legislation related to taxation and for
collecting taxes, while the Ministry
of Finance builds Denmark’s public sector budget
through the yearly Finance Act. It also provides cross-government policy co-ordination,
e.g. as the secretariat of the government Economic Committee and as chair of ad hoc
inter-ministerial policy committees.
Denmark stands out for its strong performance on inter-ministerial co-ordination. The
government Finance Committee must approve all policies with major implications for
public finances or the economy, including much environmental policy. The finance
minister heads the committee, which is convened weekly. A Co-ordination Committee,
headed by the prime minister, discusses environmental initiatives that are considered high
priority, have significant foreign policy implications or affect Greenland and the Faroe
Islands. It also meets weekly. In both committees, ministers with responsibilities in the
environmental domain are invited to join the deliberations when files touch upon their
responsibilities. Environmental impact assessments are included in the files when relevant,
and revised if committee decisions differ from those proposed in the files so that the
government is aware of the impact of its decisions on the environment. However, there is
no requirement to follow specific guidelines on conducting environmental assessments.
In 2015, the government set up an EU Implementation Committee. It discusses
business-related EU legislation. The aim is to ensure that implementation of EU rules does
not put more burdens on Danish companies than EU law requires unless important
considerations such as consumer protection justify it. An EU Implementation Council,
consisting of experts and representatives from business, labour unions and consumer
protection groups, advises the committee.
The Danish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a technical agency in charge of
environmental policy implementation, monitoring, permitting and inspections. It includes
the Chemical Inspectorate and decentralised units in Slagelse and Aarhus inspecting the
most complex and potentially most environmentally harmful companies. The Danish
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0102.png
100
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Nature Agency
manages MEF’s
approximately 200 000 ha of forests and natural areas.
Within the agency, the Danish Coastal Authority is responsible for the protection of
7 300 km of coastline. The Danish Maritime Authority supervises and inspects ships sailing
under the Danish flag and provides port state control over health, safety and environmental
protection.
2.2.2. Subnational institutions
The Constitution guarantees municipalities the right to decide their own affairs under state
supervision. The notion of municipal autonomy has continued to shape the role of
municipalities. For example, more than 75% of municipal revenue comes from local
taxation. While the national level provides a budgetary transfer in the form of a block grant,
municipalities decide how it is spent. Equalisation between richer and poorer municipalities
partly offsets differences in income levels, contributing to capacity in less affluent
municipalities. Municipal budgets are determined in yearly agreements between the
government and Local Government Denmark, which represents municipalities. If the
government imposes new responsibilities on municipalities, it must compensate them for
the cost through a transfer called a DUT payment. Public-private partnerships are not
widely used by municipalities, e.g. in providing water and sanitation services.
In 2007, Denmark introduced a reform of its local administrative structure. The number of
municipalities was reduced from 271 to 98, and 14 counties were replaced by 5 regions. In
the process, most county environmental responsibilities were transferred to either the
enlarged municipalities or the national level. Regions inherited limited environmental
responsibilities, such as handling raw material extraction and contaminated soils (Box 2.1).
In March 2019, the government decided that these responsibilities would be transferred to
the national level.
Box 2.1. The 2007 municipal reform and the environment
In 2007, Denmark introduced a wide-ranging reform of the structure of its local authorities.
The aim was to form larger, highly competent and financially sustainable municipalities of
at least 30 000 inhabitants. The number of municipalities was reduced from 271 to 98, and
14 counties were replaced by 5 regions. The municipal reform saw a transfer of most
county environmental responsibilities to the municipal or national level.
New municipal responsibilities after 2007
Most public administration functions under Danish environmental legislation and
citizen-related duties
Preparation of action plans under the Environmental Objectives Act (protected
areas), wastewater management plans, water supply plans and municipal waste
management plans
Maintenance of watercourses to allow free passage of water
Municipal and local spatial planning
New responsibilities at national level after 2007
Duties related to
Denmark’s international obligations, duties of major national
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0103.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
101
interest or technically complicated tasks
Preparation of nature plans and River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)
Monitoring related to nature and the environment
National guidelines for spatial planning and planning for the capital region
Certain administrative functions, e.g. permits and inspections of the largest and
potentially most environmentally harmful businesses and facilities, and protection
of the coastline
Responsibilities for the new regions after 2007
Regional development plans
Mapping, planning and permitting for raw material extraction
Management of contaminated soil
Certain duties under the Environmental Objectives Act
Source:
(MEAI, 2015
[1]
).
The 2007 Environmental Performance Review of Denmark recommended setting up
capacity-building mechanisms to help municipalities carry out new environmental
management tasks. The national level has done this by establishing task forces that provide
free assistance to municipalities in environmental planning. They have covered areas such
as installation of wind turbines and biogas plants, municipal climate adaptation plans,
groundwater protection and permitting of livestock farms. The EPA also issues guidance
to municipalities on how to implement environmental legislation. Further such guidance
could be strengthened by learning from international best practice, e.g. Switzerland’s
enforcement aids to cantons.
In March 2013, an evaluation concluded that the municipal reform had succeeded in
creating a framework for a more robust public sector. It found that technical expertise and
financial sustainability had generally been improved and that political decision making in
municipalities had become more strategic. At the same time, the evaluation pointed out that
the potential benefits in efficiency gains and quality had not yet been fully reaped (MEAI,
2013
[2]
).
Concerning the environment, the evaluation recommended more inter-municipal
co-operation on nature and water management. It also noted that the reform had divided
responsibility for permitting and inspecting the most environmentally complex companies
(those covered by the EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control [IPPC] Directive)
between the municipalities and EPA. However, maintaining the expertise to handle the
companies at municipal level was challenging, since half the municipalities had fewer than
four such companies in their jurisdiction. Therefore, the evaluation recommended that the
government should consider transferring permitting of all companies under the directive,
excluding livestock farms, to the national level. Alternatively, as landfills accounted for a
substantial share of the companies, it recommended uniting landfill permitting (a municipal
responsibility) and inspection (an EPA task) at either the national or municipal level, to
avoid inconsistency. Similarly, the evaluation recommended unifying planning and
permitting of raw material extraction at either the regional or municipal level.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0104.png
102
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
In June 2013, all parties in the Danish Parliament reached a political agreement on
adjustments to the structural reform. These included decisions to transfer landfill permitting
from the municipal to the national level and permitting of raw material extraction from the
municipal to the regional level, the aim being to improve technical capacity and efficiency.
However, they decided not to transfer to the national level permitting and inspection of all
non-livestock companies covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive, which had since
replaced the IPCC directive. Municipalities continue to be responsible for some types of
these companies, e.g. in the area of waste management, under Statutory Order No 1517 of
07/12/2016 on environmental permits.
To address the recommendation on more inter-municipal co-operation in water and nature
management, a joint working group between the national level and Local Government
Denmark was formed to support municipalities in this area. The introduction of river basin
management has since improved cross-municipal co-operation on water management. In
addition, a major initiative on wetlands launched by MEF in 2010 led to grouping of
municipalities at the catchment level to ensure cohesion in decision making. Denmark
should expand the use of task forces to build municipal capacity in environmental
management areas where it faces challenges, such as waste prevention (Chapter 4).
2.3. Legal framework
Denmark is a parliamentary democracy characterised by proportional representation,
minority governments and a high level of cross-party co-operation. To enhance political
stability and policy continuity, governments often seek to form political agreements with
parties outside government on key policies (Box 2.2).
Box 2.2. Cross-party political agreements
Since the early 20th century, political parties in the Danish Parliament have used written
political agreements as a legally non-binding tool outside the normal legislative process.
Parties that enter into a political agreement commit themselves to support the legislation
necessary to implement it. This is a way for minority governments to be sure that a
parliamentary majority supports its legislative proposals before it presents them to
Parliament. More importantly, parties use political agreements to “bind” each other to
decisions that may prove unpopular (e.g. structural reform) or for which long-term
continuity is key (e.g. incentives for companies to invest in renewables).
Governments often publish plans, strategies or proposals as a starting point for negotiations
on political agreements. For example, the government’s energy proposal
of April 2018,
“Energy for a Green Denmark”, was followed by negotiations leading in June
2018 to a
political agreement by all parties in Parliament. Political agreements in the environmental
area also cover areas including the Danish climate law, spatial planning, nature policy,
circular economy, regulation of the waste management sector, chemical management,
pesticide management, targeted nitrogen regulation, and phosphorous regulation of
livestock farms.
Source:
(Christiansen, 2008
[3]
).
Denmark led the 2012 OECD Environmental Policy Stringency Index, which measured the
policy-induced cost of pollution by firms across a range of sectors and policy instruments
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0105.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
103
(OECD, 2016
[4]
). Perceived policy stringency has been shown to be a key factor in bringing
about improved environmental performance in companies (OECD, 2007
[5]
).
The Environmental Protection Act, last amended in 2017, is the central piece of legislation
on prevention and management of pollution in Denmark. It sets general quality
requirements for air, water, waste, soil (above and below ground) and noise. The act sets
out fundamental environmental protection objectives and the means by which they are to
be met. It is a framework act, supplemented by guidelines and statutory orders issued by
MEF.
The Environmental Objectives Act, last amended in 2016, governs protected areas,
including the management of Natura 2000 areas. Under the act, the environment minister
designates internationally protected areas and prepares a plan for each Natura 2000 area.
Municipalities are charged with preparing action plans for each area to implement the
national plans locally.
The Soil Contamination Act, last amended in 2016, charges the regions with mapping and
managing contaminated soil. It partly transposes the EU directives on environmental
liability and industrial emissions. The Environmental Damage Act, last amended in 2017,
is the main legislation transposing the Environmental Liability Directive. It applies the
polluter-pays principle by establishing that the responsible party must bear the costs
associated with preventing or remedying ecological damage.
Denmark has a good record on the speed and quality of transposition of EU environmental
legislation. There have been few complaints and infringement cases (Table 2.1). Denmark
is also highly active at the EU level on many environmental files. One example is the
updating of EU legislation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of
chemicals (REACH), which entered into force in 2007 (Chapter 5).
Table 2.1. Infringements of EU legislation
Directive
Environmental Liability Directive
2004/35/CE
Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC
Concern
Transposition in Danish
legislation
Breach of compliance with NO
2
limit values
Decision type
Formal notice
Formal notice
Decision data
2016
2016
Source:
European Commission (infringement decisions against Denmark as of December 2018).
The review period has seen important changes to Danish environmental legislation. The
2014 Climate Act, for example, established an independent Climate Council to advise the
government on matters such as how to achieve climate targets cost-effectively. The
government must respond to the council’s recommendations in a yearly climate report to
Parliament. The law requires the government to set national greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction targets at least every five years with a ten-year time frame.
In 2013, Parliament adopted a revised Water Planning Act, transposing the EU Water
Framework Directive (WFD) and establishing the legal framework for river basin
management. It provides for active involvement of civil society in the drafting of RBMPs
through municipally managed water councils comprising representatives from environment
and agriculture groups. To facilitate their work, the government informs them of the
cost-effectiveness of measures that could be implemented in the watershed.
In 2015, Parliament adopted the Food and Agriculture Package. Consequently, changes
have been made to the Fertiliser Act and Animal Husbandry Act to boost food production
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0106.png
104
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
while respecting environmental legislation by applying a more targeted approach to
nutrient pollution mitigation efforts.
2.3.1. Direct environmental regulation
Over the years, Denmark has made extensive use of pricing instruments, such as taxes and
charges, and financial support instruments to manage environmental issues (Chapter 3).
Nevertheless, direct environmental regulation is still the main approach used for
environmental policy instruments.
While the ultimate goal of such regulation is to improve environmental quality (e.g. urban
air quality), it may not be practical to ascribe such a result to a single policy intervention.
In such cases, direct regulation can be defined in terms of outcome (e.g. vehicle emission
standards) or design (e.g. use of a particular technology, such as particle filters). Its
effectiveness can thus be measured in terms of result, outcome or design.
Introducing flexibility in direct environmental regulation can help reduce compliance costs,
particularly regarding how to reduce emissions, for example when a design-based standard
requiring the use of a specific abatement technology is replaced by an outcome-based
standard that sets pollutant emission limits (OECD, 2018
[6]
). This allows companies to
abate or reduce emissions at the source and by whatever means is convenient; they can
select a process in their plant for abatement and also compensate emissions with reductions
at other sources.
Denmark increasingly favours outcome-based over design-based direct regulation to give
producers more flexibility on how to comply. Regulation of excess nutrients from farms is
a good example. In 2015, Denmark decided to replace a requirement to establish buffer
zones without fertilisers, crops or pesticides along certain streams and lakes with a more
targeted regulation giving farmers flexibility on the choice of abatement measures
(Box 2.3). Similarly, environmental permits for livestock farms require the use of best
available techniques, expressed as an outcome level of emissions from farms to the
environment. Farmers are free to choose among available techniques or technologies.
Box 2.3. Targeting nitrogen regulation improves cost-effectiveness
Excess nitrogen from agriculture is a main source of pressure on water quality in
Denmark’s coastal waters and fjords. Uniform regulation, such as farm-level
nitrogen
quotas, has helped reduce the excess. However, since water pollution risk varies widely
across the country, this has been suboptimal from both an environmental and a
cost-effectiveness perspective. To improve water quality in a more targeted
(i.e. risk-based) way, Denmark is implementing a new policy. For each of its 90 river
sub-basins, it has estimated how much excess agricultural nitrogen must decrease for
coastal waters to attain good status under the WFD. In parallel, it has estimated the amount
of nitrogen retained in soil on the way from farms to coastal waters, based on 3 000 units.
By combining the required reduction in each sub-basin with retention rates in soil,
Denmark determines the effort that must be made in each of the 3 000 units. Efforts to
reduce excess agricultural nitrogen are thus differentiated according to the risk of water
pollution (the extent to which each coastal water needs protection) and cost-effectiveness
(where abatement measures are most effective). Public financial support is available on
request. It is combined with an uncompensated direct regulation backstop mechanism if
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0107.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
105
voluntary participation is insufficient to achieve the required reduction. To ensure
cost-effectiveness at farm level, farmers can freely choose among abatement measures
whose effect has been documented by Danish universities.
An international expert panel found that Denmark had achieved the highest possible
standard of WFD implementation with respect to methodology and determination of
required actions (MEF, 2017
[7]
).
2.3.2. Land-use planning
The Spatial Planning Act, last amended in 2018, provides a national framework for spatial
planning that seeks to balance the need for environmental protection with economic
development and growth. Municipalities are responsible for translating national guidelines
into concrete spatial planning (Figure 2.1). To this end, they issue municipal plans every
four years with a 12-year time frame. Local plans are the most detailed level of spatial
planning. They establish rules on how land can be used and developed (OECD, 2017
[8]
).
MIBFA can reject municipal plans that do not adequately take national guidelines into
account. Municipal plans must address climate adaptation needs and reflect the Green Map
of Denmark (Box 2.4). A 2017 reform of the act gave municipalities more flexibility to
promote growth and development with continued respect for nature and environment. One
example is more flexible building opportunities in rural and coastal areas.
Box 2.4. Green Map of Denmark
Amendments to the Spatial Planning Act in 2015 and 2017 introduced requirements for
municipalities to plan and designate existing and potential natural areas and wildlife
corridors, including existing Natura 2000 sites, on the Green Map of Denmark. The aim of
the map is to improve biodiversity by reinforcing efforts to establish larger and more
interconnected natural areas and ensure coherence between designations in neighbouring
municipalities. The map shows not only existing nature but also where there is a potential
to create larger natural areas, such as forests and heaths. The map is continuously
developed and expanded as municipalities review their municipal plans every four years.
The Nature Map, a planning tool developed by the EPA and MEF, is available to
municipalities to support their work on designating nature areas for the Green Map. It
includes an overview of where endangered species are found and where efforts can be
targeted, and provides information on important high nature value habitats and potential
forest habitats.
Source:
(MEF, 2014
[9]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0108.png
106
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Figure 2.1. Land-use planning framework
General framework
National
NATIONAL PLANNING
-
-
-
-
-
NATIONAL PLANNING REPORT (LANDSPLANREDEGØRELSE)
Provides national long-term directives and high-level objectives for spatial development
Prepared after each election by the Minister for Industry, Business and Financial Affairs
FINGER PLAN FOR COPENHAGEN
National Planning Directive that outlines the urban development of the greater Copenhagen
area
Sectoral Plans
WATER RESOURCE PLAN
NATURA 2000 PLAN
-
-
Outlines environmental conditions and
objectives as specified in the EU Natura
2000 Directive
Has 246 sub-plans that contain
sometimes detailed zoning regulations
Municipal
STRATEGIES FOR PLANNING
-
-
PLANSTRATEGI
Can be exclusively focused on strategic land-use planning, but can also include more
general municipal strategies for economic and social development
MUNICIPAL PLANS
-
-
-
-
KOMMUNEPLAN
Comprehensive small scale land-use plans
Also contain important strategic elements for the development of a municipality
Typical scale: 1:20 000 to 1:5 000
LOCAL PLANS
-
-
-
-
LOKALPLAN
Most detailed plans, determine how land may be developed and used
Created only for larger developments or when necessary to meet the intentions of the
municipal plan
Typical scale: 1:10 000 to 1:1 000
Subordinate plans must conform
Subordinate plans do not need to conform
Primarily policy / strategic guidelines
Primarily land-use plans
Strategic and land-use guidelines
Partial geographical coverage
Source:
Adapted from (OECD, 2017
[8]
).
Farmland takes up more than 60% of the country’s surface area. Farming puts pressure on
the environment, especially on peatland (drained peatland is a net source of GHGs) or close
to sensitive natural areas and water bodies. Since 1990, land consolidation and land banking
have proved essential to improve both agricultural productivity (through structural
adjustment) and nature conservation (by offsetting nature conservation land with
agricultural land) (Hartvigsen, 2014
[10]
). However, public funding for land redistribution
has been significantly reduced since the discontinuation of the structural adjustment policy
in 2006. In 2018, a Multifunctional Land Redistribution Fund (MLRF) was established
with a budget of EUR 33
million. In February 2019, Denmark’s two main environmental
and agricultural interest groups jointly recommended raising it by at least EUR 130 million
(Danish Society for Nature Conservation and Danish Agriculture & Food Council,
2019
[11]
). The aim is to be able to seize opportunities to buy land where farming has a
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0109.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
107
significant environmental impact, such as peatland and soil close to ammonia-sensitive
nature areas or drinking water boreholes, and resell it for conversion to natural areas or
grassland as well as to support rural development and access to landscapes and nature.
Conversion of peatland could reduce agricultural GHG emissions by some 15% through
carbon sequestration (Dubgaard and Ståhl, 2018
[12]
). However, EU policies limit the
potential. Farmers lose income support under the Common Agricultural Policy when
agricultural peatland is converted to nature areas. In addition, the EU 2030 climate and
energy framework caps how much member states can use carbon sequestration to meet
reduction targets for sectors not included in the EU Emissions Trading System. Scaling up
conversion of peatland would support
Denmark’s ambition to become carbon neutral by
2050. It would also deliver co-benefits for biodiversity, water and air quality, and climate
adaptation. However, the merit of scaling up public funding of the MLRF with respect to
expected environmental policy benefits requires cost-effectiveness analysis.
In addition to budgetary resources, private funds could be mobilised to finance the MLRF.
Denmark has shown leadership in this area through the Climate Investment Fund. Recent
OECD work illustrates the range of interventions public actors can use to attract
institutional investment in low-carbon infrastructure, which could include the land
purchase envisaged by the MLRF (Röttgers, Tandon and Kaminker, 2018
[13]
).
2.4. Policy evaluation framework
The EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive was transposed into Danish
law in 2004. The resulting Environmental Assessment Act, last amended in 2016, requires
ministries to conduct SEAs of plans and programmes that may significantly affect the
environment. Examples of SEAs conducted in the review period include a SEA of changes
to the regulation of fertiliser use by farmers in the Food and Agriculture Package and a
SEA of the choice of location of marine wind turbines following the 2012 Energy
Agreement. The system of political agreements means a SEA is sometimes performed after
a political decision is made, in which case implementation can be conditional on the SEA
showing compatibility with legal constraints, e.g. EU environmental law.
Important government plans and programmes typically rely on extensive prior assessment
of the costs and benefits of targets or the cost-effectiveness of measures. Since many
environmental targets in Denmark are set at EU level rather than nationally,
cost-effectiveness assessments are more widely used than cost-benefit analysis.
Nevertheless, MEF and other ministries have increased their efforts on cost-benefit
analysis. In 2017, the Ministry of Finance published a revised set of guidelines on
socio-economic assessment of the costs and benefits of major initiatives (MF, 2017
[14]
).
The value of statistical life was increased from DKK 18 million (EUR 2.4 million) to
DKK 31 million (EUR 4.2 million), making the benefits of air pollution measures, for
instance, more likely to outweigh the costs. A recent example of a cost-benefit analysis is
the government proposal to tighten restrictions on vehicles in green zones in the largest
cities, which was included in the 2018 Climate and Air Pollution Proposal and approved
later that year.
In 2014, MEF tasked academics with preparing an
ex ante
cost-effectiveness analysis of
possible measures in RBMPs for 2015-21 (DCA, 2014
[15]
). An inter-ministerial working
group produced a similar analysis of possible GHG mitigation measures in 2013 (MEUC,
2013
[16]
), and potential GHG mitigation measures in the agricultural sector underwent
analysis in 2018. Cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed in preparation of the 2013
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0110.png
108
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
national waste plan and in 2013 and 2014 on implementation of the EU National Emission
Ceilings Directive.
In addition to effects within its borders, when conducting cost-benefit analysis of
environmental policies Denmark should consider separately quantifying effects elsewhere,
e.g. health benefits in neighbouring countries resulting from Danish air pollution measures.
Quantifying effects in and outside Denmark separately would give politicians the
information needed to evaluate policy options on a national or international basis, as they
choose (OECD, 2018
[17]
). More generally, making use of the guidelines on socio-economic
assessment mandatory for government decisions with a significant environmental impact
could further strengthen policy making. However, the consequences for government
decision-making processes should be assessed before such a change is implemented.
Primary legislation (laws) must contain a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) covering the
environment. The RIA must also assess economic and administrative burdens for
companies and public authorities, and administrative burdens for citizens (PMO, 1998
[18]
).
RIAs included in draft primary laws are released for consultation by the public before the
bills are debated in Parliament, in line with OECD best practice (OECD, 2017
[19]
).
However, Danish RIAs usually do not include comparison with alternative policy options,
unlike European Commission RIAs, for example. They are typically less comprehensive
than a full cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis. Hence they could also benefit from
mandatory use of the guidelines on socio-economic assessment. Finally, Denmark has one
of
the OECD’s largest gaps between the levels of impact assessment of primary legislation
and of subordinate regulations (statutory orders). This may be because many statutory
orders in Denmark are merely decrees of application of the primary law. In such cases, it
may not be relevant to conduct an additional RIA (OECD, 2018
[20]
).
Denmark conducts
ex post
evaluation of important policies, plans, programmes and
political agreements. For example, an evaluation of the pesticide tax and reduction target
was made public in 2018 (EPA, 2018
[21]
). Energy taxes and support under the 2012 Energy
Agreement were also subject to extensive
ex post
evaluation. The findings fed into
preparation of the 2018 Energy Agreement and led, for example, to a commitment to lower
the electricity tax. The 2007 Environmental Performance Review recommended
prioritising monitoring of national environmental action plans. This is now included in
NOVANA.
An independent body, Rigsrevisionen, audits public spending on behalf of the Danish
Parliament. It audits government accounts and financial statements of publicly funded
enterprises, and verifies the legality and efficient use of public funds. It also conducts
in-depth studies of specific policy areas. Parliament may request a statement by the
responsible minister on specific reports. The statement is then evaluated by Rigsrevisionen,
which sends the evaluation to Parliament for review, thus ensuring follow-up and political
accountability.
Following a 2014 Rigsrevisionen report, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee
criticised the former Ministry of Environment for its management of the first RBMPs
(2009-15). These were subject to delays and dissatisfaction concerning stakeholder
involvement. Scrutinising the management of the second RBMPs (2015-21),
Rigsrevisionen found that the ministry had followed its recommendations and proposed
closing the case (Rigsrevisionen, 2018
[22]
).
Independent advisory bodies such as the Environmental Economic Council and the Climate
Council are also mandated to evaluate public policies
ex post
and to make
ex ante
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0111.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
109
recommendations with a strong focus on improving cost-effectiveness. The Environmental
Economic Council was formed in 2007 to supplement the Economic Council. The two
councils share the same four-person presidency of renowned economists, usually from the
academic world. They prepare one report per year on policy issues at the interface of
economics and the environment. The Environmental Economic Council, which consists of
the presidency and a wide range of public sector and civil society representatives, meets to
discuss and comment on the report.
The Climate Council established by the 2014 Climate Act is an expert group charged with
evaluating compliance with climate targets, analysing pathways for Denmark to become a
low emission country by 2050, issuing recommendations on climate policy and mitigation
measures, and contributing to the public debate.
2.4.1. Environmental impact assessment and permitting
Under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act, last amended in 2017, EIA must
be carried out on building and construction projects before the contractor is granted
permission to begin the project. EIA is integrated into the permitting process.
In 2015, the Environmental Protection Act and the Spatial Planning Act were amended to
reduce processing times for environmental permits and ease the administrative burden for
companies and authorities, while at the same time maintaining the stringency of
environmental law. The amendments followed 2014 political agreements on a Growth Plan
for Food and a Growth Package. The purpose of the latter was to reduce the time it takes
the central government to process files for environmental approvals by 20% and municipal
processing time by 33%. The government estimated that, from 2017, the time savings
would represent an annual administrative gain of DKK 4.3 million (EUR 0.6 million) for
industry and lead to an increase in turnover of DKK 61 million (EUR 8.2 million) per year
due to enterprises starting new production more quickly.
The Order on Environmental Permitting, last amended in 2018, covers some
4 400 companies. They must apply for an environmental permit before starting production
or significantly changing or expanding their activities. Livestock farms are covered by a
separate Order on Livestock Environmental Permitting. It takes into account risks regarding
excess nutrients to groundwater, lakes and coastal waters and the adverse impact of
ammonia emissions on protected areas, among other matters.
2.5. Compliance assurance
2.5.1. Environmental inspections
Municipalities conduct most environmental inspections, using EPA guidelines. The EPA
inspects the most complex companies with the most serious potential impact on the
environment. These include energy plants, metal and mineral producers and processors, the
chemical industry, shredder waste managers, landfills, hazardous waste managers, and
incinerators (Statutory Order No. 1317 of 20/11/2018 on Environmental Permits). The EPA
and municipalities jointly oversee imports of waste for treatment.
The approximately 700 municipal inspectors
in Denmark’s 98
municipalities conducted
around 17 000 environmental inspections in 2017. Municipal inspectors are not accredited,
but employed on the basis of their educational background and professional experience and
trained through Local Government Denmark. MEF supports municipalities in their
inspection and licensing tasks through its Project Digital Business, and organises briefings
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0112.png
110
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
on EU reference documents on best available techniques. Some 50 EPA employees are
responsible for permitting and inspection of 300 industrial sites covered by the Industrial
Emissions Directive and about 30 sites covered by the Seveso Directive. They conduct 250
to 300 inspections per year.
In 2010, MEF launched its second enterprise committee, whose work resulted in
recommendations regarding simplification and updating of the corporate environmental
regulatory system. The recommendations led to reorganisation of environmental
inspections. Denmark now takes a risk-based approach to environmental inspection, in line
with the Industrial Emissions Directive.
It assigns a risk score to companies based on five parameters with differing weights: use of
environmental management systems (20%), previous rule compliance (30%), storage of
chemicals or other hazardous substances (16.5%), emissions to air, soil or water (16.5%)
and proximity to environmentally sensitive areas (17%). The potentially most
environmentally harmful companies are inspected at least every three years, as the directive
requires, while the least potentially harmful are inspected at least every six years. In both
cases, the frequency of inspection is increased if the companies’ risk score justifies it
(Statutory Order No. 1476 of 12/12/2017 on Environmental Inspections). Applying a
risk-based inspections system to even the least potentially harmful companies is good
practice.
In 2018, an external evaluation concluded that the risk score was generally effective but
that certain aspects could be improved. Among its recommendations were differentiating
between minor and major violations of rules when assessing the rule compliance parameter
(Ramboll, 2018
[23]
).
Until 2016, each municipality produced a yearly report on its environmental inspections,
but these data were not systematically compiled at the national level. In 2016, Denmark
introduced a central database collecting data from all inspections. This is a positive step, as
it gives an overview of the total number of inspections and violations. In 2017, out of
7 106 inspections of the most potentially environmentally harmful companies,
3 054 violations were detected (Figure 2.2). Among 10 501 inspections of the least
potentially harmful companies, 3 293 violations were detected. The share of companies
violating environmental rules is not known, as several violations may be found in a single
inspection.
The numbers suggest that the Danish inspection system is effective. The risk-based
approach helps authorities identify companies likely to breach environmental rules. The
results also show that the companies posing the biggest potential risk to the environment
are subject to the most compliance promotion and enforcement measures. Denmark is
starting to use the database more strategically to improve its inspections efforts. From 2020,
it plans to target guidance to industries where inspection data point to a need for special
efforts to bring down the number of violations. Making fuller use of the database should
help Denmark gain a better understanding of non-compliance among companies and inform
policy making.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0113.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
111
Figure 2.2. The inspection system is effective in finding violations, but the share of companies
violating environmental rules is unknown
Total inspections by EPA and municipalities in 2017, violations detected and recommendations issued
Total inspections
Detected violations
Recommendations issued
7 106
Most potentially
harmful companies
786
3 054
10 501
Least potentially
harmful companies
3 293
1 283
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
Note:
The Danish EPA has communicated that even minor infractions, such as failing to register a required environmental improvement even
though it has in fact been implemented, is considered a violation under the current inspection system. The fact that a recommendation has
been issued does not mean that the company has violated environmental rules. It is rather a preventive measure intended to avoid future
violations and/or improve environmental management.
Source:
Country submission.
StatLink 2http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002015
Denmark is introducing innovative techniques to support inspections. For example, in
relation to sulphur pollution from ships leaving the Baltic Sea through Danish waters, it has
started using sensors to single out ships for inspection (Box 2.5)
Box 2.5. Monitoring sulphur pollution from ships crossing Danish waters
To determine vessel compliance with international sulphur regulations, as outlined by the
International Maritime Organization in MARPOL Convention Annex VI, Denmark runs
controls on ships passing through its waters. The authorities monitor emissions from ship
funnels using a sniffer installed on a helicopter or drone (a plane was formerly used), as
well as one on the Great Belt Bridge. In 2017, between July and December alone, 404 ships
were checked and a substantially elevated sulphur content was found in 22 of them (5.4%).
This was the first time that micro-sensor technology, in the form of a mini sniffer system,
was officially used.
If too much sulphur is detected, the Danish Maritime Authority is informed and the ship is
further checked at a Danish port, as oil samples are required as proof. Since 2015,
21 companies have been reported to the authorities, and 7 have been fined thus far. For
ships heading to non-Danish ports, the EPA notifies the relevant authorities that there may
be grounds for monitoring. It shares monitoring information with other EU countries via
the THETIS port state control database, allowing EU and national authorities to act on the
information. To strengthen enforcement of the sulphur regulations, in October 2018 the
Danish environment minister presented a legislative proposal to Parliament that would
allow the EPA to publicly “name and shame” non-complying
companies.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0114.png
112
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Aarhus University estimated that the stricter regulation more than halved the sulphur
content of the air over Denmark. Two subsequent reports concluded that some 95% of ships
now respect the sulphur limits. Given that all ships entering or leaving the Baltic Sea need
to pass through Danish waters, this monitoring, if supported by action by other countries
in the region (e.g. in response to Danish authorities’ notifications), can be considered a best
practice contributing to the improvement of air quality in the region.
Source:
(Explicit ApS, 2018
[24]
), (EPA, 2017
[25]
), (ITF, 2016
[26]
), (MEF, 2017
[7]
).
2.5.2. Enforcement and environmental liability
Danish authorities have three categories of compliance promotion and enforcement
measures at their disposal: reporting companies to the police, issuing enforcement orders
prescribing corrective actions and issuing non-binding recommendations. If authorities
detect violations during an inspection, they must issue an enforcement order. In the most
severe cases, they report companies to the police. However, this occurred in just 30 cases
out of some 17 600 inspections in 2017. As a preventive measure, authorities may issue
recommendations to help companies improve environmental management and avoid future
violations. These can take the form of non-binding agreements on specific improvements.
Guidance documents on compliance promotion and enforcement measures have existed
since 2005 (EPA, 2005
[27]
), but in practice, municipalities vary widely in their use of the
measures. In 2017, recommendations made up 21.5% of reactions recorded following
inspections of the potentially most environmentally harmful companies (Figure 2.3).
However, 11% of municipalities opted for a more instructive (less punitive) approach by
choosing to use recommendations more often than enforcement orders. Eight of these
municipalities issued recommendations five times more often than enforcement orders.
Figure 2.3. Municipalities enforce environmental rules differently
Compliance promotion and enforcement measures used by municipalities following environmental inspections
Reactions by type, 2017
Use of recommendations and enforcement orders by
municipal authorities, 2017
Reported to
police
0.4%
Enforcement
orders
78.1%
Recommendations
21.5%
Share of municipalities
issuing more enforcement
orders than recommendations
89%
Share of
municipalities
issuing
more
recommenda-
tions
than
enforcement
orders
11%
Note:
Data refer to inspections carried out by municipalities in the most potentially harmful companies.
Source:
Country submission.
Different types of industries are not evenly distributed across the country. Since different
industries give rise to different kinds of environmental issues, applying compliance
promotion and enforcement measures to the exact same degree across municipalities should
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0115.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
113
not be an aim in itself. However, the same types of companies should experience uniform
treatment irrespective of the municipality they are based in. To thus level the playing field
for companies, national authorities should ensure that municipalities promote compliance
with environmental rules and enforce them in a comparable manner, while respecting
municipal autonomy and taking differences in the regional distribution of industries into
account (Mazur, 2011
[28]
).
In 2017, MEF launched a new enforcement strategy for its agencies, including the EPA
(MEF, 2017
[29]
). It includes scaling up guidance efforts and ensuring transparent and
uniform treatment of companies. The results of this strategy should be used to provide
municipalities with additional, evidence-based criteria for identifying appropriate
compliance promotion and enforcement measures. In addition, the EPA could illustrate its
guidance documents with examples from actual cases in municipalities.
Section 196 of the Danish Penal Code makes it a crime to pollute air, water, soil or the
underground to such an extent that the pollution causes significant damage or immediate
danger of damage to the environment. It is also a crime to store or remove waste or similar
substances where it causes significant damage or immediate danger of damage to the
environment. Violations of environmental law of a systematic or organised nature are also
considered crimes.
The most severe penalty for an environmental crime given during the review period was in
a case decided by the Danish High Court in 2017. Two men were sentenced, one to three
years in prison and the other to three years and nine months, for crimes including disposal
of waste in a forest in violation of paragraph 196 of the Criminal Code. However, criminal
liability is reserved for the most serious breaches of environmental law. In less serious
cases, Denmark applies the polluter-pays principle, requiring the polluter to bear the cost
of remedying the environmental damage.
Denmark transposed the EU Environmental Liability Directive in 2008 and has published
a comprehensive guidance document on its application. It has not yet experienced any cases
of environmental damage to which the directive applied. In 2016, the European
Commission launched an investigation into whether Danish legislation was compatible
with the directive.
The context of violations of environmental rules differs between the most and least
potentially harmful companies. Increasingly, the least potentially harmful companies are
not required to have environmental permits but must comply with general rules. To promote
their compliance, information measures in line with the inspection strategy might be useful.
The most potentially harmful companies must have environmental permits, which give
detailed guidance on how each company is to comply with environmental legislation.
Nevertheless, more violations are found among these companies than among those without
permits. This suggests that lack of guidance is not the underlying issue. Making fuller use
of the database on inspections would help shed light on reasons for non-compliance.
2.5.3. Promotion of compliance and green practices (certification)
The number of Danish companies adopting the ISO 14001 environmental management
system was between 800 and 1 000 for most years in the review period (Figure 2.4). After
a sharp peak in 2012, from 2013 to 2017 the yearly number increased gradually to reach its
second highest level in 2017. An explanation for the fluctuation may be the impact of public
support programmes that have promoted uptake of environmental management systems.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0116.png
114
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Figure 2.4. Enterprises adopting environmental management systems peaked in 2012
Number of ISO 14001 EMS certifications issued per year, 2005-17
2 000
1 800
1 600
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source:
ISO (2018),
ISO Survey 2017
.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.177/888934002034
Denmark does not have an Environmental Code but is attempting to make compliance with
environmental legislation easier. To this end, a simplification exercise is being undertaken
to reduce the number of regulations related to the environment and food production. It is
intended to be a technical legal reorganisation exercise that will not alter existing
environmental protection. The aim is to improve legal certainty for citizens and companies
by consolidating the relevant legislation and organising it more logically, which will also
ease the administrative burden for public authorities.
As a first step, MEF reorganised and merged statutory orders and annulled orders that were
no longer applicable. When that exercise was finished in 2016, the number of orders had
been reduced by a third without changing the legal stringency of environmental protection.
As a second step, a panel of legal experts in the environmental field, chaired by the
ombudsman’s office of the Danish Parliament,
were tasked with proposing a new structure
for laws covering the environment and food production. The panel published its
recommendations in December 2017 under the title “The Law Compass”. It recommended
a simplified and modernised legal structure that would reduce the number of laws from
95 to 43 without changing the level of environmental protection (Law Compass Expert
Panel, 2017
[30]
). Initial steps to follow up on these recommendations have been taken, such
as repeal of obsolete rules on agriculture. Denmark should further pursue such efforts in
order to promote compliance and enforcement.
2.5.4. Voluntary agreements
Governments sometimes use voluntary agreements with business as an alternative or
supplement to other policy instruments (e.g. direct environmental regulation, taxes,
tradable emission permits), as they are thought by some to be more flexible, efficient or
consensus-based. However, if voluntary agreements are not backed by a credible threat of
more restrictive action should targets not be met, they risk adding little value while
incurring administrative costs for both authorities and companies (OECD, 2003
[31]
).
Denmark’s use of agreements and formalised partnerships between the public
and private
sectors on the environment reflects a tradition of civil-society involvement in policy
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0117.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
115
making. Such arrangements also help create consensus and continuity on environmental
policies, a preference reflected in the system of informal cross-party political agreements
as well. When voluntary agreements include quantitative targets, they are backed by
explicit threats of regulatory action (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2. Voluntary agreements with quantitative targets are backed by threats of
regulation
Voluntary agreements between government and industry concluded between 2005 and 2018
Name of agreement
Partnership on precision spraying
Partnership on green shipping
Agreement on electrical and electronic waste
Agreements regarding aquatic environment
Partnership on green public purchasing
Agreements on Energy Savings Obligations
Years active
2017-21
2016-
2014-16
2009-21
2006-
2006-20
Sector
Agriculture and natural
resources
Transport
Waste
Water
Multiple
Energy
Quantitative
target
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Explicit
threat
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Source:
Country submission.
2.6. Promoting environmental democracy
2.6.1. Public participation
Denmark provides for excellent public participation in environmental matters, according
to the European Commission (EC, 2017
[32]
). Across policy areas, the OECD regulatory
policy and governance indicator shows Denmark to be slightly above the OECD average
in terms of stakeholder engagement in development of legislation (OECD, 2017
[19]
).
Stakeholder engagement is more comprehensive in primary legislation (laws) than in
subordinate regulations (statutory orders). This follows the same pattern as EIA, possibly
because some statutory orders are simply application decrees of primary laws.
The government aims to have four weeks of public consultation on both primary laws and
statutory orders, although it is not a legal requirement. The aim is generally respected on
primary laws and, when practical, on statutory orders.
2.6.2. Access to environmental information
The Environmental Information Act, last amended in 2017, constitutes Denmark’s
implementation of the EU Directive on Public Access to Environmental Information,
which in turn implements part of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the
Aarhus Convention). Access to environmental information, to which the act applies, is
broader in scope than access to other types of information, which is covered by the Open
Administration Act. The definition of environmental information covers the state of the
environment; elements such as substances, energy, noise, radiation, waste, emissions and
leaks that cause or may cause pollution; policies, legislation, plans, programmes and
agreements affecting the environment; reports on implementation of environmental
legislation; economic analyses on environmental policy measures; and human health and
safety, including the effects of pollution (Statutory Order No. 980 of 16/08/2017). The time
in which authorities must handle requests for information ranges between one to two and
forty workdays, depending on the complexity of the request.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0118.png
116
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
The Open Administration Act requires national, regional and local authorities to
communicate actively about their activities on their websites. Every four years, MEF issues
an Environmental
Status Report on Denmark’s nature and the environment. The latest such
report was issued in 2015. In November 2018, Danish authorities said they expected the
next Environmental Status Report to be published in 2019.
NOVANA makes national monitoring data available to the public on environmental
impacts, status and trends with regard to nature and the environment. Aarhus University
publishes a yearly summary of these technical documents as a more accessible supplement.
2.6.3. Access to justice
For most of the review period, the Environment and Nature Appeal Board was an
independent authority examining appeals against administrative decisions on environment,
nature and spatial planning. On 1
February 2017, the board’s responsibilities were split
between a new Environment and Food Appeal Board for environment and nature and a
separate body for spatial planning appeals. The structure mirrors the division of
responsibilities between MEF and MIBFA. An Energy Appeal Board also exists.
The Environment and Food Appeal Board is now the top administrative appellate body for
decisions made under MEF. Its membership consists of a president, judges nominated by
courts, experts nominated by relevant non-government organisations and business
associations; and lay members nominated by Parliament. The composition of the panel
examining a given appeal depends on the nature of the appeal, but the president and judges
are members of all panels. The president may decide on behalf of the board in cases that
do not raise questions of major importance or precedence. A plaintiff unsatisfied with a
board decision may appeal it through the regular court system.
In an effort to provide speedier access to justice for citizens, the average number of days
taken for board decisions was reduced from 369 in 2011 to 182 in 2015 (Figure 2.3). In
2016, the progress was partly reversed because of adjustments related to relocation of the
board from Copenhagen to Viborg.
Table 2.3. Access to justice by the Environment and Nature Appeal Board was expedited
Average number of days to rule on citizen complaints about authorities’ decisions,
2011-16
2011
Average number of days to decide on a complaint
369
2012
333
2013
392
2014
190
2015
182
2016
232
2011-16 average
283
Source:
Environment and Nature Appeal Board reports for 2016, 2014, 2012 and 2011.
An ombudsman’s office was established in 1955 as an independent legal
institution under
Parliament to which citizens can file complaints against decisions by public authorities.
The ombudsman is elected by Parliament and must be a law graduate. The ombudsman
may proffer criticism and recommend that authorities reopen cases and consider changing
their decisions. Although the ombudsman cannot make decisions as such, public authorities
generally act on the office’s recommendations. The ombudsman has issued opinions on
authorities’ application of the Environmental Information Act,
sometimes recommending
expansion of its application in specific cases.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0119.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
117
2.6.4. Environmental education
Danish authorities use information campaigns to raise public awareness of environmental
issues. In recent years, initiatives have been taken to help schools educate children and
youth on environmental issues.
The EPA offers educational material on nature on its website (Denmark, 2018
[33]
). The
material is differentiated for all levels of basic education (grades 0 to 9). In grades 4 to 6,
the focus is on spreading knowledge of different types of nature. In grades 8 and 9, more
difficult concepts are introduced, such as biodiversity and trade-offs between species
habitats and human activities.
A green think tank, Concito, has received support from the education ministry to develop
a digital learning platform called Sustainable 2.0. It offers material on the Sustainable
Development Goals, renewable energy sources, sustainable cities, climate change and
consumption patterns (Concito/Klimaambassaden, 2018
[34]
).
The education and environment ministries and the Danish Agriculture & Food Council
have jointly produced material for students on food waste that aims to raise awareness and
give students practical tools to limit food waste (ME, 2018
[35]
).
Recommendations on environmental governance and management
Supporting the institutional framework
Expand the use of task forces to build municipal capacity in the areas of
environmental management where they face challenges, such as waste prevention.
Further strengthen guidance to municipalities on implementation of environmental
legislation to make it easier to use, as Switzerland does with its enforcement aids
to cantons.
Making land use more sustainable
Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of scaling up land acquisition and redistribution of
environmentally valuable agricultural land through the MLRF.
Strengthening policy evaluation framework
(OECD, 2017
[8]
)Consider making socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA)
mandatory for government policy decisions with a significant environmental
impact, including in the context of RIA, based on the 2017 SEIA guidelines.
Consider separately quantifying effects in other countries when conducting
cost-benefit analyses of Danish environmental policies, e.g. health benefits in
neighbouring countries resulting from Danish air pollution measures.
Promoting and ensuring compliance
While respecting municipal autonomy, create a level playing field for companies
by ensuring that municipalities apply compliance promotion and enforcement
measures based on well-established and similar criteria; in particular, update the
EPA compliance promotion and enforcement guidance documents with factual
findings from the enforcement strategy and concrete examples from municipalities.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0120.png
118
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Continue efforts to make fuller use of the Danish Environmental Administration
database on environmental inspections to gain better understanding of
non-compliance among companies and to inform policy making.
Pursue efforts to simplify environmental legislation to further promote compliance
and enforcement.
References
Christiansen, F. (2008),
Politiske forlig i Folketinget,
Politica.
Concito/Klimaambassaden (2018),
Sustainable 2.0.,
Concito/Klimaambassaden,
http://sustainable.dk/folkeskole/
(accessed on 20 December 2018).
Danish Society for Nature Conservation and Danish Agriculture & Food Council (2019),
Fælles
løsninger
–
for natur og landbrug,
Danish Society for Nature Conservation and Danish
Agriculture & Food Council, Copenhagen,
https://www.dn.dk/nyheder/dn-og-l-f-vil-sikre-
100-000-hektar-ny-natur/
(accessed on 19 February 2019).
DCA (2014),
Virkemidler til realisering af 2. generations vandplaner og målrettet regulering,
Aarhus University,
https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/84646400/Virkemiddelkatalog_web.pdf.
Denmark (2018),
Country submission (unpublished).
Dubgaard, A. and L. Ståhl (2018),
Omkostninger ved virkemidler til reduktion af landbrugets
drivhusgasemissioner : Opgjort i relation til EU’s 2030-målsætning
for det ikke-kvotebelagte
område (Costs of instruments for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions,
IFRO
Rapport,
https://research.ku.dk/search/?pure=en%2Fpublications%2Fomkostninger-ved-
virkemidler-til-reduktion-af-landbrugets-drivhusgasemissioner(c68823af-ba3a-4759-a809-
751ebfe3819c)%2Fexport.html.
EC (2017),
EU Environmental Implementation Review Country Report, Denmark,
European
Commission,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_dk_en.pdf
(accessed on
20 December 2018).
EPA (2018),
Evaluering af den differentierede pesticidafgift,
Danish Environmental Protection
Agency,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2018/05/978-87-93710-28-3.pdf
(accessed on 20 December 2019).
EPA (2017),
Two shipping companies reported to the police for sulphur pollution,
http://eng.mst.dk/about-us/news/news-archives/2017/okt/two-shipping-companies-reported-
to-the-police-for-sulphur-pollution/
(accessed on 9 March 2018).
EPA (2005),
Vejledning om håndhævelse af Miljøbeskyttelsesloven,
Danish Environmental
Protection Agency,
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/Publikationer/2005/87-7614-833-5/pdf/87-
7614-834-3.PDF
(accessed on 19 February 2019).
[3]
[34]
[11]
[15]
[33]
[12]
[32]
[21]
[25]
[27]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0121.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
119
[24]
Explicit ApS (2018),
Airborne Monitoring of Sulphur Emissions from Ships in Danish Waters -
2017 Campaign Results,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/04/978-87-93710-00-
9.pdf
(accessed on 24 May 2018).
Hartvigsen,
M. (2014), “Land Consolidation
and Land Banking in Denmark : Tradition, Multi-
purpose and Perspectives”,
Danish Journal of Geoinformatics and Land Management
47,
pp. 51-73,
http://dx.doi.org/htpps://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.tka.v122i47.987
(accessed on
2019 March 21).
ITF (2016),
Reducing Sulphur Emissions from Ships. The Impact of International Regulation,
OECD/ITF,
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/sulphur-emissions-shipping.pdf
(accessed on 7 June 2018).
Law Compass Expert Panel (2017),
Miljø- og fødevarelovgivningens fremtidige struktur,
Afrapportering fra Ekspertpanelet vedrørende en fremtidig struktur for miljø- og
fødevarelovgivningen,
Law Compass Expert Panel,
https://mfvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/MFVM/Lovkompas_rapport.pdf
(accessed on
20 December 2018).
Mazur,
E. (2011), “Environmental Enforcement in Decentralised Governance Systems: Toward a
Nationwide Level Playing Field”,
OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 34.
ME (2018),
Mind the Trash,
Danish Ministry of Environment and Food, Danish Ministry of
Education and Danish Food & Africulture Council,
https://mindthetrash.dk/forloeb-9/
(accessed on 20 December 2018).
MEAI (2015),
Arbejdsopgaver efter kommunalreformen 2007,
https://oim.dk/arbejdsomraader/kommunal-og-regionaloekonomi/kommunale-opgaver-og-
struktur/kommunalreformen-i-2007/
(accessed on 14 November 2018).
MEAI (2013),
Evaluering af kommunalreformen,
Danish Ministry of Economic Affairs and the
Interior,
https://oim.dk/media/15185/evaluering-af-kommunalreformen.pdf.
MEF (2017),
Den fælles kontrolstrategi: kontrol baseret på tillid,
Danish Ministry of
Environment and Food,
https://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Kontrolstyring/Den_faelles_ko
ntrolstrategi.pdf
(accessed on 13 March 2019).
MEF (2017),
International Evaluation of the Danish Marine Models,
Danish Ministry of
Environment and Food,
https://mfvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/MFVM/Nyheder/Bilag_1_Evalueringsrapport_om_de
_danske_kvaelstofmodeller__10._oktober_2017-2.pdf
(accessed on 20 December 2018).
MEF (2014),
Danish Nature Policy. Our Shared Nature,
Danish Ministry of Environment and
Food,
https://naturstyrelsen.dk/media/137410/danish-nature-policy.pdf
(accessed on 20
December 2018).
[10]
[26]
[30]
[28]
[35]
[1]
[2]
[29]
[7]
[9]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0122.png
120
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
MEUC (2013),
Virkemiddelkatalog - Potentialer og omkostninger for klimatiltag,
Danish
Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/virkemiddelkatalog_-
_potentialer_og_omkostninger_for_klimatiltag.pdf
(accessed on 20 December 2018).
MF (2017),
vejledning i samfundsøkonomiske konsekvensvurderinger,
https://www.fm.dk/publikationer/2017/vejledning-i-samfundsoekonomiske-
konsekvensvurderinger
(accessed on 20 December 2018).
OECD (2018),
Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment - Further Developments and Policy
Use,
OECD Publishing,
http://www.oecd.org/environment/cost-benefit-analysis-and-the-
environment-9789264085169-en.htm
(accessed on 17 January 2019).
OECD (2018),
Flexibility Mechanisms in Environmental Regulations: Their Use and Impacts,
paper presented to the Working Party on Integrating Environmental and Economic Policies
at its meeting on 14-15 November 2018,
OECD Publishing.
OECD (2018),
OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook,
OECD Publishing,
https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264303072-
en.pdf?expires=1548847831&id=id&accname=ocid84004878&checksum=A155B694FAC37
5CE32013DE6043A04AF
(accessed on 30 January 2019).
OECD (2017),
Governance at a Glance,
OECD Publishing.
OECD (2017),
Land-use Planning Systems in the OECD,
OECD Publishing,
https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/land-use-planning-systems-in-the-
oecd_9789264268579-en;jsessionid=x7qku5DxbgrylvIbcW4hUfzZ.ip-10-240-5-83
(accessed
on 18 January 2019).
OECD (2016),
How stringent are environmental policies?,
OECD Publishing,
http://www.oecd.org/eco/greeneco/How-stringent-are-environmental-policies.pdf
(accessed
on 1 February 2019).
OECD (2007),
Business and the Environment - Policy Incentives and Corporate Responses,
OECD Publishing.
OECD (2003),
Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy,
OECD Publishing.
PMO (1998),
Cirkulære om bemærkninger til lovforslag mv.,
Prime Minister’s Office,
http://www.stm.dk/_p_5430.html
(accessed on 20 December 2018).
Ramboll (2018),
Evaluering af den nye tilsynsordning samt anmeldeordning og digitalisering,
Ramboll,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2018/09/978-87-93710-88-7.pdf
(accessed on 20 December 2018).
Rigsrevisionen (2018),
Rigsrevisionen,
http://www.rigsrevisionen.dk/revisionsresultater/?text=&year=0&subject5=5&all-
categories=on.
[16]
[14]
[17]
[6]
[20]
[19]
[8]
[4]
[5]
[31]
[18]
[23]
[22]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0123.png
I.2. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
121
[13]
Röttgers, D., A. Tandon and C. Kaminker (2018),
OECD Progress Update on Approaches to
Mobilising Institutional Investment for Sustainable Infrastructure: Background paper to the
G20 Sustainable Finance Study Group,
OECD Environment Working Papers 138, OECD
Publishing,
https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/envaaa/138-en.html
(accessed on 2019 March 21).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0125.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
123
Chapter 3. Towards green growth
This chapter assesses
Denmark’s
progress in integrating environmental considerations
into economic policy and promoting green growth. It analyses the use of taxation and other
pricing instruments to pursue environmental objectives, and advances in eliminating
environmentally harmful subsidies. The chapter also examines spending on environmental
protection, investment in low-carbon energy and transport infrastructure and services, and
promotion of green growth and eco-innovation as sources of growth and employment. The
final section analyses inclusion of environmental issues in development co-operation
programmes and export promotion.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The
use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli
settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0126.png
124
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
3.1. Introduction
Denmark’s small, open economy is doing well, with robust gross domestic product (GDP)
growth since 2015, although slow productivity growth remains a challenge (OECD,
2019
[1]
). The 5.8 million inhabitants enjoy high income levels and living standards, low
unemployment rates and extensive welfare benefits, and have generally strong
environmental awareness.
The country’s
history of ambitious environmental and energy policy goals contributed to
the decoupling of greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollutant emissions and other
environmental pressures from economic activity (Chapter 1). Good progress has already
been made against the target to decarbonise the economy by 2050, especially in the energy
sector. The commitment to address environmental challenges and economic success
associated with the export of clean technology, notably renewable energy resources, made
Denmark a front runner in green growth.
This chapter assesses Denmark’s progress in integrating environmental considerations into
economic policy and promoting green growth, focusing on the period since 2005. It
analyses the use of taxation and other pricing instruments to pursue environmental
objectives, along with advances in eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies. The
chapter examines spending on environmental protection, investment in low-carbon energy
and transport infrastructure and services, and promotion of green growth and
eco-innovation as sources of growth and employment. It also analyses the international
dimension of
Denmark’s environmental policy, particularly
the inclusion of environmental
issues in development co-operation programmes and in trade.
3.2. Action framework for sustainable development and green growth
Having played a leadership role in the development of the 2030 Agenda, Denmark aims to
spearhead implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Its Action Plan
for Implementation of the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, adopted in March 2017, includes
37 targets supported by national indicators. Progress reports are made public and sent to
Parliament annually, and are to be complemented every four years by more comprehensive
status reports that also cover policy measures. Denmark was among the first countries to
conduct a voluntary national review on progress towards the SDGs, in 2017, and committed
to conduct two more reviews by 2030 (MOF, 2017
[2]
). The review was supported by
publication of the first indicator report, largely based on readily available data and
indicators. Statistics Denmark aims to broaden the statistical base for future reports to
facilitate comparison of progress with international measurement frameworks.
Harmonisation of statistics is a key issue, as only one-third of the indicators are currently
comparable with those of other EU and OECD countries.
Green growth ranks high on the political agenda and is anchored in strategic policy
documents and cross-party political agreements. The 2009 Green Growth Agreement
establishes a long-term strategy for environmental policy in the agricultural and food
industries. The Energy Agreement for 2012-20 set ambitious targets to decarbonise the
energy sector, which were confirmed in the Energy Agreement for 2020-24, adopted in
June 2018. This includes the goal to achieve 100% green electricity by 2030 and net zero
emissions economy-wide by 2050. It was complemented in 2018 by a climate and air
proposal addressing emissions outside the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), such
as in transport and agriculture. The overarching framework to achieve a low-carbon society
was already set by the 2014 Climate Change Act. Some municipalities set local low-carbon
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0127.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
125
targets and strategies. The capital city, Copenhagen, for example, aims to become carbon
neutral as soon as 2025, though this target will be difficult (and more costly than expected)
to achieve (Politiken, 2019
[3]
).
The government has recently increased the emphasis on cost-effectiveness of green growth
measures, ensuring they are beneficial to employment and competitiveness, on the one
hand, and environmental and climate concerns on the other. The 2018 Energy Agreement,
for example, aims to expand renewables on market conditions and to reduce costly
subsidies. At the same time, subsidies for some technology, as well as tax concessions to
businesses, remain in place, reducing overall cost-effectiveness (Sections 3.3 and 3.5).
Denmark has chosen to make significant use of flexibility mechanisms to achieve its
ambitious mitigation goal for non-EU ETS sectors: land use, land-use change and forestry
(LULUCF) credits and cancellation of EU ETS quotas (Chapter 1). The agricultural sector,
which accounts for 20% of total GHG emissions, remains without direct regulation or
taxation, which Denmark justifies because of high price competition and limited
availability of cost-effective mitigation technology in the sector (Box 3.1). However,
continued investment in research and cost-benefit calculations of emission reduction
options in agriculture are called for, especially in view of a recent announcement by the
Danish food industry that it aims to become carbon neutral by 2050 (DFAC, 2019
[4]
).
Social cost-benefit analysis has long been used for decision making in sectors such as
energy and transport. Its use has been more limited in the environment sector, but has
increased in recent years. The Ministry of Finance has published guide values to estimate the
benefits of environmental improvements in such analysis, which has helped enhance
transparency and consistency across studies. The ministry also increased the recommended
value for statistical life to be used in cost-benefit analysis, bringing it closer to values cited
in the related OECD meta-analysis (OECD, 2012
[5]
). As noted in Chapter 2, policy making
in Denmark benefits from regular engagement of stakeholder and expert groups, such as
the Environmental Economic Council, which examines environment-economy links and
environmental policy efficiency, and the Climate Council, which advises on how to become
a low-carbon economy by 2050. An SDG Council was established in 2018. In May 2018,
the government set up a “growth team” of business leaders to develop recommendations
on better framework conditions for business opportunities related to the green transition,
notably regarding green energy and environmental technology and digitisation.
In early 2018, Statistics Denmark published a comprehensive report on green national
accounting (SD, 2018
[6]
). Developed over three years, the initiative aimed at developing a
green national accounting framework. The report gives an overview of recent developments
and resulting environmental pressures, the state and trends of natural capital stock and the
contribution of green activities to the economy. Some indicators under this framework are
directly linked to the SDGs. A follow-up project with the University of Copenhagen is to
further develop green national accounting, including an environment-adjusted GDP. With
stable funding, this work could become the basis for a permanent green growth monitoring
framework. Development of an environmental-economic macroeconomic model is also
planned, to better forecast interaction between economic activity and the environment.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0128.png
126
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
Box 3.1. Climate mitigation in Danish agriculture
Agriculture accounts for 20% of GHG emissions in Denmark (Chapter 1). Emissions have
slightly declined since 2005, mostly through efficiency gains in production and efforts to
limit nitrate pollution of water bodies. Denmark does not directly regulate agricultural
emissions, citing limited availability of cost-effective mitigation technology and high price
competition in the sector, as well as carbon leakage concerns.
Ex ante
evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of GHG mitigation measures in agriculture
revealed that between 13% and
26% of the sector’s emissions could be reduced by 2030
(Dubgaard and Ståhl, 2018
[7]
). Converting highly organic soil, such as peatland, to nature
areas was found to have by far the largest mitigation potential at relatively low cost. Other
options were increased biogas production, sustainable slurry management, changes in
livestock feed and the addition of chemicals to fertilisers and slurry (Table 3.1). The findings
were broadly consistent with international estimates of mitigation potential in agriculture.
Costs estimates for such mitigation measures range from DKK 273 (EUR 37) to DKK 1 588
(EUR 213) per tonne of CO
2
equivalent (t CO
2
eq). This is more costly than climate action
in the energy and industrial sectors, which are mostly covered by the EU ETS (the price of
allowances in the EU ETS have been around EUR 20 per tonne of CO
2
since mid-2018). But
it is below the estimated cost of further emission reductions in the transport sector, where
taxes already impose a relatively high implicit carbon price (DEC, 2018
[8]
). It is important
to note that most measures evaluated have considerable co-benefits on water or air quality
(Table 3.1). The Danish Economic Council (2018
[8]
) found that marginal mitigation costs in
agriculture were negative up to 0.8 MtCO
2
eq thanks to co-benefits.
Despite
transport’s
higher mitigation cost, the government has prioritised climate action in
that sector, in particular through a goal of phasing out sales of fossil fuel-based cars.
Denmark has begun to expand catch crops, introduce slurry acidification and convert
organic soil. However, it has decided not to pursue reduced fertiliser use as a mitigation
measure, which studies had found to have great mitigation potential (MCEB, 2013
[9]
).
Resources have been earmarked for research and development (R&D) in agriculture
mitigation as well as carbon capture, use and storage (Section 3.6.1).
Table 3.1. Cost-benefit analysis of selected GHG mitigation measures in agriculture
Measure
2030
mitigation
potential
(t CO
2
eq)
337 000
176 000
158 000
16 000
496 000
213 000
1 352 000
2 748 000
Mitigation cost
(DKK/t CO
2
eq),
excluding
co-benefits
1 123
1 132
948
- 1 020
1 413
1 506
273
Mitigation cost
(DKK/t CO
2
eq),
including
co-benefits*
987
- 94
948
- 1 020
1 296
1 225
218
Co-benefit for
water quality
(tonne of reduced
nitrogen leaching)
1 370
-
-
-
1 980
2 398
2 673
Co-benefit for air
quality (tonne of
reduced ammonia
emissions)
-
3 700
-
-
149
-
119
Increased biogas production with improved
slurry management
Stable acidification of slurry from pigs and cattle
More concentrated feedstuffs for dairy cows
Additional vegetable fat for young dairy stock
Nitrification inhibitors in nitrogen fertiliser
Nitrification inhibitors in slurry
Conversion of arable organogenic land
(e.g. peatland) to permanent grass**
Total mitigation potential **
* Based on a low-end estimate of the shadow price of reduced nitrogen leaching (DKK 25 per kg N).
** Mitigation potential includes LULUCF emissions. Excluding LULUCF, the emission potential of conversion
of arable organogenic land would reach -168 000 t CO
2
eq and total mitigation potential 1.41 Mt CO
2
eq.
Source:
Based on Dubgaard and Ståhl (2018
[7]
),
Omkostninger ved virkemidler til reduktion af landbrugets
drivhusgasemissioner
(Costs of instruments for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0129.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
127
3.3. Greening the system of taxes, charges and prices
3.3.1. Overview
Denmark’s public finances are strong, known for mostly close to balanced budgets and low
public debt (50% of GDP in 2017; Basic statistics). The fiscal balance was in deficit during
the global financial crisis and prolonged recovery, as fiscal policy supported demand, but
it has improved in recent years. The government’s medium-term
economic plan envisages
structural balance after 2020. The tax burden is high by international comparison. Denmark
ranked second among OECD countries for tax/GDP ratio in 2017 (46%, compared with the
OECD average of 34%), due in part to high personal income tax. The government aims to
lower the tax burden, however. Several tax cuts have contributed to a 2.5 percentage point
decline in the tax/GDP ratio since 2014. Nearly three-quarters of tax revenue is collected
by the central government and the rest by local governments (OECD, 2018
[10]
).
Denmark has a long history of applying environmentally related taxes, being among the
front-runners in integrating environmental considerations into its tax system. Many taxes
align closely with the estimated external cost of production or consumption activities.
Environmentally related tax revenue has been declining, though at 3.7% of GDP in 2017 it
is still the highest value among OECD countries and more than twice the OECD average
(1.6% of GDP in 2016) (OECD, 2018
[11]
). Revenue declined considerably during the
2008-09 financial crisis, mostly because vehicle tax revenue fell due to deductions for
fuel-efficient cars introduced in 2007; the level stayed relatively constant in the following
years (Figure 3.1). As in most OECD countries, energy-related taxes account for the largest
share of tax revenue. Yet Denmark differs from other countries in its large taxes on
vehicles. Taxes on pollution and natural resource use account for a small share of total
green tax revenue, although the level is higher than in many other OECD countries.
Figure 3.1. Environmentally related tax revenue has decreased slightly
Environmentally related tax revenue by tax base, 2005-17
Energy products
DKK billion, 2010 prices
100
5.0
80
4.0
60
40
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Motor vehicles and transport
Pollution and resources
% of GDP (right axis)
%
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source:
OECD (2018), “Environmental policy instruments”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database); EU (2018), National Tax List (NTLs);
Statistics Denmark (2019), “Green economy: Environmental taxes”,
StatBank
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002053
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0130.png
128
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
3.3.2. Taxes on energy products and carbon pricing
Denmark has a long history of energy taxation and carbon pricing, being one of the first
countries to introduce a carbon tax (1992) and pioneering CO
2
emission trading for the
power sector (2000). Taxes on energy products accounted for 2.2% of GDP in 2016, one
of the highest levels in the OECD (OECD, 2018
[11]
). The following are the main taxes on
the use of energy products (OECD, 2018
[12]
):
Energy duty
(52% of energy-related tax revenue in 2017): applies to fossil fuel use
(oil products, natural gas, coal, coke and fossil waste) at rates that depend on the
fuel’s energy content and
on user category. In line with the recommendation in the
2007 OECD Environmental Performance Review of Denmark, rates are now
indexed for inflation.
CO
2
tax
(8%): applies to fossil fuel use (oil products, natural gas, coal and coke),
at rates that depend on the fuel’s carbon content. Rates are the same for most users,
at DKK 173/t CO
2
(EUR 23) in 2018, and indexed for inflation.
Electricity tax
(28%): is levied on electricity output (per MWh). Tax rates vary
widely by purpose and user group. Fuels used to generate electricity are not taxed.
Other taxes on energy use include a tax on fossil waste
1
and taxes on emission of SO
X
(for
energy products containing more than 0.05% sulphur) and NO
X
from fuel combustion
(Section 3.3.4). A Public Service Obligation (PSO) tax on electricity use was introduced in
2012 to generate resources for renewables subsidies, but it was decided in 2016 to phase it
out over 2017-21.
Taxes on energy products
The tax burden resulting from energy taxes varies widely across fuels, users and purposes.
As in most OECD countries, transport fuels are taxed at the highest effective rate
(Figure 3.2). Yet Denmark also has one of the OECD’s highest effective tax rates on energy
use in non-road sectors (OECD, 2018
[13]
). This is explained by relatively high tax rates on
electricity and other energy use in the residential and commercial sectors. Industry and
agriculture face a considerably lower tax burden due to reductions and exemptions. The
electricity tax for industry (i.e. production processes), for example, was set at DKK 4
(EUR 0.54) per MWh in 2019, just above the EU minimum and about 200 times below the
ordinary electricity tax applicable to households (DKK 884 or EUR 119/MWh). The large
disparity in energy tax rates creates unequal incentives for energy savings, and is not
justified from an environmental perspective. The energy tax burden on industry
(e.g. energy tax
revenue as a share of industry’s gross value added) declined from 1.5% in
2004 to 0.8% in 2016 (MIBFA, 2018
[14]
), increasing the scope for adjustment.
Electricity taxes for households are the highest in the EU (EC, 2018
[15]
). While historically
high taxes have encouraged power savings, their justification diminishes as power
generation becomes cleaner. They also interfere with the cap in the EU ETS
2
and
discourage switching towards efficient solutions for electric heating (e.g. heat pumps and
electric boilers) or electric vehicles, and create incentives for self-generation of power
(e.g. with individual rooftop photovoltaic systems), even where socio-economically
inefficient (IEA, 2017
[16]
). The government has taken steps to address this issue. It has
reduced the electricity tax for heating (both for households and businesses) to DKK 259
(EUR 35) per MWh and plans to differentiate the tax on electricity used for electric
vehicles. The phase-out of the PSO levy will reduce overall electricity prices and the 2018
Energy Agreement announced a gradual reduction in the standard electricity tax to
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0131.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
129
DKK 774/MWh (EUR 104/MWh) by 2025. This will help increase the attractiveness of
electric heating and mobility vis-à-vis fossil fuel- and biomass-based solutions.
Unfortunately, the Energy Agreement also lowers the rate for some businesses to the
minimum set for industrial processes, contributing to disparity among users. The change
aims to equalise rates among businesses.
Figure 3.2. Effective energy tax rates are highest in the road sector
Effective tax rates on energy use, by sector and by energy category
Note:
Tax rates applicable on 1 July 2018. Energy use data are for 2016 and adapted from IEA (2018),
World
Energy Statistics and Balances.
Excludes the PSO tax.
Source:
OECD (2019),
Taxing Energy Use 2019.
An open question is how to finance the reforms. Energy taxes are an important source of
budget revenue, accounting for 5% of total tax revenue in 2016. Energy-related tax revenue
has fallen by 11% since 2005 in real terms. The decline was driven by reductions in revenue
from the CO
2
tax and the energy duty on petrol and natural gas, which in turn reflected
declining consumption of fossil fuels and associated CO
2
emissions. Revenue will likely
continue to fall with the projected decline in fossil fuel consumption, the phase-out of the
PSO tax and reductions in the electricity tax. The government is considering temporarily
increasing energy taxes or establishing a new temporary energy tax to finance the shortfall.
Reducing the gap between industrial processes, heating purposes and other uses and/or
taxing biomass could help in this respect.
Solid biomass, which is exempt from the energy duty and CO
2
tax, has gained in importance
as a source for domestic and district heating. It use has more than doubled since 2005 and
it accounted for 58% of renewables in 2017 (IEA, 2019
[17]
). While the use of biomass helps
in meeting renewables targets, the assumption that it is carbon neutral from a lifecycle
perspective has increasingly been challenged in the scientific literature (OECD, 2018
[18]
).
In Denmark, 43% of consumed biomass is imported, primarily from Estonia and Latvia,
making it even more difficult trace the fuel’s sustainability and
carbon neutrality. The
burning of biomass also creates significant air pollution (Chapter 1). The favourable tax
treatment for biomass should therefore be reconsidered. Energy utilities have put in place
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0132.png
130
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
a voluntary programme to ensure sustainable use of biomass, which includes sustainable
management of the forests from which the biomass is derived.
Petrol is taxed significantly more heavily than diesel, at DKK 4.561 (EUR 0.61) per litre
compared to DKK 3.104 (EUR 0.42) per litre of diesel. The tax gap between the two fuels
is one of the largest in the OECD and increased over 2012-15. This is regrettable from an
environmental perspective, as diesel combustion emits more CO
2
and local air pollutants
than an equivalent volume of petrol. In addition, a litre of diesel normally allows more
kilometres to be driven, meaning the tax on it should be higher to internalise driving-related
externalities (Harding, 2014
[19]
). Road transport fuels are taxed at an effective rate
(i.e. when considering both energy taxes and the carbon tax) that is comparable to average
OECD levels but lower than in other Scandinavian countries and neighbouring Germany
(OECD, 2018
[13]
).
To address the diesel-petrol gap, Denmark levies an annual countervailing charge on diesel
cars (Section 3.3.3). The rationale is that a direct increase in diesel tax rates might
encourage fuel tourism to neighbouring countries. However, as an annual tax that is not
linked to vehicle use, it is less efficient way of addressing externalities. In addition,
end-user prices for diesel are lower than in Sweden and Norway, although indeed higher
than in Germany (IEA, 2018
[20]
). In any case, the countervailing charge failed to balance
the lower diesel tax: both the sale of diesel vehicles and diesel consumption increased, with
the share of diesel cars in the passenger fleet jumping from 10% to 31% over 2005-17
(DRD, 2018
[21]
). Denmark would benefit from phasing out the reduced energy duty for
diesel, especially if it co-ordinated with similar moves in neighbouring countries.
Pricing carbon emissions from energy use
The carbon tax was introduced in 1992 for households and space heating in industry and
has since been increased and extended to other uses. In 2008, Denmark raised the tax from
DKK 25 to DKK 150 (which was the expected price of allowances in the EU ETS) and
later indexed it to inflation. In 2018, the rate was DKK 173.2/tCO
2
(EUR 23/tCO
2
), lower
than in neighbouring Sweden, Norway and Finland. It should be noted, however, that
Denmark levies higher excise taxes on some energy uses, such as transport fuels and
residential energy use, which raises the implicit price of carbon. As explained above,
energy excise duties
–
and thus the implicit price of carbon
–
vary significantly by user
group, creating unequal incentives for CO
2
emission reductions. In addition, industrial
processes benefit from a reduction of the CO
2
tax (IEA, 2017
[16]
).
In addition to putting a price on carbon via taxes, Denmark participates in the EU ETS. In
2017, 34% of Danish GHG emissions were subject to carbon pricing through this system.
EU ETS installations are exempt from the carbon tax, or receive a full refund, to avoid
double taxation; the exceptions are incinerators (Chapter 4) and heat inputs for district
heating plants. The OECD estimates that, accounting for energy taxes and the EU ETS,
78% of CO
2
emissions from energy use in Denmark faced a price signal in 2015, albeit at
a relatively low level (the remaining emissions largely stem from combustion of biomass,
which is not taxed). Only 32% of CO
2
emissions faced a price above EUR 30/tCO
2
in 2015,
which is a low-end estimate of climate damage. In contrast to a generally rising price signal
in the OECD, the share of CO
2
emissions priced at or above EUR 30 in Denmark has
dropped from 52% in 2012 (OECD, 2018
[18]
). This is likely due to higher (untaxed) biomass
consumption and lower energy tax rates for industry. As a result, the economy-wide carbon
pricing gap increased from 40% in 2012 to 52% in 2015 (Figure 3.3).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0133.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
131
Figure 3.3. Denmark ranks about average in pricing of carbon emissions from energy use
Carbon pricing gap in Denmark and in OECD countries, carbon emissions from energy use, 2012 and 2015
2015
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2012
Note:
The carbon pricing gap shows the extent to which countries price carbon emissions from energy use below the benchmark value, by measuring
the difference between the benchmark and the actual rate for every percentile, and summing all positive differences. The gap is measured as a percentage.
If the effective carbon rate on all emissions was at least as high as the benchmark value, the gap would be zero, and if the effective carbon rate was zero
throughout, the gap would be 100%. EUR 30 is a low-end estimate of the climate damage from one tonne of CO
2
emissions.
Source:
OECD (2018),
Effective Carbon Rates: Pricing Carbon Emissions Through Taxes and Emissions Trading.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002072
3.3.3. Transport taxes and charges
Vehicle taxes
Vehicle taxes consist of a one-off duty on purchase (the registration tax), an annual
ownership duty (commonly called the green owner tax)
3
and the countervailing charge for
diesel vehicles. Added to this is a tax on car insurance premiums. While taxes for passenger
cars have been reduced several times in recent years, they remain high by international
comparison, mostly due to a high registration tax. They also appear high with respect to
transport-related externalities (DEC, 2018
[8]
). Taxation of lorries, buses and trucks, by
contrast, is relatively light.
High vehicle taxes discourage car purchases, resulting in a relatively low vehicle ownership
rate and slow fleet renewal. The average passenger car is 8.9 years old, above the EU
average of 7.4 years (EEA, 2018
[22]
). At the same time, the high registration tax (which is
based on vehicle value) has encouraged purchases of cheaper vehicles, which tend to be
small and more fuel efficient. In addition, both the registration tax and the green owner tax
are linked to fuel efficiency.
4
This combination had a significant impact on consumer
choice, with higher sales of smaller and more energy-efficient cars that emit less CO
2
per
kilometre. Average emissions from new cars have been below the EU average in the past
decade (IEA, 2018
[23]
). The exemption of lorries from the registration tax and reduced
annual tax rates on cars and vans used for commercial purposes are not justified from an
environmental perspective and should be reconsidered.
Shifting the tax burden from car ownership to the use of vehicles and roads would enhance
transport taxation efficiency (OECD, 2019
[24]
). Some progress has been made in this
direction. In 2017, the registration tax was reduced to 85% of vehicle list price for the first
DKK 185 000 (about EUR 25 000) from 105% of list price for the first DKK 106 000
(about EUR 14 000), while the annual vehicle tax was increased. The remainder is taxed at
150%, still high by international comparison. As the reductions were not compensated by
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0134.png
132
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
measures targeting the externalities of car use, care must be taken to avoid cutting average
car prices to the point of stimulating car sales and outweighing emission reduction benefits.
The number of cars on the streets has grown continuously since 2010 (Chapter 1).
The countervailing charge that diesel car owners must pay aims to offset the difference in
energy duty between diesel and petrol (MT, 2015
[25]
) but has not slowed the increase in
diesel car sales. For normal diesel cars, the countervailing charge is calculated as the
estimated tax saving from using diesel instead of petrol for 22 000 km annually. In addition,
since 2010, a surcharge of DKK 1 000 (EUR 134) has been applied to diesel cars and new
commercial vehicles (registered after March 2009) not fitted with particulate filters. Diesel
buses pay a fixed countervailing charge of DKK 1 230 (EUR 165) per year and trucks and
tractors are exempt. This exemption is not justified from an environmental perspective and
should be reconsidered. Overall, taxation of trucks fails to internalise their external
environmental costs.
To promote sales of electric and hydrogen vehicles, they were exempt from the registration
and green owner taxes until 2015. The government aimed to phase in a registration tax for
such cars (20% in 2016, 40% in 2017, 65% in 2018, 90% in 2019 and 100% in 2020), but
this, coinciding with a general decrease in the registration tax, paralysed electric car sales
(IEA, 2018
[23]
). The government thus decided to maintain the registration tax for electric
vehicles at 20% for two additional years or until a threshold of 5 000 new registrations was
reached. More recently, as part of the climate and air proposal, the government suggested
imposing a registration tax for electric vehicles and hybrids with a list price of less than
DKK 400 000 (EUR 54 000) in 2019 and 2020. This measure was adopted in late 2018 (see
also Section 3.5.3).
Road and congestion pricing
Heavy vehicles and trucks with a permissible total weight of over 12 tonnes have to pay a
road tax (Eurovignette) on motorways.
5
Coaches are exempt. In addition, tolls apply on two
major bridges: the Great Belt and Øresund. As part of the political agreement on lowering
the registration tax, the government agreed to examine possibilities of introducing
period-based tolls for passenger and vans from 2020 (MOT, 2017
[26]
). No details on
implementation of such tolls have been released to date. Previous attempts to better
internalise external environmental costs (e.g. through tolls per kilometre driven on certain
roads) have been abandoned because they were considered very costly.
Congestion pricing is not applied. Introducing dynamic congestion pricing, where tolls can
be adjusted according to traffic conditions, in the most affected cities would reduce
pollution, enhance infrastructure use and generate revenue. Plans to introduce a congestion
tax in the capital, the city most affected by congestion, were replaced by an air quality
protection plan to reduce PM
10
and NO
2
pollution. In February 2019, the government set
up a consultative commission to study ways to reduce CO
2
emissions from transport, giving
it a mandate to consider road pricing and road tolls, among other measures, as alternative
sources of revenue (MOF, 2019
[27]
).
Company cars and commuting expenses
As in most OECD countries, the employee benefit of being able to use a company-owned
car (including for private purposes) is taxed less than cash wages. Harding (2014
[28]
)
estimated that this favourable tax treatment created an annual subsidy of EUR 1 800 per
company car, causing a tax revenue shortfall of about EUR 300 million in 2012 (compared
to EUR 3 billion in revenue from vehicle-related taxes that
year). Denmark’s system of
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0135.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
133
company car taxation provides no incentive to choose efficient or less polluting vehicles.
Company cars increase an employee’s annual taxable income by 25% of the vehicle’s listed
value, irrespective of car type (unlike in Belgium, for example, which differentiates rates
by CO
2
emissions and fuel type). In a positive step, the government’s climate and air
proposal would make it cheaper to choose electric cars for use as company cars.
Employees who commute more than 24 km a day can deduct expenses related to
commuting from their taxable income. The amount of deduction is calculated by applying
a set rate to the distance travelled between home and workplace; the farther the employee
lives from the workplace, the lower the deduction per kilometre travelled. There is no
differentiation between forms of transport (unlike in Switzerland, for example, which
allows deductions for private car use only in limited cases, a lump sum deduction for biking,
and full deduction of public transport costs, providing an incentive to favour public
transport and biking). Public transport costs paid by the employer are not treated as taxable
income to the employee, increasing the attractiveness of public transport relative to other
forms of commuting (including private car use), yet comparatively penalising lower-cost
forms such as walking, biking and carpooling (Harding, 2014
[28]
).
3.3.4. Other economic instruments to limit pollution and resource use
Air pollutants
A tax on SO
X
emissions for products containing more than 0.05% sulphur was introduced
in the mid-1990s. A tax on NO
X
emissions was introduced at DKK 5/kg in 2010. In 2012,
the NO
X
tax was raised to DKK 25/kg (and the limit value for mandatory measurement
reduced from 30 MW to 10 MW to cover more producers), but it was reduced back to
DKK 5/kg in 2015. Both the SO
X
and NO
X
tax rates are below the respective external costs
of these pollutants as acknowledged in the guideline values for cost-benefit analysis
published by the Ministry of Environment and Food (MEF) (Andersen, 2018
[29]
). There is
no specific tax rate for particulate matter or volatile organic compounds.
Waste
Denmark applies taxes on waste landfilling and incineration. The landfill tax, introduced
in 1987, was increased in 2015 to DKK 475 per tonne from DKK 160/tonne in 2012-14
(MT, 2015
[25]
). The tax has helped reduce landfilling but had only limited effect on
recycling rates. The incineration tax was converted in 2009 from a weight-based tax to one
based on energy and CO
2
content. The new system aims at providing a stronger incentive
to recycle the most energy-intensive waste, such as plastics (Chapter 4). The tax is a
combined input-output tax, charged at DKK 26.5 per GJ according to the energy content in
the input waste and DKK 19.8 per GJ for heat output. Waste from biomass and processing
of meat waste are exempted. An exemption for hazardous waste was abolished in 2010.
Waste incineration for power and heat generation represents a large share of waste
treatment in Denmark. Denmark also applies a volume-based packaging waste tax on
several types of beverage containers that are not part of the deposit-return system, and on
bags and disposable tableware (Chapter 4). A weight-based packaging tax was removed in
2014.
Agricultural products
Denmark is one of the few countries taxing pesticides. In 2013, the pesticide tax, which
was introduced in 1996, was redesigned from a value-based tax to a quantity-based tax that
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0136.png
134
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
varies depending on human health hazard classification and the environmental impact of
the pesticide: products with higher persistence, bioaccumulation or leaching to
groundwater face higher rates. The generally higher tax rates and revenue were reimbursed
to the agricultural sector (which accounts for more than 90% of pesticide use) through a
reduction in the land value tax (GBE, 2014
[30]
). The change was made in a bid to reduce
the pesticide load (a risk indicator) by 40% by 2015 from the 2011 level. Pesticide sales
dropped significantly following the reform, partly because farmers stockpiled pesticides
ahead of the reform (Chapter 5) (Eurostat, 2018
[31]
).
A tax on mineral phosphorus added to animal feed was introduced in 2005 at a rate of
DKK 4 per kg of phosphorus to encourage a switch to phytase so as to reduce the saturation
of soil with phosphorus. Mineral phosphate use in animal feed has fallen by about 15%
since the introduction of the tax, and phytase use has increased. The tax is thus believed to
have improved overall efficiency in the use of animal feed (Andersen, 2016
[32]
). A new
phosphorus regulation introduced in 2017 allows efficient feeding, for example using high
doses of phytase, to meet requirements on phosphorous reductions. It has resulted in a
stronger incentive to increase phytase and reduce mineral phosphorus use than the tax. To
prevent double regulation, the tax was to be withdrawn in July 2019.
Denmark pioneered construction of nutrient accounts at farm level. Agricultural nitrogen
use has been partly regulated by a quota system, with allowable nitrogen consumption
based on crop selection and soil type, among other criteria. Denmark recently adopted a
new political agreement on more targeted regulation for agricultural nitrogen emissions,
with targets based on geographical differences in watershed vulnerability and the soil’s
ability to retain nitrogen (Chapter 1). The nutrient accounting system facilitates this new
regulation paradigm. Since 2018, the nutrient accounting system has also been used to
administer maximum allowable levels of phosphorus consumption at farm level.
Water
Denmark does not tax water resource abstraction but applies a tax on piped water at a rate
of DKK 6.5 (EUR 0.9) per cubic metre. Most companies are exempt from the water tax
(EEC, 2017
[33]
), implying that industry is in some sense cross-subsidised by households,
which indeed face very high end-user prices (Section 3.5). Water supply plants must pay
the tax on a minimum of 90% of water pumped, so if the plant has losses of more than 10%,
it still pays on the balance of water lost. This rule, referred to as the water loss tax, creates
an incentive for water companies to reduce leakage.
A wastewater charge applies to all direct discharges from sources including industry,
municipal wastewater treatment plants and individual households in the countryside. The
tax is proportional to the pollution load and applies to nitrogen (DKK 30/kg), phosphorus
(DKK 165/kg) and organic material (DKK 16.50/kg). The rate is uniform nationwide,
whatever the quality objective or the diluting capacity of receiving waters. Utilities pass on
the cost to households; direct dischargers pay it directly to authorities. Some industrial
sectors, including fish processing, benefit from reductions of between 70% and 80% in this
tax liability. A small part (less than 5%) of the revenue raised is earmarked for government
mapping of groundwater and municipal action planning.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0137.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
135
3.4. Support to fossil fuel consumption and agriculture
3.4.1. Fossil fuel subsidies
The Ministry of Taxation reported total tax expenditure related to environment, energy and
vehicles was DKK 12.1 billion (EUR 1.6 billion), or 25% of total tax expenditure in 2017
(MOT, 2018
[34]
). Table 3.2 provides a full breakdown of the expenditure. Several of the
measures involved qualify as fossil fuel support: for instance, the exemption of agriculture
from the energy duty; tax exemptions or deductions for shipping, aircraft and companies
with heavy processes not covered by the EU ETS; and the lower diesel ownership tax for
lorries, buses and tractors (for which there is no countervailing charge). The OECD
Inventory of Fossil Fuel Support estimated total support to fossil fuel consumption at
DKK 1.5 billion in 2017 (OECD, 2019
[35]
).
6
This equals 0.15% of total tax revenue, below
the OECD average support to fossil fuel consumption (0.5% of total tax revenue in 2016)
(OECD, 2019
[35]
).
Table 3.2. Tax expenditure for the environment, energy and vehicles
Measures relating to environmental, energy and car taxes, 2017
DKK million
Environment and energy
Exemption from electricity tax for self-generation (e.g. from solar cells)
Exemption from energy duty for biomass
Exemption from energy duty and from CO
2
, NO
x
and SO
2
tax on fuel used for shipping (ships, ferries and
fisheries)*
Exemption from energy, NO
x
and SO
x
tax on aircraft fuels*
Exemption from energy duty and electricity tax for train operations*
Deductibility of CO
2
tax for companies with heavy processes not covered by the EU’s CO
2
quota system*
Deductibility of SO
2
tax for companies with particularly high energy consumption*
Reduction in wastewater tax for large companies
Lower electricity tax for shore power to ships
Reductions and exemptions for energy duty for agriculture*
Ceilings on tax rates on certain industrial GHGs
Cars, etc.
Lower diesel tax for lorries, buses, etc.*
Deductibility of registration tax for certain types of security equipment
Phasing in of electric cars in the registration tax
Phasing in of particle filter supplement for old vans
Exemption for private use allowance for old vans
Total
365
4 300
1 050
110
650
65
10
10
15
1 200
5
1 350
2 750
100
105
30
12 115
*Qualifies as fossil fuel support.
Source:
MOT (2018),
Tax Expenses: Total Level at the End of 2017.
Until 2014, the OECD inventory listed another measure: the reduced energy duty for
combined heat and power (CHP) generation. The Ministry of Taxation then decided to
cease regarding this measure as tax expenditure.
7
District heating customers pay a reduced
energy duty for heat delivered from a CHP plant to discourage them from using other
heating fuel, such as fuel oil. Tax revenue forgone due to this reduction has declined over
time due to the increasing share of non-fossil heating sources (e.g. wood, straw), which are
not subject to the energy duty. In 2014, revenue forgone from this measure reached
DKK 5.7 billion (EUR 0.8 billion) (OECD, 2019
[35]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0138.png
136
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
3.4.2. Agricultural support
Arable land and cropland take up more than half of total land area, the highest share among
OECD countries (OECD, 2019
[36]
). This puts pressure on the environment, especially
where farming takes place on peatland or close to sensitive natural areas and water bodies.
Farmers receive agricultural support under the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP),
mainly as direct payments for income support. The payments comprise a basic payment
and additional payments, notably the so-called green payment provided if farmers diversify
crops, maintain permanent grasslands and keep 5% of their land as ecological focus areas.
8
Farmers also receive support through the Rural Development Programme (RDP),
co-financed by Denmark and the EU, which finances individual projects on farms and/or
activities in rural areas on the basis of economic, environmental or territorial priorities.
Denmark has taken advantage of a flexibility mechanism to transfer part of the EU funds
allocated to its farmers through direct payments into the RDP instead.
9
Denmark built its RDP for 2014-20 around four focus areas: growth and competitiveness;
organic farming; nature, environment and climate; and rural development. The organic
farming and nature, environment and climate components received by far the largest
volume in 2015-19 (Table 3.3). Such funding has supported expansion of organic farming
(Chapter 1). Overall, three-quarters of payments have an environment-related objective,
which represents DKK 1.1 billion (EUR 148 million) per year. There has been a relative
shift in the RDP from supporting investment at farm level to organic farming and activities
addressing nutrient pollution of the aquatic environment. The shift is partly to support the
targeted approach to nitrogen regulation of farmers (Chapter 1). Spending on biodiversity
purposes is more limited.
Subsiding peatland conversion
Conversion of peatland to wetlands or permanent grassland has considerable climate
mitigation potential due to lower decomposition of soil carbon, with a potential to reduce
agricultural GHG emission by about 15% (Dubgaard and Ståhl, 2018
[7]
). However, EU
policies limit this potential, as farmers lose income support under the CAP when
agricultural peatland is converted to nature areas. Moreover, the EU 2030 Climate and
Energy Framework caps how much member states can use carbon sequestration to meet
their reduction targets for non-EU ETS sectors.
Under the RDP, Denmark subsidises farmers for conversion of peatland into permanent
nature areas. DKK 65 million (EUR 9 million) was allocated to this purpose per year for
2016-19 (see
“Rewetting of low-lying areas” in
Table 3.3). In addition, Denmark set up a
Multifunctional Land Redistribution Fund (MLRF) with a budget of EUR 20 million as
part of the drought package for agriculture from 2018. The fund’s aim was to acquire and
redistribute agricultural land where farming had a significant environmental impact and
convert it to natural areas or grassland; examples include peatland and soil close to
ammonia-sensitive nature areas or close to drinking water boreholes. In February 2019,
Denmark’s two main environmental and agricultural interest groups jointly recommended
increasing the MLRF by at least EUR 130 million to buy environmentally valuable
agricultural land so as to support the target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and
deliver co-benefits for biodiversity, water and air quality, and climate adaptation (DN and
DFAC, 2019
[37]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0139.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
137
Table 3.3. Environmental components of the Danish Rural Development Programme
Planned spending with environmental objectives under the Danish Rural Development Programme, 2015-19,
DKK million
2015-19
average
285
253
32
465
20
436
8
644
274
188
27
9
10
27
1
6
1
5
370
155
14
60
33
15
52
7
34
75
75
1 468
1 105
75%
Environmental
objectives,
average 2015-
19
24**
24**
0**
436
-
436
-
644
274
188
27
9
10
27
1
6
1
5
370
155
14
60
33
15
52
7
34
-
-
-
-
-
Payment objective
Growth and competitiveness
Support for investments at farms
Development, demonstration and dissemination
projects (mainly in the environmental area)
Organic farming
Support for technology investments at organic
farms
Organic farming (support per hectare)
Organic promotion, network and export activities
Nature, environment and climate
Nature
Grasslands and nature areas
Natura 2000 projects (land management,
facilitation and planning)
Natura 2000, compensation to landowners
Rewetting of Natura 2000 areas
Natura 2000 forest
Connecting nature areas
Hedges
Annex IV species (EU Habitats Directive)
Sustainable forest
Aquatic environment
Wetlands targeting nitrogen
Wetlands targeting phosphorus
Wetlands (additional)
Mini-wetlands
Mandatory buffer strips along rivers and lakes
Rewetting of low-lying areas
Reserve for targeted regulation
Afforestation (private)
Rural development
Local action groups
Total spending in RDP
Total spending with environmental objectives
Share of spending with environmental objectives
2015
380
300
80
970
60
870
40
567
363
197
51
43
0
42
0
20
0
10
204
78
14
0
0
77
0
0
35
94.2
94.2
2 011
1 462
73%
2016
472
392
80
240.5
41
199.5
0
515
250
130
35
0
30
25
0
10
5
15
265
186
14
0
0
0
65
0
0
90.3
90.3
1 318
735
56%
2017
300
300
0
57.4
0
57.4
0
566
232
190
0
0
20
22
0
0
0
0
324
110
14
100
0
0
65
0
35
63
63
976
675
69%
2018
0
0
0
222.2
0
222.2
0
679
232
180
30
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
447
153
14
100
50
0
65
0
65
63
63
964
901
93%
2019*
272
272
0
832.8
0
832.8
0
909
297
243
27
0
0
23
4
0
0
0
612
250
14
100
115
0
65
33
35
63
63
2
077
1 755
84%
*
Estimates are used for 2019.
**
Part of the payments under the growth and competitiveness focus area is reserved for green investment: in
2015 DKK 25 million, in 2016 DKK 20 million, in 2017 DKK 62 million and in 2019 DKK 13 million.
Source:
Country submission.
As this proposal requires substantial public funding, Denmark should evaluate the pilot
phase before scaling up the fund. In the medium term, it should seek opportunities for
complementing public funding with private resources to finance peat conversion subsidies
or land acquisition under the MLRF. In addition to philanthropic payments, this could be
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0140.png
138
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
achieved by using peatland as carbon credits that could be purchased by parties that must
offset their GHG emissions through voluntary or compliance markets.
3.5. Investing in the environment to promote green growth
Infrastructure is a key element of any green growth strategy, with significant opportunity
to improve environmental performance, boost economic growth and ensure resiliency to
climate change. Denmark has modern and generally high-quality infrastructure. The World
Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report found
the quality of Denmark’s
infrastructure to be better than the European and North American averages (WEF, 2017
[38]
).
Compared to its European peers, Denmark scores high with respect to road, port and air
infrastructure, and in the mid-range for rail infrastructure (EC, 2018
[39]
). The latter is
reflected in the fact that Denmark has one of the lowest shares of rail transport in inland
freight in the EU (Chapter 1). It has considerable transit freight transport on its rail system:
about 80% of the freight transported on its railways is in transit.
The government has set up funds and earmarked resources for the green economy
transition. For example, the Green Investment Fund was established in 2014 to co-finance
commercially viable projects with a positive environmental impact. The state capital
contribution was DKK 80 million (EUR 10.7 million), with a state-guaranteed lending
limit of DKK 2 billion (EUR 268 million). The latter can be increased to DKK 5 billion
(EUR 671 million) and the capital contribution to DKK 200 million (EUR 27 million).
While most projects supported have concerned renewables or energy efficiency, the fund has
more recently also supported bio-economy projects (e.g. production of alternative protein).
The fund’s performance has not yet been evaluated. The Climate Investment Fund
was
established to support initiatives promoting Danish investment in developing and emerging
economies’ green transitions (Section
3.7.2). The 2018 Energy Agreement earmarked new
funding to support renewables development and energy efficiency, and the climate and air
proposal announced new funding for mitigation options in agriculture and transport.
3.5.1. Expenditure for environmental protection
Public environmental protection expenditure averaged around DKK 30 billion
(EUR 4 billion) over the past decade.
10
As in most OECD countries, expenditure is mostly
directed towards waste management and wastewater treatment (Figure 3.4), provided by
public corporations. General government expenditure mainly targets biodiversity and
landscape protection, air and climate, as well soil and water protection. With a decline in
expenditure on wastewater management, total public environmental protection expenditure
was DKK 32.8 billion in 2017 (EUR 4.4 billion), or 1.5% of GDP, lower than in previous
years (Figure 3.4).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0141.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
139
Figure 3.4. Environmental expenditure remains relatively constant
Current and capital expenditure by the public sector and
environmental domain, 2005-16
a
Final consumption expenditure on environmental
protection services by households,
Denmark, selected OECD countries and
EU average, 2015
Air
Waste
Biodiversity
DKK million
a
40 000
35 000
Wastewater
Soil/groundwater
Other
%
% of GDP (right axis)
2.0
Denmark
Italy
Sweden
Poland
Hungary
Austria
France
Germany
Slovenia
Latvia
30 000
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000
0
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
EU-28
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
% of households' total final consumption expenditure
a)
Public sector includes public corporations. Data expressed at constant 2017 prices.
Source:
Statistics Denmark (2018),
“Public
sector environmental protection: Environmental-economic accounts”,
StatBank
(database); Eurostat (2019),
“Final
consumption expenditure on environmental protection services by institutional sector”,
Environmental expenditure
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002091
Household expenditure on environmental protection services is the highest in the EU at
1.6% of total final consumption expenditure as of 2016 (Figure 3.4). This reflects high
consumer tariffs for environmental services such as waste and wastewater treatment. These,
in turn, may reflect high service quality and full cost recovery, but also inefficiency in
service provision. In the waste sector, for example, waste collection costs decreased as most
municipalities outsourced services. Now, however, municipalities increasingly want to go
back to direct management and do not have to bid for competition with private companies,
which does not help improve efficiency (Chapter 4).
3.5.2. Investment in renewables and energy efficiency
Renewable energy resources
Denmark has experienced a boom in renewables over the last decade: they now account for
around one-third of primary energy supply and almost two-thirds of electricity generation
(Chapter 1). This growth, which was particularly strong for wind and biomass, has been
driven by strong and broad political will at the local and national levels, targeted support
policies and community-based engagement (IEA, 2017
[16]
). The main supporting policies
include direct subsidies (a feed-in premium system), taxation (including exemptions of
biomass from various energy taxes), subsidised grid connection and balancing costs, and
reinforcement of the grid to connect plants running on renewables. Denmark also has used
several funding pools, including for renewables in district heating (geothermal energy and
large heat pumps) in 2012-15, and in processing in 2013-20 (IEA, 2017
[16]
). The share of
renewables in energy demand doubled over the past decade to reach 35% in 2017
(Chapter 1), putting Denmark on track to reach its goal of meeting half of energy demand
with renewables by 2030.
Current support policies were set up by the 2012 Energy Agreement and have since been
adjusted several times. New post-2020 measures were agreed in the 2018 Energy
Agreement. A
“frozen policies” scenario modelled by the Danish Energy Agency shows
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0142.png
140
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
that without new measures such as those in the 2018 Energy Agreement and climate and
air proposal, growth in renewables would stagnate and fossil fuel consumption rise after
2020, due in part to planned energy-intensive data centres,
11
so GHG emissions would
begin increasing again from 2022 (EA, 2018
[40]
). If the 2018 Energy Agreement is fully
implemented, GHG emissions will continue to decrease gradually after 2022 (Chapter 1).
Denmark’s
incentive structure had varying levels of success across renewable energy
sources. Successful offshore wind tenders have resulted in record low prices, which,
combined with technological advances, led to a 48% cost reduction in offshore wind between
2010 and 2016 (IEA, 2017
[16]
). The tenders have many successful characteristics, including
guaranteed grid connection and electricity offtake and one primary entry point (one-stop
shop) for permitting and licensing
–
both of which provide certainty to investors and drive
costs down. Denmark has become a global leader in wind energy technology throughout the
supply chain. Expansion of renewable and alternative fuels in the transport sector is
increasing slowly. The support system for solar photovoltaic power has been revised several
times over the last five years and the feed-in premium system was withdrawn for new projects
in May 2016 because Energinet, the state-owned enterprise that runs the electricity and
natural gas transmission systems, was receiving too many applications.
The overall cost of supporting renewables has increased quite sharply since 2010 (Figure 3.5),
reaching over DKK 8 billion (EUR 1.1 billion) in 2015. The government estimates that
subsidies totalled about DKK 8.5 billion in 2018, the largest share being for offshore wind. The
increase was driven by steadily growing generation eligible for support (notably offshore wind)
and low electricity prices. Some 62% of gross electricity is produced with renewables support
(the average across 26 EU countries is 16%), though the unit support levels (direct cost per
MWh of supported electricity) are lower than in some EU peers. The cost of support per unit
of renewables generation is highest for solar and biogas (IEA, 2017
[16]
). Most existing support
measures have been financed by the PSO levy, which is added to the electricity price. It is being
phased out over 2017-21, after which renewables development will be supported directly from
the state budget. The PSO, determined quarterly, rose along with growing subsidy expenditure,
reaching DKK 7.3 billion in 2015. It covered nearly all subsidy expenditure that year.
Figure 3.5. The cost of supporting renewables has increased sharply since 2010
DKK billion
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Support for renewables, 2001-15
Onshore windᵃ
Offshore windᵃ
Biofuels
Biogas
Decentralised combined heat and
power
Environment-friendly power
Security of energy supply
Compensation for CO tax
R&D
a)
2005: detailed breakdown not available.
Source:
IEA (2017),
Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Denmark.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002110
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0143.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
141
In 2017, the Energy Commission published recommendations on Danish energy policy
after 2020. It estimated that the cost of reaching the target of 50% renewables by 2030 was
manageable, provided Denmark could reduce the need for subsidies for renewables
deployment and make development market-driven in the long term. The 2018 Energy
Agreement aims to ensure a market-driven green transition. Among other things, it
allocates DKK 4.2 billion (EUR 564 million) for technology-neutral procurement through
tenders, and commits to harmonise and simplify subsidies as far as possible (Box 3.2). The
agreement maintains sizeable subsidies to offshore wind and biogas. Both entail a risk of
low value for money, but Denmark is willing to bear the high initial cost of being a front
runner and exploring renewables options with environmental co-benefits (in the case of
biogas).
12
The agreement also announced
“continued extensive extraction” of North Sea oil
and gas to generate funds for the state budget and investment for the green transition.
Box 3.2. Key components of the 2018 Energy Agreement
In June 2018, the Danish government and Parliament reached agreement on a new energy
policy to 2030. The Energy Agreement aims to help Denmark source 55% of gross final
energy consumption from renewables by 2030 and to phase out coal from electricity
production by the same year. Key measures include:
building three offshore wind farms with capacity of at least 2.4 GW
allocating DKK 4.2 billion (EUR 564 million) to a tender process by which
different technologies compete on delivering renewable electricity at the lowest
price
allocating DKK 4 billion (EUR 537 million) to expand green biogas production,
including organic biogas
allocating DKK 500 million (EUR 67 million) to green transport over 2020-24 to
enhance green mobility and transport
allocating DKK 500 million (EUR 67 million) annually to a market-based grant
pool focused on energy savings (primarily in business) over 2021-24, of which
DKK 200 million is earmarked for energy savings in buildings
allocating DKK 100 million (EUR 13 million) annually over 2021-24 to help
finance energy renovations in buildings owned or operated by municipalities or
regions
establishing a DKK 400 million (EUR 54 million) reserve in 2025 and allocating
DKK 500 million (EUR 67 million) annually after 2026 to further enhance the
use of renewables
relaxing electricity and electric heating taxes by about DKK 2 billion
(EUR 268 million) in 2025
intensifying export promotion activities with DKK 174 million (EUR 23 million)
over 2019-24
increasing funding to energy and climate research to DKK 1 billion
(EUR 134 million) by 2024.
Source:
(Government of Denmark et al., 2018
[41]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0144.png
142
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
Energy efficiency
Denmark’s praiseworthy decoupling of GDP growth from energy consumption growth has
been achieved through national energy efficiency objectives and various measures to meet
them. A comprehensive energy savings strategy was published in 2014.
The main measure on the supply side is the Energy Efficiency Obligation (EEO) for grid
and distribution companies in the electricity, natural gas, district heating and oil sectors.
Initiated about 20 years ago, it is a market-oriented system in which participants can choose
the most cost-effective measures to achieve savings. The system is financed by end-users
via energy bills.
13
Annual saving targets set by the EEO have mostly been met. However,
the additionality of the programme is rather low. There has also been concern about its
rising cost to bill payers, in part linked to the lack of incentives for participants to reduce
the cost of implementing the obligation (Fawcett, Rosenow and Bertoldi, 2018
[42]
; IEA,
2017
[16]
). The rising cost influenced recent reductions in EEO savings targets for 2015-20
(by about 15%). The 2018 Energy Agreement announced that the programme would expire
in 2021, to be replaced by a market-based system, based on open tenders, in which bidders
would offer energy savings at a given price. Savings are targeted in process energy in
industrial and service businesses as well as the building sector. The new system is to be
complemented by an information and data initiative to enhance knowledge about savings
opportunities.
The Danish Energy Agency has used voluntary energy efficiency agreements with large,
energy-intensive businesses since 1996. Businesses that enter into a binding three-year
agreement and commit to improve energy efficiency obtain a substantial reduction of the
PSO (though that tax will be phased out by 2021). As the International Energy Agency has
recommended, an option for continuing such agreements would be to increase the
electricity tax (or other energy taxes) in industry from the current DKK 0.004/kWh except
for companies committing to efficiency agreements (IEA, 2017
[16]
).
Standards for new buildings have been strengthened considerably and are quite high. The
rate of improvement of existing buildings is still quite low, despite numerous initiatives
launched over the last several years, and is a major challenge for the future. One area that
may require attention is energy labelling of buildings, which can have an impact on selling
prices. The Energy Agreement commits to establishing a long-term building renovation
strategy, including milestones for 2030, 2040 and 2050 (IEA, 2017
[16]
).
3.5.3. Investment in sustainable mobility
Government expenditure on transport increased by more than 50% over 2005-16 in real
terms, driven by a notable increase in rail infrastructure investment (Figure 3.6). This
increase reflects commitments made in the 2012 Transport Agreement to improve public
transport, which includes development of a new metro line in Copenhagen and light rail in
Aarhus and Odense, as well as investment to electrify and improve signalling on the railway
network. A former government agreed on a DKK 28.5 billion (EUR 3.8 billion) investment
plan to build new railways, upgrade existing lines and electrify the network. The conversion
was supposed to be financed by the Train Fund (Togfonden). The project was put on hold
shortly thereafter, however, and later limited in scope. Investment and maintenance
expenditure on roads decreased over 2005-16, but remains higher than rail investment in
absolute terms (Figure 3.6).
The 2018 climate and air proposal sets out goals and measures to reduce GHG emissions
in the transport sector. These include stopping sales of new diesel and gasoline cars by
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0145.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
143
2030 and of hybrid cars by 2035; convening municipalities to discuss how to achieve zero
GHG and air pollutant emissions from buses by 2030,
building on Copenhagen’s goal
to
use only electric buses by then; tightening taxi requirements so that no taxis emit GHGs or
air pollutants by 2030; increasing scrapping premiums in an existing scrapping programme
for old diesel vehicles;
14
investing in climate-friendly asphalt; and increasing the required
biofuel content of gasoline and diesel to 8%. The proposal also announced surveillance of
sulphur emissions from ships in Danish waters. For the longer term, towards 2030 and
2035, the government established a commission of experts and government officials to
propose measures on the transition of car transport.
Figure 3.6. Investment in rail infrastructure increased
Transport infrastructure investment and maintenance spending, 2005-16
Road infrastructure investment
Maritime port infrastructure investment
EUR million, 2010 prices
3 500
Road infrastructure maintenance
Airport infrastructure investment
Rail infrastructure investment
3 000
2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Note:
Data for marine and airport infrastructure not available for 2016.
Source:
ITF (2018),
“Transport
infrastructure investment and maintenance”,
ITF Transport Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002129
In March 2019, the government and the Danish People’s Party agreed on a long-term
infrastructure investment plan. It includes DKK 112 billion for 2021-30, of which 54% is
dedicated to road and 46% to rail. Measures such as upgrading core sections of main
highways, building new highways and corridors, and upgrading connections to central
highway corridors are expected to reduce congestion. Investment is also planned to upgrade
speed and capacity on the rail corridor from Jutland and Funen to Zealand. As the
infrastructure investment plan includes projects that were found to have negative net
present value (e.g. Routes 9, 11 and 15), Denmark should prioritise projects with high
socio-economic returns and re-evaluate projects with potentially negative returns. The
Danish Productivity Commission noted in 2014 that unprofitable transport investments had
led to a loss of DKK 21 billion for society over the previous decade (Productivity
Commission, 2014
[43]
).
Denmark had nearly 10 000 electric vehicles (EVs) on the road in 2017 (IEA, 2018
[23]
).
This is rather low compared to European leaders such as Norway (about 170 000), the
United Kingdom (140 000) and Germany (125 000), but
Denmark’s
overall car fleet is
relatively small. To promote EVs, Denmark began offering rebates on registration, sales
and circulation taxes as well as local incentives such as waivers on tolls, parking fees and
ferries. The decision to phase in a registration tax for EVs due to concern over the level of
government revenue resulted in a significant decline of new EV sales from 2015. A freeze
on the EV registration tax phase-in, adopted in April 2017, followed by an overall reduction
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0146.png
144
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
of the registration tax in October 2017, continued to provide mixed signals, undermining
consumer confidence and limiting opportunities for a rebound. In late 2018, Parliament
passed a bill exempting EVs and hybrids worth less than DKK 400 000 (EUR 54 000) from
the registration tax in 2019 and 2020.
The Danish Road Directorate procured fast public EV charging points along the main
highway corridors. EVs using such publicly accessible charging points get a 50% discount
on the electricity tariff. Denmark is the only Nordic country that has used fiscal rebates on
private charging infrastructure: homeowners who install an EV charging point can deduct
the installation cost from their income tax. Until 2020, consumers who charge at home will
receive a tax rebate of DKK 0.94/kWh (USD 0.14/kWh), cutting electricity costs almost in
half. Denmark received the largest share of EU funding for charging infrastructure
deployment in the Nordic region, participating in projects that totalled more than
EUR 47 million and developed more than 150 public charging points (IEA, 2018
[23]
). It has
a target of 3 000 publicly accessible charging stations by 2020, along with network
coverage amounting to a charging point every 60 km. In this regard, the climate and air
proposal announced investment of DKK 80 million (EUR 11 million) in new high-speed
EV charging stations, along with regulatory changes (e.g. allowing municipalities to reduce
parking charges for low-emission cars and let EVs drive in bus lanes). On the negative side,
Denmark has some way to go to ensure interoperability of publicly accessible chargers. EV
owners need different membership cards for access to outlets of the three main charging
point operators. The government has discussed a policy framework to address this issue,
but there have been no concrete implementation steps to date.
3.5.4. Investment in water and sanitation
There are 87 municipally owned water utilities and 100 municipally owned wastewater
companies, as well as more than 2 000 private waterworks. Investment in and operation of
public water supply and wastewater treatment are entirely financed by user charges. All
water users (households and industry) are metered, and both public water supply and
wastewater treatment are charged according to metered consumption. Average water prices
paid by households are the highest among OECD countries (Figure 3.7), although prices
and price structure vary across the country.
15
Price increases stimulated significant
reductions in water consumption over the past decade, except in agriculture and industry
(Chapter 1).
There are no social tariffs (water pricing is purely volumetric), but since its inception in
2009, the Danish Water Utility Regulatory Authority has set annual price caps on each
company subject to regulation (i.e. municipally owned water supply and wastewater
treatment companies). The Water Sector Act of 2009 sets requirements with respect to a
price ceiling
and efficiency of water companies’ operating costs.
The requirements are
based on benchmarking
16
by the regulatory authority aimed at identifying efficiency
potential in the sector and in individual companies (DANVA, 2016
[44]
). Ultimately, the
regulation aims to imitate competitive pressure. The Water Sector Act was amended in
2016 to require utilities to meet efficiency targets for total costs (i.e. operating and
investment). This has created some policy uncertainty that may have contributed to a drop
in investment in 2016 and could affect planned investment levels in the near term
(DANVA, 2017
[45]
). Parliament recently agreed to strengthen the regulation in coming
years by introducing revenue caps that can be adjusted to actual investment, instead of
being fixed at a historic level. This will help improve companies’ ability to invest in new
technology.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0147.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
145
Figure 3.7. Water and wastewater tariffs are the highest in the OECD
Tariff for water and wastewater services,
selection of OECD countries with the highest rates, 2018
a
Composition of water prices in Denmark, 2017
VAT (drinking water)
7%
Taxes
(drinking water)
9%
Drinking water
company's share
18%
Water
USD/m
3
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Wastewater
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Wastewater
company's
share
52%
VAT (wastewater)
13%
Taxes (wastewater)
1%
a)
Average tariff based on consumption of 15m
3
per month. Data include fixed and volumetric charges, exclude VAT and other taxes.
Source:
International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (2019),
IBNET (database);
Danva (2018)
Danva Statistik & Benchmarking.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002148
On the basis of the price caps, the company sets tariffs for the following year. The tariffs
must be approved by the municipality. Regulation has been effective in stopping price
increases observed since 2004; tariffs have remained relatively stable since 2009, and
investments, especially in wastewater utilities, have increased since that year while
operating expenses have fallen for both drinking and wastewater utilities. In the long run,
the rate of reduction in operating expenses is expected to decrease, and as a consequence
there will be more focus on reducing investment costs.
The price charged to users for drinking water (which is almost entirely from groundwater)
covers the cost of groundwater protection, abstraction, treatment and delivery. The
component charged for wastewater covers sewer operation, maintenance, renovation and
expansion, as well as operation and inspection of wastewater treatment plants (DANVA,
2017
[45]
). The political decision in 2013 to gradually reduce the wastewater charges for
large water users
–
up to DKK 700 million per year from 2018 has resulted in considerable
discounts for large users such as slaughterhouses, refineries and breweries. The change
from a flat charge to a regressive system (i.e. lower rates as consumption increases) aimed
to reduce the share of total wastewater company costs that large consumers paid, which
was considered disproportionate. The water companies compensate for this discount by
either increasing efficiency or raising wastewater tariffs for other users (DANVA, 2017
[45]
).
Properties discharging particularly polluted wastewater pay an additional fee on top of the
annual fee for ordinary wastewater.
17
3.6. Promoting eco-innovation and green markets
3.6.1. Eco-innovation
Denmark is an innovation leader: its innovation system ranked second only to Sweden
among EU countries in 2017 (EC, 2018
[46]
). The business, entrepreneurship and innovation
environment is one of the most favourable in the OECD, reflecting a flexible and
well-functioning labour market, low regulatory barriers and high public spending on R&D.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0148.png
146
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
In 2016, gross domestic R&D expenditure amounted to 2.9% of GDP, above the OECD
average of 2.3%. Business R&D expenditure accounts for 1.9% of GDP, compared to 1.6%
for the OECD. The high level of overall spending masks a strong concentration in a few
large firms, dominated by pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Only 25% of business R&D
is attributable to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (OECD, 2019
[1]
).
Denmark has developed a high level of specialisation in environment-related technology
(Figure 3.8). In 2015, 17% of high-value inventions were environment-related, down from
nearly 25% in 2010 but still one of the highest shares among OECD countries. Per capita,
Denmark ranks second among OECD countries, following Korea. Most patents are filed in
the fields of wind energy and energy-related climate change mitigation technology.
Figure 3.8. Denmark is a leader in green innovation
Green patent indicators: Top ten best performers in the OECD, average 2013-15
Green patents per capita
Korea
Denmark
Japan
Germany
Finland
Israel
Switzerland
United States
Inventions per unit of
government R&D
Share of green patents
in total patents
Denmark
Chile
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
Relative advantage of green
patents
a
Denmark
Chile
Estonia
Latvia
Poland
Spain
Germany
France
Finland
Ireland
Netherlands
Austria
Denmark
Belgium
Sweden
Sweden
Austria
Switzerland
United States
Netherlands
OECD
0
20 40 60 80
Patents/million inhabitants
Latvia
Slovak Republic
Spain
Germany
France
OECD
0%
5% 10% 15% 20%
Sweden
OECD
Japan
0
2
4
6
8
Patents/USD million (PPPs)
0
1
2
3
Note:
Patent statistics are taken from the Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT) of the European Patent Office (EPO), with algorithms developed by the OECD.
Data refer to patent applications filed in the inventor's country of residence according to the priority date and apply solely to inventions of high potential commercial value for
which protection has been sought in at least two jurisdictions.
a)
Index of the specialisation in environmental innovation. It is calculated as the ratio of 1) the share of environment-related inventions on all inventions (in all technologies) at
home and 2) the share of environment-related inventions on all inventions (in all technologies) in the world. The index is equal to 1 when the
country's share of “green” technology
is the same as the world's share; an index above 1 indicates a relative technological advantage, or specialisation, in environment-related technology compared to the world value.
Source:
OECD (2018), “Patents”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002167
Government budget allocations for environmental R&D reached 1.1% of the total
government R&D budget in 2018; energy-related R&D reached 3% and agricultural R&D
2.7% (OECD, 2018
[47]
). While the energy-related R&D budget was halved over 2013-16
(Figure 3.9), Denmark committed to increase investment in clean energy innovation by
doubling funding to the Danish Energy Technology Development and Demonstration
Programme (EUDP) from DKK 292 million (EUR 39 million) in 2015/16 to
DKK 580 million (EUR 78 million) in 2020 as part of Mission Innovation.
18
This will bring
up total budget expenditure, although not to pre-2015 levels. The 2018 Energy Agreement
announced gradually rising state funding for energy and climate-related research,
development and demonstration (RD&D) to DKK 1 billion (EUR 134 million) in 2024.
One of the most important RD&D programmes is the Danish Eco-Innovation Programme
under MEF, which has supported development, testing and demonstration of
environmentally efficient technology since 2007. Its budget in 2018 was about
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0149.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
147
DKK 86 million (EUR 12 million). An evaluation found that the fund led to significant
business activity among participating companies: for every DKK 1 million in grants,
participating companies had average annual turnover of DKK 2.9 million related to that
technology, in addition to experiencing a stronger employment development than the
Danish business sector in general (DAMVAD Analytics, 2017
[48]
). Most supported projects
focused on reducing nitrogen load in water bodies and reducing CO
2
emissions. In addition,
the Green Development and Demonstration Programme supports demonstration projects
with positive environmental effects in the food industry. Its budget in 2018 was around
DKK 206 million (EUR 27.6 million).
The greatest commitment to green technology and innovation has been in the energy area.
Several RD&D programmes aim to increase employment, sales and exports, and reduce
CO
2
emissions, in the energy sector. An evaluation of the three main programmes found
that they were successful in meeting these objectives, in part due to their risk alleviation
mechanism (COWI et al., 2015
[49]
). The largest programme is the EUDP, which provides
grants for clean energy technology with commercial potential that could be exported to
growing markets (EUDP, 2017
[50]
). Its 2018 budget was about DKK 400 million, down
from more than DKK 1 billion in 2011. The 2018 Energy Agreement committed to increase
funding for energy and climate-related RD&D to DKK 1 million by 2024.
The climate and air proposal allocates additional resources to climate-related R&D,
including DKK 90 million (EUR 12 million) to develop low-GHG farming practices that
have synergies with other environmental policies, and DKK 100 million (EUR 13 million)
for carbon capture and storage in farmland and forests. Subsidies are provided to support
conversion of peatland under agricultural development to permanent nature areas
(Section 3.4.2). While agricultural R&D is high compared to agricultural value added, the
additional resources for climate technology are welcome in light of the limited
cost-effective solutions and lack of regulation for emission reductions for this sector to
date, putting Denmark on track to establishing itself as a leader in providing
climate-friendly agricultural products.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0150.png
148
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
Figure 3.9. Energy-related R&D budgets have been falling
Government R&D budgets for energy, agriculture
and the environment, 2005-18
Environment
Energy
Agriculture
DKK million
a
Total (right axis)
DKK million
a
25 000
20 000
DKK million
a
1 400
1 200
1 000
Public energy-related RD&D budgets, 2005-17
Energy efficiency
Renewable energy supply
Hydrogen and fuel cellls
Fossil fuels
Nuclear
Other
1 400
1 200
1 000
15 000
800
600
10 000
5 000
200
0
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
0
800
600
400
200
0
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
400
a)
At 2017 prices.
Source:
IEA (2018),
Energy Technology RD&D Budgets
(database); OECD (2019),
“Research
and Development Statistics: Government budget
appropriations or outlays for RD”,
OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002186
3.6.2. Environmental goods and services market
Environmental goods and services (EGS) contribute significantly to the Danish economy.
Production in the EGS sector totalled DKK 214 billion (EUR 29 billion) in 2016, an
increase of 23% in nominal terms from 2014 (Statistics Denmark, 2018
[51]
). The rise is
linked extensively to the production and export of renewables technology, especially wind
turbines. Despite stiff competition, the wind sector continues to perform well and drove
turnover growth over 2012-16. Overall, 52% of EGS-related production in 2016 was related
to renewables, followed by energy efficiency (Figure 3.10). The EGS sector employed
71 000 people, or 3% of the workforce (SD, 2018
[6]
), and accounted for nearly 15% of
exports in 2015, the highest share among OECD countries (OECD, 2017
[52]
). Green
technology continues to be a focal area for environment, climate and agriculture, and
substantial subsidies for it are provided.
The number of Danish companies adopting the ISO 14001 environmental management
system has fluctuated between 800 and 1 000 in recent years. It increased gradually from
2013, potentially encouraged by public support promoting uptake (Chapter 2). Many
companies in Denmark use the European Eco Management and Audit Scheme, which sets
stricter environmental targets and company performance standards than ISO 14001. In the
agricultural sector, producers have been more resistant to environmental standards but use
food-related eco-labelling (Varga, 2016
[53]
).
Demark has a well-functioning public procurement system that includes green, social, SME
and innovation criteria. Green procurement criteria have been introduced for
electricity-using products and the timber and transport product groups. National initiatives
supporting uptake of green public procurement include knowledge-sharing networks,
partnerships for front runners, best practice examples and a green public procurement task
force to assist public authorities in implementing green public procurement (see also
Chapter 4, Box 4.7). The Danish Environmental Protection Agency has published an
e-learning tool to provide stakeholders with basic knowledge on green public procurement.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0151.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
149
Figure 3.10. Renewable energy production accounts for nearly half of EGS turnover
EGS turnover by environmental purpose, 2016
EGS turnover by industry group, 2016
Renewable energy generation
Heat/energy saving and
management
Other resource management
purposes
8%
11%
2%
8%
59%
Waste management
Protection of soil, groundwater
and surface water
Other environmental protection
purposes
0
20
40
60
80
100 120
DKK billion
12%
Manufacturing
Sewage and waste
management
Knowledge-based
services
Agriculture, forestry
and fishing
Construction
Energy supply
Wastewater management
Source:
Statistics Denmark (2018),
Green National Accounts for Denmark 2015-2016.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002205
3.7. Environment, trade and development
3.7.1. Trade and export credits
Denmark’s open economy is highly dependent on foreign trade. Exports (in value added
terms) contribute around 31% of GDP, below the OECD median but comparable with
Sweden and Finland (OECD, 2017
[54]
). The transition towards a low-carbon, circular
economy is seen as an economic opportunity through export of Danish environmental
technology and services, notably in the energy technology field. Clean tech has been the
fastest-growing Danish export sector in recent years. A major driver behind strong export
performance is Denmark’s international reputation as a
front runner in green solutions, a
strong framework of export financing, and assistance for internationalisation of innovation
and commercial activities.
The export strategy for energy technology, presented in March 2017, envisages doubling
exports of energy technology from around DKK 70 billion in 2015 to at least
DKK 140 billion by 2030. The strategy sets a strategic framework for export initiatives in
the energy sector and introduces new efforts, including a programme aimed at the
United States, United Kingdom and Germany. It also contains instruments to advance green
energy through the Danish International Development Agency (Danida) in high-growth
and developing countries (Section 3.7.2).
Denmark backs the 2012 OECD Recommendation on Common Approaches for Officially
Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence. Its Export Credit
Agency, EKF, maintains an active corporate social responsibility policy that complies with
the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises as well as the UN Principles on
Business and Human Rights and The Common Approaches. Denmark is also a signatory
to the UN Global Compact and the Equator Principles. Accordingly, EKF incorporates
evaluation of environmental and human rights risk in its risk assessment (OECD, 2016
[55]
).
It discloses information on Category A projects (those with potential significant adverse
environmental and/or social impact under OECD Common Approaches) at least 30 days
before it is decided if EKF can take part. In 2017, EKF for the first time withdraw financing
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0152.png
150
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
from a copper mining project in Armenia, partly over non-compliance with terms of
agreement on areas including tailing management and catch basin overflow (EKF,
2017
[56]
).
Between 2003 and 2013, Denmark provided more export credits for renewable power
generation projects than any other OECD country, thanks to extensive support to wind
energy. No support was granted to coal-fired power plants over the period, and the share
targeting power generation projects based on oil, diesel or natural gas was relatively small
(OECD, 2015
[57]
). EKF is a global leader in wind project funding, having financed more
than 100 wind farms globally, worth more than DKK 100 billion, over the past 20 years. In
2017, wind projects made up 48%
of EKF’s total portfolio.
3.7.2. Development co-operation
Development co-operation and humanitarian action are guided by the World 2030 strategy,
which is based on the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. Inclusive, sustainable growth and
development form one of the strategic aims, with a focus on energy, water, agriculture,
food and other areas where Denmark has special knowledge, resources and interests
(Danida, 2017
[58]
). The government aims to increasingly use official development
assistance (ODA) to boost the contribution of the private sector to sustainable development
in developing countries while promoting Danish technology transfer (MOF, 2017
[2]
). To
this end, it aims to strengthen the Investment Fund for Developing Countries (IFU),
Denmark’s central development finance institution. The IFU manages two major blended
finance
19
instruments: the Danish Climate Investment Fund and the Danish Agribusiness
Fund (Box 3.3). While the focus on mobilising private sources for sustainable development
is line with global efforts to scale up blended finance, it is important to ensure that these
activities do not come at the expense of untied ODA.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0153.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
151
Box 3.3. Using public-private partnerships in development co-operation
The
Danish Climate Investment Fund
was established in 2012 to promote climate-related
investment in developing countries and emerging markets, combining commercial and
environmental objectives with the goal of reducing global warming and contributing to
climate change adaptation in developing countries while promoting transfer of Danish
climate technology. The fund started in 2014 with capital of DKK 1.3 billion
(EUR 174 million), of which 40% was public funding and 60% private (from Danish
pension and capital funds). The fund is now fully invested. One of its biggest projects
includes development of a 300 MW wind park in Kenya, the largest wind farm in Africa.
The IFU expected annual return of 12%.
The
Danish Agribusiness Fund,
based on a similar model, was established in 2016 to
provide risk capital for agriculture and food investment in developing and emerging
countries and to promote sales of Danish technology and know-how. Of its total capital of
DKK 800 million (EUR 107 million), 37% comes from public resources (the state and
IFU) and 63% from Danish pension funds.
In June 2018, the prime minister launched the
SDG Fund
to enhance investment in key
SDG areas by mobilising public and private capital, technology and know-how, and
promoting responsible business conduct. It was established by six Danish pension funds
and the IFU, which also acts as fund manager. By June 2018, capital commitments to the
fund had reached DKK 4.1 billion (EUR 550 million), of which 60% was from private
resources (each pension fund committed DKK 400 million) and 40% from public
resources. It is expected that the fund will contribute to investment of at least
DKK 30 billion. Investment will mainly be in sectors where Denmark has strong expertise
and experience, such as renewables and energy efficiency, agribusiness and food, water
and sanitation, and industry and services.
Source:
(OECD, 2016
[59]
); IFU website (accessed on October 2018); country submission.
In 2017, Denmark provided USD 2.4 billion in net ODA, which represented 0.72% of gross
national income (GNI) (OECD, 2018
[60]
). This makes Denmark one of five OECD
Development Assistance Committee members to have met the UN target of allocating 0.7%
of GNI as ODA. Net ODA disbursements have declined in recent years in real terms,
reflecting the government’s pre-election
promise to bring the ODA/GNI ratio back to 0.7%
from nearly 0.9% in 2014. This affected budget for support to sustainable natural resource
management, the energy sector and climate change activities (OECD, 2016
[61]
). Taken
together, environment- and climate change-related ODA dropped by 44% between 2014
and 2017 (Figure 3.11), creating a gap between strategic priorities and financial allocations.
In 2017, 26% of Danish bilateral allocable development finance supported the
environment, compares with the DAC country average of 33% in 2016 (OECD, 2018
[62]
).
The overall decrease in ODA has, however, been accompanied by increased efforts to
engage the private sector and mobilise private investment (Box 3.3).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0154.png
152
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
Figure 3.11. Environment- and climate-related ODA has declined
Bilateral allocable ODA commitments in support of environment objectives, 2010-17
Other environment-related ODA
Million USD, 2016 prices
700
Climate-related ODA
Share of environmental ODA in bilateral ODA commitments (right scale)
% of bilateral allocable ODA
0.50
43%
600
35%
500
400
30%
38%
33%
26%
21%
22%
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
300
200
100
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Note:
Data refer to activities that are marked with at least one of the environment and/or Rio policy markers. They include activities targeting the
environment, climate change mitigation or adaptation, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and/or desertification control either as explicit and
fundamental objective of the activities or as important but secondary objective. The marker data do not allow exact quantification of amounts allocated
or spent in support of the environment. They give an indication of such aid flows and describe the extent to which donors address these objectives
in their aid programmes. Data do not necesseraly correspond with climate finance data reported to the UNFCCC.
Source:
OECD (2019),
OECD International Development Statistics
(database); OECD calculations.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002224
The Danish Climate Envelope, established in 2008, is an important mechanism for
channelling ODA to mitigation and adaptation activities. It also contributes to multilateral
institutions, bilateral programmes in priority partner countries, framework agreements
between Danida and Danish non-government organisations, and the IFU. In 2016, the
government developed a document outlining guiding principles for using the Climate
Envelope, as well as for monitoring and evaluating activities conducted through it (Danida,
2016
[63]
), as an internal evaluation
recommended. The Climate Envelope’s budget
decreased after 2014, but increased to DKK 540 million in 2019 (Danida, 2018
[64]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0155.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
153
Recommendations on moving towards green growth
Framework for sustainable development
Continue developing green national accounts, publish them regularly and monitor
their use in decision making; strengthen the statistical underpinning of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development at the national level and ensure that indicators
are as internationally comparable as possible.
Greening the tax system
Reduce the energy taxation gap between households and businesses to equalise
incentives for energy savings and CO
2
reduction; continue efforts to make electric
solutions for heating and mobility more attractive vis-à-vis fossil-fuel-based
options.
Improve alignment of transport taxes with transport-generated externalities; in
particular, ensure that lower taxes on vehicle ownership are matched by an increase
in taxation of vehicle use (e.g. in congested areas).
Investment in a greener economy
Continue to gradually phase out subsidies to renewables technology as it becomes
economically competitive, and ensure that remaining support is technology-neutral.
Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of and necessity for biogas subsidies; foster
synergies between biogas development policies and nutrient management policies.
Establish mechanisms to mobilise private investment in carbon capture and storage
options, including those arising from peatland rewetting.
Eco-innovation and green markets
Continue support for and ensure continuity of R&D in energy and other
environmentally relevant areas, including climate mitigation options in agriculture
and land use. Strengthen opportunities and incentives for more SMEs to engage in
R&D.
Development co-operation
Continue to use ODA to leverage private investment in projects supporting
sustainable development, ensuring that it does not come at the expense of untied
ODA.
Notes
1
The tax on fossil waste applies only to heat produced from non-renewable industrial waste.
Consumption of such waste is small.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0156.png
154
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
2
As the EU ETS covers electricity generation, a reduction in electricity use in Denmark has shifted
CO
2
emissions to elsewhere in the EU. With the 2017 modifications of the EU ETS, lower electricity
use in Denmark has some impact on EU-wide CO
2
emissions, but it is expected to be modest.
3
The annual tax is levied on private cars registered since 1 July 1997 (cars registered before that
date are subject to a weight-based tax) as well as on commercial vehicles registered since
18 March 2009.
The registration tax provides discounts or extra charges depending on the car’s
fuel consumption.
Requirements became more stringent in 2017. The current legislation allows a discount of
DKK 4 000 for each kilometre a petrol-fuelled car travels in excess of 20 km per litre (22 for diesel
cars), while the extra charge is DKK 6 000 per km/l a petrol car travels short of these values. As for
the green owner tax, semi-annual rates vary from DKK 330 for petrol cars driving at least 50km/l to
DKK 11 430 for cars driving less than 4.5 km/l (rates for diesel cars vary between DKK 130 to
DKK 16 720).
4
5
The Eurovignette is used in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and Sweden. It was also used
in Belgium and Germany before these two countries switched to distance-based pricing in 2016 and
2003, respectively.
6
7
Preliminary estimate.
The Ministry of Taxation has decided not to regard this measure as tax expenditure and thus
stopped calculating revenue forgone. In CHP there is no physics law to determine the split between
fuel used for heat and fuel used for power. The reduced energy duty for CHP generation is a way to
determine the tax base for fuels used for heat production in CHP. The Ministry of Taxation does not
consider this a subsidy for fossil fuels.
8
The EU ecological focus areas cover a broad range of features, including ones that affect
biodiversity directly (e.g. fallow land and buffer strips) or indirectly (e.g. reduced input use, better
soil protection through catch crops or nitrogen-fixing crops).
9
The transfer represented 5% of EU direct payments in 2015, 6% in 2016 and 7% from 2017
onwards, adding around DKK 460 million to the RDP programme in 2019.
10
The statistics include only activities that directly serve an environmental protection purpose (such
as waste or wastewater management) and exclude activities that produce specially designed products
used to serve an environmental purpose (such as facilities for renewables).
11
The authorities estimate that installation of six planned data centres will drive up Danish electricity
consumption by between 13% and 15%.
12
Digested manure provides high-quality natural fertiliser that emits less nitrous oxide than
untreated manure.
13
14
Oil companies include the cost of energy efficiency measures in their prices.
The premium for scrapping diesel vehicles from before 2006 will be increased to
DKK 5 000 (EUR 670); an additional DKK 100 million has been allocated for this purpose. The
subsidy will be disbursed on a first-come, first-served basis.
15
For example, some companies charge a fixed annual basic contribution for water and wastewater
plus a variable price per cubic metre consumed, while others calculate and bill for water only
according to the consumed amount.
16
The efficiency requirement is based on a theoretical calculated net volume target. This enables
comparison of multiple water companies, irrespective of size, type, framework conditions, number
of customers, etc. The net volume target thus expresses how much in operating costs a company can
be expected to have to match the average level of efficiency.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0157.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
155
17
This type of wastewater varies among properties and the fee is based on the pollution content of
wastewater discharged by an individual company.
18
Mission Innovation is a global initiative of 22 countries and the European Union to dramatically
accelerate global clean energy innovation.
The OECD defines blended finance as “strategic use of development finance for the mobilisation
of additional finance
towards sustainable development in developing countries”, with “additional
finance” referring primarily to commercial finance.
19
References
Andersen, M. (2018),
Miljøøkonomiske beregningspriser for emissioner 2.0 (Environmental
economic calculation prices for emissions 2.0),
http://dce.au.dk
(accessed on
26 February 2019).
Andersen, M. (2016),
Animal feed mineral phosphorus tax in Denmark,
Institute for European
Environmental Policy,
https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/ccbf12fc-48fa-4ddf-8d6d-
4413357ae01e/DK%20Phosphorus%20Tax%20final.pdf?v=63680923242
(accessed on
22 August 2018).
COWI et al. (2015),
Evaluering af Energi-, Forsynings-og Klimaministeriets forsknings-og
udviklingsprogrammer for ny energiteknologi (Evaluation of the Energy, Supply and Climate
Ministry’s research and development programs for new energy technology),
COWI,
DAMVAD Analytics and EA Energy Analysis,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Forskning_og_udvikling/energiforskningsevaluering_endelig_
version.pdf.
DAMVAD Analytics (2017),
Evaluering af Miljøteknolo-gisk Udviklings-og Demon-
strationsprogram Udarbejdet for Bestyrelsen for det Miljøteknologi-ske Udviklings-og
Demonstrationsprogram (Evaluation of the Environmental Technology Development and
Demonstration Program Prepared for the Board of the Environmental Technology
Development and Demonstration Program),
DAMVAD Analytics, Copenhagen,
https://ecoinnovation.dk/media/187290/evaluering-2017-rapport-final-31-oktober-2017.pdf
(accessed on 15 March 2019).
Danida (2018),
Priorities of the Danish government for Development Cooperation. Expenditure
framework for Danish development cooperation, 2019-2022,
Danish International
Development Agency, Copenhagen.
Danida (2017),
The World 2030. Denmark’s strategy for development.
Danida (2016),
Guiding principles for the Danish Climate Envelope,
Danish International
Development Agency,
http://amg.um.dk/en/tools/guiding-principles-climate-envelope/.
DANVA (2017),
Water in Figures 2017,
Danish Water and Wastewater Association,
Skanderborg,
http://www.danva.dk/
(accessed on 24 October 2018).
[29]
[32]
[49]
[48]
[64]
[58]
[63]
[45]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0158.png
156
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
DANVA (2016),
Water In Figures 2016,
Danish Water and Wastewater Association,
Skanderborg,
http://www.e-pages.dk/danva/200/
(accessed on 25 October 2018).
DEC (2018),
Economy and Environment, 2018. Summary and recommendations,
Danish
Economic Council,
https://dors.dk/files/media/rapporter/2018/M18/english_summary/m18_english_summary_an
d_recommendations.pdf
(accessed on 27 February 2019).
DFAC (2019),
Danish food production sets vision to be climate neutral in 2050,
Danish Food &
Agriculture Council,
https://agricultureandfood.dk/news-and-press/news/2019/vision-to-be-
climate-neutral-in-2050
(accessed on 25 March 2019).
DN and DFAC (2019),
Fælles løsninger - for natur og landbrug (Common solutions - for nature
and agriculture),
Danish Society for Nature Conservation and Danish Food & Agriculture
Council,
https://www.fremtidensnatur.dk/media/35273/f%C3%A6lles-l%C3%B8sninger-
endelig.pdf.
DRD (2018),
Nøgletal om vejtransport (Key figures on road transport) (database),
Danish Road
Directorate,
http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/da/viden_og_data/statistik/sider/default.aspx
(accessed on 27 June 2018).
Dubgaard, A. and L.
Ståhl (2018), “Omkostninger ved virkemidler til reduktion af landbrugets
drivhusgasemissioner : Opgjort i relation til EU’s 2030-målsætning
for det ikke-kvotebelagte
område (Costs of instruments for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions: Calculated
in relation to the EU’s 2030 target for the non-quota-subject area)”, No.
271, IFRO Rapport,
https://research.ku.dk/search/?pure=en%2Fpublications%2Fomkostninger-ved-virkemidler-
til-reduktion-af-landbrugets-drivhusgasemissioner(c68823af-ba3a-4759-a809-
751ebfe3819c)%2Fexport.html.
EA (2018),
Denmark’s Energy and Climate Outlook 2018. Baseline Scenario Projection
Towards 2030 With Existing Measures (Frozen Policy),
Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen,
http://www.ens.dk
(accessed on 31 January 2019).
EC (2018),
EU transport Scoreboard,
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-
fundings/scoreboard/compare/investments-infrastructure/quality-rail-infrastructure_en#2016-
2017.
EC (2018),
European Innovation Scoreboard 2018,
European Commission, Brussels.
EC (2018),
Excise Duty Tables. Part II: Energy products and Electricity,
European Commission,
Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htmor"TaxesinEurope"onlinedatabase:http://ec
.europa.eu/taxation_customs/tedb/taxSearch.html
(accessed on 24 January 2019).
EEA (2018),
Average age of the vehicle fleet,
European Environment Agency,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/average-age-of-the-vehicle-
fleet/average-age-of-the-vehicle-8
(accessed on 25 October 2018).
[44]
[8]
[4]
[37]
[21]
[7]
[40]
[39]
[46]
[15]
[22]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0159.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
157
[33]
EEC (2017),
Economy and Environment 2017. English Summary,
Environmental Economic
Council, Copenhagen,
https://dors.dk/files/media/rapporter/2017/M17/m17_summary.pdf
(accessed on 26 October 2018).
EKF (2017),
EKF withdraws financing from Armenian mining project,
Danish Export Credit
Agency,
https://www.ekf.dk/en/about-ekf/news/Pages/EKF-withdraws-financing-from-
Armenian-mining-project.aspx
(accessed on 23 October 2018).
EUDP (2017),
The EUDP Strategy 2017-19,
Danish Energy Technology Development and
Demonstration Programme,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Forskning_og_udvikling/uk_total_final_eudp_strategi.pdf
(accessed on 28 February 2019).
Eurostat (2018),
Agri-environmental indicator - consumption of pesticides - Statistics Explained,
Eurostat,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-
environmental_indicator_-_consumption_of_pesticides
(accessed on 30 January 2019).
Fawcett, T., J. Rosenow and P.
Bertoldi (2018), “Energy
efficiency obligation schemes: their
future in the EU”,
Energy Efficiency,
Vol. 12/1, pp. 57–71,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-
018-9657-1.
GBE (2014),
Successful environmental taxes in Denmark,
Green Budget Europe,
http://www.ecocouncil.dk
(accessed on 21 August 2018).
Government of Denmark et al. (2018),
Energy Agreement of 2018,
https://en.efkm.dk/media/12307/energy-agreement-2018.pdf.
Harding,
M. (2014), “Personal Tax Treatment of Company Cars and Commuting
Expenses: Estimating
the Fiscal and Environmental Costs”,
OECD Taxation Working Papers,
No. 20, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz14cg1s7vl-en.
Harding,
M. (2014), “The Diesel Differential. Differences in the Tax Treatment of Gasoline and
Diesel for Road
Use”,
Working papers from the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration of
the OECD,
No. 21, OECD, Paris,
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/the-diesel-
differential_5jz14cd7hk6b-en
(accessed on 24 August 2018).
IEA (2019), “World energy balances”,
IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00512-en
(accessed on 24 January 2019).
IEA (2018),
Energy Prices and Taxes,
http://dotstat.oecd.org/
(accessed on 23 January 2019).
IEA (2018),
Nordic EV Outlook 2018: Insights from leaders in electric mobility,
IEA, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264293229-en.
IEA (2017),
Energy Policies of IEA countries: Denmark,
OECD/IEA Publishing, Paris,
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264287594-
en.pdf?expires=1534854326&id=id&accname=ocid84004878&checksum=18D9EAABB46E
6FB1BD3F9E25207BE974
(accessed on 22 August 2018).
[56]
[50]
[31]
[42]
[30]
[41]
[28]
[19]
[17]
[20]
[23]
[16]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0160.png
158
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
MCEB (2013),
Catalogue of Danish Climate Change Mitigation Measures: Reduction potentials
and costs of climate change mitigation measures Inter-ministerial working group,
Ministry of
Climate, Energy and Building,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/dk_climate_change_mitigation_uk.pdf
(accessed on
22 March 2019).
MEUC (2018),
Energy Agreement 2018,
Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate,
https://en.efkm.dk/media/12307/energy-agreement-2018.pdf.
MIBFA (2018),
Report on growth and competitiveness 2018,
Ministry of Industry, Business and
Financial Affairs,
https://em.dk/ministeriet/arbejdsomraader/samfundsoekonomi-
konkurrenceevne-og-digitalisering/redegoerelse-for-vaekst-og-konkurrenceevne-2018/
(accessed on 31 January 2019).
MOF (2019),
Kommission for grøn omstilling af personbiler i Danmark (Commission for green
conversion of passenger cars in Denmark),
Ministry of Finance,
https://www.fm.dk/~/media/files/nyheder/pressemeddelelser/2019/02/kommissorium.ashx?la
=da
(accessed on 27 February 2019).
MOF (2017),
Report for the Voluntary National Review. Denmark’s
implementation of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development,
https://www.fm.dk/publikationer/2017/report-for-the-
voluntary-national-review
(accessed on 17 October 2018).
MOT (2018),
Tax expenses - total level at the end of 2017,
Ministry of Taxation.
MOT (2017),
Vejafgifter (tolls),
Ministry of Taxation,
https://www.skm.dk/media/1516094/Faktaark-Vejafgifter.pdf
(accessed on
27 February 2019).
MT (2015),
Mid-term progress report,
Ministry of taxation,
http://www.skm.dk/skattetal/satser/satser-og-beloebsgraenser/vaegtafgiftsloven#tabel1
(accessed on 30 August 2018).
OECD (2019), “Land resources: Land use”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/8ecc9c9c-en
(accessed on 19 March 2019).
OECD (2019),
OECD Economic Surveys: Denmark 2019,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-dnk-2019-en.
OECD (2019),
OECD Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels (dataset) (forthcoming).
OECD (2019),
Taxing vehicles, fuel, and road use: Opportunities for improving transport tax
practice (forthcoming),
OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2018),
“Research and Development Statistics:
Government budget appropriations or
outlays for RD”; OECD Science,
Technology and R&D Statistics (database),
https://doi.org/10.1787/strd-data-en
(accessed on 15 March 2019).
OECD (2018),
Development Co-operation Report 2018: Joining Forces to Leave No One
Behind,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2018-en.
[9]
[65]
[14]
[27]
[2]
[34]
[26]
[25]
[36]
[1]
[35]
[24]
[47]
[62]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0161.png
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
159
[18]
OECD (2018),
Effective Carbon Rates 2018: Pricing Carbon Emissions Through Taxes and
Emissions Trading,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264305304-en.
OECD (2018), “Green growth indicators”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00665-en
(accessed on 23 January 2019).
OECD (2018),
International Development Statistics (database).
OECD (2018),
Revenue Statistics (dataset),
http://dotstat.oecd.org/#
(accessed on
26 February 2019).
OECD (2018),
Taxing Energy Use (forthcoming).
OECD (2018),
Taxing Energy Use 2018: Companion to the Taxing Energy Use Database,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264289635-en.
OECD (2017),
Denmark: Trade and Investment Statistical Note,
http://www.oecd.org/investment/trade-
(accessed on 1 March 2019).
OECD (2017),
Green Growth Indicators 2017,
OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing,
Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268586-en.
OECD (2016),
Annual Report on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2015,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/2015-Annual-Report-MNE-
Guidelines-EN.pdf
(accessed on 23 October 2018).
OECD (2016),
OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Denmark 2016,
OECD
Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259362-en.
OECD (2016),
OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Denmark 2016,
OECD
Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259362-en.
OECD (2012),
Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies,
OECD
Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130807-en.
Politiken (2019), “Københavns klimamål hænger i tynd tråd (Copenhagen’s climate goals are in
thin thread)”,
Politiken,
https://politikenbyrum.dk/Nyheder/art6589567/K%C3%B8benhavns-
klimam%C3%A5l-h%C3%A6nger-i-tynd-tr%C3%A5d
(accessed on 19 March 2019).
Productivity Commission (2014),
Infrastrukture Analyserapport 5 (Infrastructure Analysis
Report 5),
Danish Productivity Commission, Copenhagen,
http://www.produktivitetskommissionen.dk
(accessed on 22 March 2019).
SD (2018),
Green National Accounts for Denmark 2015-2016,
Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen,
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/Publikationer/VisPub?cid=27468
(accessed on
27 August 2018).
[11]
[60]
[10]
[12]
[13]
[54]
[52]
[55]
[59]
[61]
[5]
[3]
[43]
[6]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0162.png
160
I.3. TOWARDS GREEN GROWTH
Statistics Denmark (2018),
Environmental goods and services by unit,
https://www.statbank.dk/GRON2
(accessed on 27 August 2018).
TAD/ECG(2015)10/FINAL, 1. (ed.) (2015),
Statistics on arrangement official export credit
support for electric power generation projects.
Varga, H. (2016),
Eco-innovation in Denmark: EIO Country Profile 2016-2017,
Eco-Innovation
Observatory,
http://www.eco-innovation.eu
(accessed on 26 October 2018).
WEF (2017),
The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018,
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-
2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf
(accessed
on 26 October 2018).
[51]
[57]
[53]
[38]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0163.png
II. PROGRESS TOWARDS SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
161
Part II. Progress towards selected environmental objectives
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0165.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
163
Chapter 4. Waste, materials management and the circular economy
Denmark has long been an OECD leader in using incineration with energy recovery to
reduce the amount of waste landfilled. Nevertheless, increasing household waste recycling
and implementing meaningful waste prevention measures to address very high levels of
waste generation are still major challenges. A new national strategy for circular economy,
adopted in September 2018, and the subsequent political agreement aim to provide new
impetus for alternative business models that put resource efficiency, waste prevention and
recycling at the heart of production and consumption. This chapter gives an overview of
trends in material use and waste generation, and of related policies. It reviews the
effectiveness of instruments used to encourage waste prevention, reduction and recycling,
and identifies implementation gaps and opportunities in moving towards a circular
economy.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The
use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli
settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0166.png
164
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
4.1. Introduction
Denmark has long been a front runner in the OECD on reducing the amount of waste
landfilled and viewing waste as an important resource. It has a comprehensive policy mix
of regulatory measures (ban on landfilling waste that can be incinerated, compulsory audit
of buildings to be demolished to facilitate removal of polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]),
economic instruments (taxes on landfilling, waste incineration and packaging, product
charges, raw material extraction tax, extended producer responsibility and deposit-refund
programmes for beverage containers), market and innovation support measures (funding
for innovation and green public procurement) and information programmes (eco-label
promotion).
It has made impressive achievements in terms of recovery and recycling for most waste
streams. In particular, construction and demolition (C&D) waste management is among
best OECD practices. Household waste recycling, however, remains a notable exception.
Heavy public investment in incineration for municipal waste treatment has created a path
dependency featuring high levels of municipal waste generation and limited domestic
recycling infrastructure. Municipalities, the main owners of waste incineration plants, face
excess waste incineration capacity.
Current policies and strategies are trying to address these shortcomings, with mixed results.
The 2016 Utilities for the Future strategy proposes an in-depth reorganisation of the waste
management sector, increasing competition among incineration operators and the role of
the private sector in collection and recycling. However, discussions over practical
implementation have stalled, and uncertainty over the future waste management framework
is deterring investment in a circular economy. In this context, the national circular economy
strategy, adopted in September 2018, and subsequent political agreement provide a
welcome new impetus for alternative business models that put resource efficiency and
recycling at the heart of production and consumption.
This chapter gives an overview of trends in material use and in waste generation and
treatment. It presents the Danish policy objectives and institutional settings for waste,
materials management and transition to a circular economy. It also reviews the
effectiveness of policy instruments used to encourage waste prevention, reduction and
recycling as well as to manage the transition towards a circular economy.
4.2. Trends in waste management and material consumption
4.2.1. Trends in material consumption
The Danish economy uses a significant amount of resources. In 2017, domestic material
consumption (DMC) per capita was around 24 tonnes, far above the averages for OECD
Europe (13 tonnes per capita) and the OECD (15 tonnes per capita). While DMC was
decoupled from economic growth in 2008, at the time of the global economic crisis, it has
been rising again since 2014 (Figure 4.1).
About half of DMC consists of non-metallic minerals, particularly stone, gravel and sand
extracted from the environment for construction activities. Such activities thus heavily
influence recent trends in material consumption. Since the economic slowdown ended, the
construction sector has been recovering, boosted by large infrastructure projects such as the
Copenhagen metro and Fehmarnbelt tunnel. Planned transport infrastructure investment is
estimated at DKK 100 billion (EUR 13.5 billion). Over 2010-16, production grew by 17.2%
in the construction sector and 36.6% in civil engineering (European Commission, 2018
[1]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0167.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
165
Figure 4.1. Material consumption was decoupled from economic growth but is trending up
Trends in GDP, material consumption and
municipal waste generation, 2005-17
GDP (real)
Domestic material consumptionª
Municipal solid wasteᵇ
2005=100
120
100
80
60
40
50
20
0
2005
0
2005
Domestic material consumption, 2005-17
a
Biomass
Fossil energy materials/
carriers
Non-metallic minerals
Metals
Million tonnes
200
150
100
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
a)
Refers to domestic material consumption, i.e. domestic material extraction plus imports minus exports of materials and derived products.
b)
Break in time series in 2011.
Source:
OECD (2019), “Material resources” and “Municipal waste generation and treatment”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database); OECD (2018),
OECD National Accounts Statistics
(database); Statistics Denmark (2019), “Economy-wide material flow accounts”,
StatBank
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002243
Denmark extracted around 110 million tonnes of raw materials in 2016 (58% of direct
material input) and imported 65 million tonnes (37% of direct material input) of the
resources needed for its economy. The main import category, representing half of total
imports, is fossil fuels, even though Denmark extracted 11 million tonnes of oil and gas. It
was a net exporter of crude oil for almost all the review period, but became a net importer
in 2016 (SD, 2017
[2]
). Waste is also a noteworthy material flow, at 2.3 million tonnes
exported and 1 million tonnes imported.
Resource productivity (economic value generated per unit of material used) increased from
USD 1.57 to USD 1.99 per kg of material consumption between 2005 and 2017. This
suggests that the economy generally used resources more efficiently towards the end of the
review period. However, resource productivity remained below the averages for the OECD
(at USD 2.49 per kg) and OECD Europe (USD 2.75 per kg) in 2017 (Figure 4.2). This
reflects mainly the pre-eminence of the construction sector and high share of non-metallic
minerals in DMC.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that resource productivity will
improve by 16% by 2030 (MEF, 2016
[3]
) but notes that past and future development in
resource use and productivity heavily depends on the construction sector. Construction is
unlikely to slow in coming years. Denmark has the third oldest building stock in Europe
and energy policies may lead to increased refurbishment. Furthermore, climate change
policies may require construction of coastal protection systems. Sand and gravel are
abundant and cheap, and 87% of C&D waste is recovered, representing a limited alternative
to the raw material.
Phasing out fossil fuels to meet the objective of reducing dependence on fossil energy
carriers by 2050 will have limited impact on resource use. A reduction of fossil fuels in
DMC from 24 million tonnes in 2014 to around 19.7 million tonnes in 2030 is expected.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0168.png
166
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Figure 4.2. Resource productivity remains low by international comparison
USD (2010 PPP)/kg
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Material productivity, 2017 or latest available year
a
a)
Material productivity designates the economic output (in terms of GDP) generated per unit of domestic material consumption (DMC), calculated as the sum
of domestic extraction of raw materials used by an economy and the physical trade balance (imports minus exports of raw materials and manufactured products).
Source:
Eurostat (2019),
“Material
flows and resource productivity”,
Eurostat
(database); OECD (2018),
“Material
resources”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002262
4.2.2. Trends in waste generation and management
Total waste
Total waste generation increased substantially during the review period. Between 2010 and
2016, it rose by 30%, from about 15 million tonnes to 20 million tonnes. The increase was
linked to C&D waste generation, which accounted for nearly 61% of total waste generated in
2016 (Figure 4.3). While waste generation increased overall, it decreased in several economic
sectors, including utilities, mining and quarrying, and manufacturing.
Figure 4.3. Construction waste accounts for most of Denmark's waste generation
Generation of primary waste by sector, 2016
Households
17%
Other
a
8%
Manufacturing,
mining
5%
Agriculture
1%
Electricity supply
4%
Construction
61%
Water supply,
sewerage, waste
4%
a)
Includes waste generated by the service sector.
Source:
Eurostat (2019), "Generation of waste by waste category, hazardousness and NACE Rev. 2 activity",
Eurostat
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002281
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0169.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
167
Municipal waste
Denmark has reported the highest amount of municipal waste per capita in the OECD since
2007, reaching 785 kg per inhabitant in 2017, far above the OECD average of 524 kg
(Figure 4.4). This may be due in part to national methodological specificities; for example,
Denmark reported 127 kg of garden waste per capita under municipal waste in 2017. Even
without garden waste, however, Denmark would rank among the six largest OECD
municipal waste generators in 2017, at 658 kg per capita.
Figure 4.4. Danish per capita municipal waste generation is the highest in the OECD
Municipal waste generation per capita, 2017
Municipal solid waste per capita
of which: household waste
kg/capita
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
Source: OECD (2019), "Municipal waste",
OECD Environmental Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002300
Overall, municipal waste generation has increased by 13% since 2005, though it remained
stable at around 4.4 million tonnes per year after the introduction of a new waste
information system in 2010. During the review period, in 2005-10 and 2011-15, municipal
waste generation rose faster than private final consumption. A decoupling between
municipal waste generation and private final consumption can be observed in 2016-17, the
latest years for which data are available.
In terms of waste treatment, Denmark has been an OECD front-runner in diverting
municipal waste from landfill, mainly through incineration with energy recovery.
Landfilling decreased from 5% to 1% of municipal waste treated between 2005 and 2017.
Incineration with energy recovery accounted for 53% of municipal waste treated in 2017.
The rest was composted (19%) or recycled (27%) (Figure 4.5).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0170.png
168
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Figure 4.5. Denmark has nearly eliminated landfilling of municipal waste
Municipal waste treatment, 2005-17
% Recycling
100%
90%
80%
70%
% Composting
% Incineration with energy recovery
% Landfill
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Note:
2010 data are not available, break in time series in 2011; recycling rates maybe underestimated due to lack of reporting.
Source:
OECD (2019),
“Municipal waste generation and treatment”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002319
Hazardous waste
Hazardous waste represents a small fraction of total waste generation in weight (9% in
2016), but adequate management is crucial to minimise risk to human health and the
environment. Since 2011 and the launch of the new waste information system, the level of
hazardous waste generation has varied: 422 000 tonnes in 2013, 584 000 tonnes in 2015,
and back down to 550 000 tonnes in 2016. The fluctuation mainly reflects an increased
focus on collecting and treating waste contaminated with PCBs, in particular when
demolishing old buildings containing PCBs. In 2016, 42% of hazardous waste was
recycled, 23% incinerated and 17% underwent special treatment, with only 18% destined
for disposal.
Specific waste streams
For several waste streams, Denmark experienced significant variations in waste generation
during the review period, mainly following economic trends. Waste generation is now back
on the rise. For all waste streams, Denmark has made remarkable achievements in terms of
recycling and recovery.
Regarding C&D waste, generation declined during the economic crisis and has been rising
again since 2011, with 4.3 million tonnes generated in 2016. Denmark achieves high
recovery levels for such waste: around 95% over 2007-09 and slightly lower in later years
(down to 87% in 2016), probably due to methodological changes as well as improved
removal of PCB-contaminated waste.
Packaging waste generation also decreased substantially during the financial crisis, from
around 900 000 tonnes in 2008 to 690 000 tonnes in 2009 and 2010, but has since been rising,
with 880 000 tonnes generated in 2016. Reported recovery and recycling rates in this stream
are also remarkable: in 2015, Denmark recovered 94% of packaging waste and recycled 74%.
During the review period, collection of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) was stable at around
100 000 tonnes, increasing substantially in 2012 (114 000 tonnes) and 2013
(129 000 tonnes). Due to the financial crisis, car owners may have postponed replacing old
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0171.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
169
vehicles, resulting in a scrappage peak thereafter. In 2016, recovery and reuse was
estimated at 95% while recycling and reuse reached 89%.
The amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) peaked in 2007 at
98 000 tonnes. It amounted to around 72 000 tonnes in 2015. Recycling and recovery levels
that year were high at 84.2% and 92%, respectively.
Industrial waste steadily declined over the period, from 1.8 million tonnes in 2005 to
1.1 million tonnes in 2016. In terms of treatment, 73% of industrial waste is recycled, 18%
incinerated and 9% destined for disposal.
Waste shipment
Regarding transboundary movement of waste, Denmark mainly trades waste for recovery
with neighbouring European countries and Turkey. Waste destined for recovery
represented 93% of imports and 97% of exports in 2015.
Iron, paper and cardboard are among the main export categories, reflecting the limited
domestic recycling capacity for these waste streams. Denmark has no steelworks using
scrap, and a few and relatively small paper and cardboard mills. The main destination
countries for exports are Germany, Turkey, Norway and Sweden. Waste exported to
Turkey consists mainly of waste metal.
Imports of waste have risen significantly since 2011, mainly due to increasing import of
waste suitable for incineration, but have stabilised since 2014, reflecting excess
incineration capacity (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6. Imports of waste rose significantly from 2011 but stabilised in 2014, while exports
are trending down
Imports and exports of waste, 2011-16
Imports
1 000 tonnes
3 000
2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0
Exports
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Source:
EPA (2018),
Affaldsstatistikken 2016,
[Waste Statistics 2016] (and previous issues).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002338
Waste management expenditure
Overall, the cost of waste management services increased substantially during the review
period. Total public expenditure (current and capital expenditure) on waste management
increased by 17% between 2005 and 2016 to around DKK 11.5 billion (EUR 1.54 billion).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0172.png
170
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Investment in waste management has increased by 15% since 2010 (Figure 4.7). In 2016,
total turnover of public and private companies in waste management amounted to
DKK 17.2 billion (EUR 2.3 billion) in 2016.
Figure 4.7. Expenditure and investment trends in municipal waste management
Trends in the waste sector, 2010-16
Investment as % of gross fixed capital formation
Waste expenditure per capita
Waste expenditure per GDP
Municipal waste generation per capita
Private final consumption
2010=100
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Note:
Data refer to expenditure for waste management from the public sector.
Source:
Statistics Denmark (2018), "Environmental and economic accounts",
StatBank (database);
OECD (2018), "Municipal waste generation and treatment",
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002357
The cost of waste management services for Danish households is among the highest for
EU countries of the OECD. The cost has grown faster than municipal waste generation
(Figure 4.8). Thus the increase reflects not only higher levels of waste generation but also
a rise in average cost per tonne.
Figure 4.8. The cost of waste management for Danish households is high by international
comparison
Final consumption expenditure for waste management, EU countries of the OECD, 2015
Waste expenditure/capita
EUR/cap.
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Waste/capita (right axis)
kg/cap.
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
a)
Includes waste generated by the household and service sectors.
Source:
Eurostat (2018), “National expenditure on environmental protection by economic characteristics”,
Environmental Protection Expenditure
(database);
OECD (2018),
“Municipal waste generation and treatment”,
OECD Environment Statistics
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002376
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0173.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
171
Although the amount of industrial waste is decreasing, waste management expenditure by
Danish manufacturing industries is on the rise and reached about DKK 800 million
(EUR 107 million) in 2016. The food and beverage industry and the chemical sector have
the highest expenditure levels (Figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9. Waste management expenditure by industry
Waste management expenditure from the industry sector, 2016
Energy and water supply
8%
Machinery, equipment,
repair
13%
Other
12%
Food
products,
beverages,
tobacco
18%
Wood, paper, printing
5%
Furniture, other
manufacturing
3%
Basic/fabricated
metal products
10%
Products of glass,
clay, etc.
7%
Chemicals
15%
Pharmaceuticals
9%
Note:
Data refer to expenditure for waste management from the manufacturing industry.
Source:
Statistics Denmark (2018),
“Environmental
and economic accounts”,
StatBank (database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002395
4.3. Objectives, policies and institutions for waste, materials management and
circular economy
4.3.1. Policy framework and objectives
During the review period (2005-18), Denmark defined its main policies and objectives
related to waste management in a series of plans and strategies.
The third national Danish Waste Plan, launched in 2003 for 2005-08, aimed not only at
reducing the environmental impact of waste but also increasing effectiveness in the waste
sector. In terms of waste prevention, the objective was not to decrease overall waste
generation but rather to decouple its increase from economic growth. The plan included
targets to increase recycling to 65% and incineration with energy recovery to 26% while
reducing landfilling to 9%. It also included EU requirements and targets for certain waste
streams (packaging, WEEE, ELV) (Copenhagen Resource Institute, 2013
[4]
).
The fourth national Danish Waste Plan (2009-12) was developed in two parts: a strategic
part linking waste management with the objectives of climate, resource and environmental
protection policy, followed in 2010 by a second part focusing on prevention, particularly
as regards food waste. The main targets from the previous plan were unchanged except the
one on landfilling, which was lowered to 6% by 2012.
The current strategy on waste management and resources, launched in 2013 as Denmark
without Waste: Recycle More, Incinerate Less (Government of Denmark, 2013
[5]
),
represents a paradigm change for a country that relies heavily on incineration with energy
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0174.png
172
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
recovery to divert waste, especially household waste, from landfill. The strategic goals are
reflected in the latest national waste management plan, Denmark without waste: Resource
Plan for Waste Management 2013-2018, launched in 2014.
The strategy and plan establish one main quantitative target: to collect 50% of seven
household waste fractions (biowaste, paper, cardboard, glass, wood, plastic and metal) for
recycling by 2022 (by contrast, 75% of household waste was incinerated in 2011). This
target reflects the EU Waste Framework Directive target of separately collecting 50% of
the dry fractions of municipal waste (paper, cardboard, plastic and metal), although the
EU targets have a different basis for assessment. In addition, the strategy includes
indicative targets to measure its effects on specific sectors (Table 4.1). For instance,
recycling of organic waste from the service sector (restaurants, food shops) is expected to
reach 60% by 2022. Apart from the household waste target, most legally binding targets
for waste management derive from EU targets.
Table 4.1. Denmark has a mix of mandatory and indicative targets for waste and resource
management
Mandatory targets for municipal waste management are mainly derived from EU directives
Waste
2020
%
Household waste (collected for recycling)
Municipal waste (actual recycling)
Landfill
Packaging waste
Plastic
Wood
Iron and metal
Aluminium
Glass
Paper and cardboard
50
-
-
55
22.5
15
50
(all metal)
60
60
Targets
2025
%
55
65
50
25
70
50
70
75
2030
%
60
70
55
30
80
60
75
85
2035
%
65
10
Source:
Country submission.
Indicative targets (expected effects) are set in the 2013 “Denmark without Waste” strategy
Expected effects
2018
Source
Households
Service
sector
All
Material type (fraction)
Collection of WEEE
Recycling of paper, cardboard, glass, metal
and plastic packaging
Recycling of organic waste
Energy recovery from garden waste
Collection of WEEE
Collection of batteries
Recovery of shredder waste
Recycling of phosphorus in sewage sludge
Min%
75
70
60
25
65
55
70
80
2022
goal
Min%
Baseline (2011 figures)
Recycled
%
68*
53
17
87
47
0
47
83
4
0
4
Incinerated
%
Landfilled
%
* Average of amount placed on the market in the past three years.
Source:
Country submission.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0175.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
173
A waste prevention strategy, Denmark without Waste II (Government of Denmark,
2015
[6]
), was launched in 2015 for 2015-27. It identifies two crosscutting topics (supporting
resource efficiency among businesses and green consumption) and five action areas (food
waste, construction, textile, electrical and electronic equipment, and packaging). The
strategy has seven qualitative targets combined with nine quantitative indicators to monitor
progress on all topics and action areas, such as the number of businesses with a certified
environmental management system, the number of eco-labelled products, and waste
generation in specific industry sectors and in households. A six-year revision of the strategy
is envisaged.
A circular economy strategy (MEF and MIBFA, 2018
[7]
) was adopted in September 2018
(Box 4.1). It does not include additional policy targets, but instead recognises the role of
private companies as a driving force for the transition to a circular economy, envisaging
voluntary commitment by the private sector to increase resource productivity by 40%
between 2014 and 2030 and increase recycling to 80% of total waste (excluding mineral
waste) generated.
Box 4.1. The advisory board on circular economy and the circular economy strategy
Denmark has long been involved in preparation of its circular economy strategy. In the
autumn of 2016, the government established the
advisory board on circular economy
composed of 12 business leaders representing companies of all sizes and from a range of
sectors. The board was chaired by the chairman of Carlsberg, and benefitted from a joint
secretariat formed by MEF and MIBFA. The EPA and the Danish Business Authority were
also part of the secretariat.
The board published its main report with 27 recommendations in June 2017 (MEF,
2017
[8]
). It recommended that Denmark should adopt the following objectives:
deriving more value from materials to increase resource productivity by 40%
(based on amounts) and 15% (based on value)
increasing circularity to 80% recycling of total waste (excluding mineral waste)
and reducing total waste (excluding mineral waste) by 15%
retaining the lead in development of circular technology and solutions
using excess capacity better by getting 50% of the population active in the sharing
economy
boosting circular economy by quadrupling turnover of eco-labelled products and
services.
Denmark launched the
circular economy strategy
in September 2018. It identifies
15 initiatives in six main chapters:
strengthening companies as the driving force for the circular transition
supporting circular economy through data and digitalisation
promoting circular design
changing consumption patterns through circular economics
creating a well-functioning market for waste and secondary raw materials
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0176.png
174
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
deriving more value from buildings and biomass.
The recommendations from the advisory board and the strategy are supported by key
business organisations, including the Confederation of Industries, the Chamber of
Commerce, the Construction Association and the Agriculture and Food Council.
The strategy also refers to the new mandatory EU targets and requirements. In May 2018,
the EU adopted a circular economy package introducing ambitious binding targets for
recycling of municipal waste (55% in 2025, 60% in 2030 and 65% in 2035) and packaging
waste (65% in 2025 and 70% in 2030). Other new requirements relevant for Denmark
include separate collection of biowaste by 2023 and establishment of extended producer
responsibility for packaging by 2025.
Other national strategies are of relevance for Denmark’s waste, materials management and
transition to a circular economy. The national strategy on the sharing economy
(Government of Denmark, 2017
[9]
) aims to maximise use of assets such as cars and
buildings, ultimately leading to less consumption. A utilities strategy, Supply for the
Future, which is under discussion, is expected to significantly modify the organisation of
waste management services. It proposes increased competition in the incineration sector by
letting business freely choose where to send combustible waste and making it compulsory
for municipalities to organise public tenders for household waste treatment for recycling
and incineration. It also suggests directing all recyclable waste treatment to the private
sector; the role is currently divided between municipalities and the private sector.
4.3.2. Legal framework
Denmark has an extensive legal framework to address the environmentally sound waste
management. It consists of a general framework law complemented by regulations for
specific waste streams, treatment methods and specific policy aspects of waste management
(data system, deposit programmes).
The Environmental Protection Act (Consolidation Act No. 966 of 23 June 2017) provides
the general framework law and establishes the main objectives of environmental protection,
including for waste. It is accompanied by a framework regulation, the Statutory Order on
Waste (Affaldsbekendtgørelsen), the main legal instrument governing waste management.
Regulations cover various waste streams (batteries, ELVs, tyres, WEEE, residual waste,
bio-ash, soil moving), waste treatment types (incineration, landfill) and aspects of waste
management policies (data, register, impact assessment, environmental supervision,
deposit systems). Regarding taxation, a 2011 law establishes taxes on waste and raw
materials while a regulation establishes a packaging tax.
4.3.3. Institutional framework and governance
At the national level, responsibility for waste management policy is shared by the Ministry
of Environment and Food (MEF) for overall policy objectives (environmental aspects,
recycling promotion, etc.) and the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities (MCEU) for
economic regulation of the sector and delivery of waste management services.
The transition to a circular economy is the primary responsibility of MEF, which
co-ordinates inter-ministerial processes involving other ministries (Ministry of Industry,
Business and Financial Affairs (MIBFA), MCEU, Ministry of Transport and Building, and
Ministry of Higher Education and Science). This includes co-ordination of the circular
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0177.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
175
economy strategy. MEF also co-ordinated an inter-ministerial task force on increased
resource efficiency, which carried out studies to identify barriers to business uptake of
resource efficiency policies. Activities are being conducted to create communication tools
and guidance on the definition of waste and end-of-waste criteria, waste import and export
rules, and interpretation of VAT regulations for used products.
Denmark has a strong tradition of stakeholder platforms and reflection groups, with many
councils, advisory boards and partnerships involving public authorities. The Bioeconomy
Council gathers businesses, industry associations and universities to promote development
of value chains and is working on bio-based products, focusing on plastics, textiles and
construction. The advisory board on circular economy (Box 4.1) prepared
recommendations on elaboration of the circular economy strategy. Partnerships involving
industry and business as well as public authorities deal with a wide range of practical issues
related to implementation of national strategies on green public procurement, WEEE
collection, sustainable construction and waste prevention, reduction of food waste, etc.
At the local level, the 98 municipalities are the main entities responsible for waste
management. The five regional councils were in charge of orphan contaminated sites, but
in March 2019 the government decided that this and other regional responsibilities would
be transferred to the national level. Municipalities benefit from a large degree of autonomy
in waste management planning and develop 12-year waste management plans at least every
6 years, in addition to infrastructure development, permitting and monitoring of waste
management facilities (except the largest ones, which are controlled at the national level).
Inter-municipal co-operation is also common. In many cases, municipalities own or co-own
waste treatment facilities. Eighty-two municipalities are owners or co-owners of waste
incineration plants.
Municipal responsibilities are evolving. Since January 2010, they are no longer responsible
for managing recyclable waste from businesses, including commercial, industrial and C&D
waste. Thus they can no longer collect or treat this waste, with some exceptions, for
instance where waste is collected from buildings with both households and businesses. In
addition, 23 municipal waste facilities hold permits to continue treating waste from
businesses.
As municipalities are in charge of waste classification, they are largely free to direct high
shares of total waste to the treatment facilities of their choice (e.g. the incinerator they
own). What one municipality considers waste may not be classified as such in a
neighbouring municipality. Waste classified as recyclable in one municipality is suitable
for incineration in another. There have been complaints by private companies and industry
sectors about waste classification differing among municipalities, adding to operators’
administrative burden. This lack of harmonisation makes the playing field uneven for
enterprises operating across municipal borders.
In addition, as the majority of municipalities own or co-own incineration plants and have
excess treatment capacity, they tend to direct waste to the incinerator they own. There are
no market-based incentives for municipal incinerators to compete on price, environmental
performance and efficiency; tipping fees range from about EUR 34 to about EUR 120 per
tonne of waste incinerated.
The circular economy strategy and political agreement aim at harmonising criteria for waste
sorting and collection to create economies of scale. The Utilities for the Future strategy is
also expected to increase competition and tendering in the waste incineration sector, which
would improve cost-effectiveness. There is some evidence that flow control between
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0178.png
176
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
municipalities, resulting in restricted competition in the incineration market, leads to higher
treatment costs. A Norwegian study found that the average price charged for treatment of
combustible waste where there was competition was less than half that charged for similar
waste subject to a monopoly obligation (OECD, 2013
[10]
).
4.3.4. The information base
Denmark is well equipped to monitor trends in waste and materials management, with a
comprehensive system on material flows and management in its green national accounts
under Statistics Denmark. The green national accounts follow international guidelines such
as the Central Framework of the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting.
They capture flows of natural resources, materials and waste as well as information on
natural resource stocks and green economy indicators.
Regarding material flows, the green national accounts take an economy-wide approach,
with indicators such as DMC, direct material input, imports, exports and resource
productivity calculations. Denmark also uses environmentally extended input-output
analysis, with input-output tables in monetary units for the various sectors of the economy,
and is a front runner in developing this type of data. Statistics Denmark has been working
on detailed supply and use tables and input-output tables for 20 years. Annual monetary
supply and use tables feature a breakdown of 117 industries and some 2 300 products.
More recently, Statistics Denmark developed material flow accounts broken down by
industry and households, thanks to extra government funding for 2015-17. This level of
detailed data is still in prototype and not fully quality assured or consistent. It is likely to
enrich a well-developed information base and help in monitoring progress in the transition
towards a circular economy, as well as SDG reporting. Extra funding has also been secured
for 2019-20 in conjunction with a project to better incorporate green national accounts into
economic models.
In 2016, the EPA published a report on material resource productivity with a detailed
analysis of recent trends and scenarios for development of resource productivity. A pilot
project is under way to develop a raw material consumption indicator measuring all
material resources used in the economy, including resource use embedded in imports.
The waste information system, an EPA responsibility, improved considerably in 2010 with
the launch of a waste data system, AffaldsDataSystemet (ADS), and is now based on a
waste management register with mandatory reporting from waste collectors, receivers,
exporters and importers. Previously only waste treatment facilities reported waste data,
with major consistency and quality assurance issues. Waste operators have to provide
information about type of waste, treatment and weight as well as the waste’s origin and
planned treatment and destination. Waste is classified according to European List of Waste
codes, and waste producers according to industry or NACE codes. Danish authorities use
early checks and control systems to improve data quality and the EPA contacts each
reporter individually to help improve reports. The country publishes annual waste statistic
reports, which are available to the public.
ADS data are complemented by data from the Producer Responsibility System (DPA), for
instance on WEEE and batteries. The DPA registers quantities of electrical and electronic
equipment placed on the market.
Denmark carefully monitors transboundary movements, not only of waste that could pose
risk to human health and the environment and waste that should be reported to Eurostat,
but also overall waste shipments, including green-listed waste exported for recovery.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0179.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
177
4.3.5. International co-operation and outreach
Denmark has established a range of good practices on waste, materials management and
circular economy for other countries to learn from. For instance, the Kalundborg green
industrial complex (Kalundborg Symbiosis, 2018
[11]
), a partnership of nine public and
private enterprises that formed one of the first examples of industrial symbiosis around the
Asnaes power plant, has been an inspiration for the design of eco-industrial parks around
the world. The country has well-known research centres promoting best practices in waste
management. Technical University of Denmark, for example, promotes life cycle analysis
accounting for waste systems and provides software tools and training for waste managers
(Dri, M. et al, 2018
[12]
).
The Danish Business Authority is a member of the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation’s CE100
Government and Cities programme to exchange best practices in the transition to a circular
economy. The EPA has also contributed to this programme. Denmark was a pilot country
for the foundation’s work on a toolkit for policy makers
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2015
[13]
).
Denmark collaborates with other Nordic countries (Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden,
along with the Faroe Islands, Greenland and the Aland Islands). Two working groups
dedicated to waste management (Nordic Waste Group) and sustainable consumption and
production were merged in 2019 to form a circular economy working group.
Denmark also has bilateral co-operation agreements on waste in the form of memoranda of
understanding with countries including Turkey, Indonesia and Kenya. It is active in UN
Environment’s work related to implementation of the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Wastes and Their Disposal. It is a contracting party to the
2009 Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound
Recycling of Ships.
4.4. Promoting waste reduction and recycling
4.4.1. From incineration to higher recycling of municipal waste
Denmark has succeeded in diverting municipal waste from landfills using an efficient
policy mix of regulatory and economic instruments (EEA, 2016
[14]
), such as the 1997 ban
on landfilling waste that can be incinerated and the gradual increase of the landfill tax
(Box 4.2). Policy instruments have been geared towards promoting waste to energy. While
the third and fourth waste management plans helped divert waste from landfills, they were
not as effective in promoting waste prevention and reduction or encouraging more
recycling of household waste.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0180.png
178
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Box 4.2. Taxes on landfilling and incineration
Denmark introduced taxes on landfilling and incineration in January 1987 to create
incentives to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills and incineration and to increase
recycling.
The landfill tax per tonne of waste gradually increased from DKK 40 in 1987 (EUR 5.3)
to DKK 475 (EUR 64) in 2018 (PwC, 2018
[15]
). A refund is granted for waste later removed
for recycling, so the tax is levied only for waste actually being disposed of. Revenue from
the tax was originally earmarked for environmental protection but this is no longer the case.
While the landfill tax, combined with a ban on landfilling combustible waste, was
instrumental in reducing landfilling levels in the 1990s, it seemed to have limited effect on
the amount of waste going to landfill and on recycling rates after 2001 (EEA, 2016
[14]
).
The incineration tax was replaced in 2010 by a tax based on the energy content of the waste.
Nowadays a combination of taxes applies to waste incineration:
The waste heating tax is based on the amount of heat produced from waste
incineration, including heat used at the plant for indoor heating or water heating.
In 2018 this tax amounted to DKK 19.80 (EUR 2.66) per GJ. It is coupled with an
additional tax based on heating production according to the energy content of the
input waste, which amounts to DKK 26.50 (EUR 3.56) per GJ. These two taxes
ensure that the same energy tax rate is levied on heat whether it is generated from
waste incineration or fossil fuels, which are subject to energy taxation.
The CO
2
tax is levied per tonne of CO
2
emissions from waste incineration, except
for waste loads containing pure biomass. By 2018 the tax amounted to DKK 173.20
(EUR 23.2) per tonne. In addition, most waste incineration plants take part in the
EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), and pay emission allowances for heat and
electricity production. Waste incineration plants are therefore subject to double
regulation on CO
2
emissions.
Taxes on emissions of NO
X
and sulphur are imposed on some waste incineration
plants. The tax on sulphur emissions is DKK 10.50 (EUR 1.41) per tonne, and that
on NO
X
emissions is DKK 5.10 (EUR 0.68) per tonne (PwC, 2018
[15]
).
Nowadays, the taxes on incineration seem mainly designed to ensure a level playing field
in the energy sector while also helping divert waste towards recycling. However, there is
no recent analysis on the impact of incineration taxes on recycling rates.
In 2010, a per tonne tax on hazardous waste treatment, both incineration and landfill, began
being charged. In 2013, it was set at DKK 160 (EUR 21.45); in 2015 it was increased to
the level for non-hazardous waste (NCM, 2014
[16]
).
Source:
Country submission.
Recent pushes towards increased recycling seem directly driven by the introduction of
mandatory EU recycling targets and reinforced by the adoption of the EU circular economy
package in May 2018. This focus on recycling is starting to deliver in terms of performance,
but risks causing financial losses to municipalities left with excess waste to energy capacity.
In this context, despite a dedicated strategy for waste prevention, there are still limited
incentives to address the high levels of waste generated.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0181.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
179
Towards higher recycling levels for municipal waste…
Denmark promotes recycling of municipal waste, starting with separate collection of
recyclable waste. A 2009 statutory order on waste requires municipalities to establish
separate collection of paper, cardboard and recyclable packaging such as glass, metal and
plastic. In addition, municipalities have to follow the EU waste hierarchy when developing
their 12-year waste management plans. They thus should give priority to prevention,
preparing for reuse, recycling, recovery including energy recovery, and finally disposal.
An increasing number of municipalities are setting up additional programmes for sorting
other types of waste. For instance, between 2016 and November 2018, the number of
municipalities with a system for source separation of organic waste grew from 22 to 40 (out
of a total of 98).
Nevertheless, households’ behaviour and contribution to waste sorting could still be
improved. In 2014, only 60% of Danish respondents reporting separating waste for
recycling, below the EU average of 72% (European Commission, 2014
[17]
).
Regional disparities in recycling performance can be observed. Central and Southern
Denmark have more advanced recycling practices than North Denmark. However, the
differences are minimal. Recycling of household waste is increasing in all Danish regions
and particularly quickly in Zealand (Figure 4.10).
Figure 4.10. Recycling of household waste is increasing in all Danish regions
Recycling rates in Danish regions, 2012-16
Capital Region
45%
40%
35%
Central Denmark Region
North Denmark Region
Zealand Region
Southern Denmark Region
National recycling rates
36%
31%
26%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2012
2014
2016
Source:
EPA (2018),
Affaldsstatistikken 2016
[Waste Statistics 2016]; EPA (2017),
Waste Statistics 2015.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002414
To help municipalities exchange information on best practices, Denmark has set up a web
platform (Genanvend, 2018
[18]
) focusing on household waste recycling. The platform
gathers inspirational case studies (Box 4.3).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0182.png
180
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Box 4.3. Exchanging best practices among municipalities: Genanvend platform
As municipalities have important waste management responsibilities, they are key to the
success of waste strategies. When the 2013 Denmark without Waste: Recycle More,
Incinerate Less strategy was launched, municipalities required guidance and assistance to
change their waste management methods.
At municipalities’ request, a knowledge platform was set up with a dedicated website.
Called Genanvend, which
means “recycle”,
it includes technical reports and inspirational
cases from municipalities as well as contact information to facilitate exchanges. It also
includes the results of 80 projects financed by the EPA on household waste recycling.
In addition to the platform, a dedicated EPA team reached out to municipalities to animate
the network and share information on waste collection and recycling.
As a result, an increasing number of municipalities started collecting separate household
waste fractions such as plastic, cardboard and metal,
and Denmark’s household waste
recycling rates for plastic, paper, cardboard, glass, metal, wood and organic waste are on
course to meet the target of 50% by 2022.
Source:
(Genanvend, 2018
[18]
).
The midterm evaluation of the waste strategy (EPA, 2017
[19]
) showed the country on track
to meet its objective of increasing recycling of seven fractions of household waste to 50%
in 2022. Recycling of plastic, paper, cardboard, glass, metal, wood and organic waste,
considered jointly, rose from 22% in 2011 to 36% in 2016, the latest year for which data
are available.
… and excess capacity for waste
to energy
Converting waste to energy as efficiently as possible has long been a priority for Denmark,
a pioneer in this regard. The first waste incinerator was built in 1903 in Frederiksberg, next
to Copenhagen, as an innovative way to create steam and electricity for a nearby hospital.
The construction of incineration plants was boosted in the 1970s with installation of district
heating infrastructure following the oil crises and in 1997 with the introduction of the ban
on landfilling waste suitable for incineration (DAKOFA, 2018
[20]
).
Today, the country is well equipped with waste to energy facilities. It has 23 waste
incinerators (including 2 special facilities treating hazardous and other waste) and overall
capacity of 4.3 million tonnes. Current waste incineration plants produce around 20% of
the country’s
district heating and 5% of its electricity consumption (DAKOFA, 2018
[20]
).
The largest incinerator, operated by a publicly owned entity, Vestforbrænding, incinerated
around 530 000 tonnes of household and business waste in 2016, leading to production of
1 166 000 MWh of heat and 254 000 MWh of electricity (Vestforbrænding, 2018
[21]
). The
latest plant, in Amager Bakke, started operating in 2017 and has special features such as an
artificial ski slope, a hiking slope and a climbing wall, making it a notable attempt to better
integrate incineration into public space (Amager Resource Centre, 2018
[22]
). The plant, with
capacity to treat some 560 000 tonnes of waste, replaces an older plant. Such incinerators
are presented as a part of Copenhagen's ambition to become zero carbon by 2025.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0183.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
181
As Denmark moves towards more recycling and less incineration, it is experiencing excess
incineration capacity. This is problematic, as incineration costs increase significantly if less
waste is processed than the plant was designed for.
Hence Denmark imports large amounts of waste for incineration, in particular refuse-
derived fuel (RDF) from the United Kingdom, to operate plants efficiently. Imports for
incineration increased from 267 000 tonnes in 2014 to 351 000 tonnes in 2016, when they
accounted for about 10% of incinerated waste (EPA, 2018
[23]
) (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2. Imports of waste for incineration have more than doubled in recent years
Imports of waste suitable for incineration (thousand tonnes)
Germany
United Kingdom
Ireland
Norway
Total
Share of total waste incineration
2013
9
98
33
20
160
5%
2014
13
231
11
11
266
8%
2015
24
307
6
14
351
10%
2016
50
276
13
13
352
10%
Source:
EPA (2018),
Affaldsstatistikken 2016 [Waste Statistics 2016].
Now the UK is extending its own incineration capacity, which could have a major impact
on RDF markets. With neighbouring Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden also
experiencing excess capacity, and price competition rising, there is a risk that some plants
may be forced to close prior to the end of their expected lifespan (Brown, 2016
[24]
).
Other than disseminating good recycling practices, it is unclear how Denmark aims to help
municipalities adapt to the changing paradigm (less waste, less incineration, more
recycling). This is particularly important as municipalities own most of the waste
management infrastructure
–
90% of the 40 operating landfills and all 22 dedicated waste
incineration facilities
–
whereas some 300 out of the approximately 350 recycling plants
are privately owned. Waste incinerators have been mostly financed through public funding
in the form of municipal loans from a special credit institution, Kommunie Kredit, with
municipal guarantees.
Waste prevention and reduction efforts remain insufficient
While recycling of municipal waste is rising, prevention and reduction of household waste
remains a critical issue. Indeed, the number of Danes reporting some waste reduction
practice is falling. In 2014, 21% of Danes reported reducing waste by avoiding
overpackaging or buying products with a longer life span, down from 28% in 2011 and
below the EU average of 33% (European Commission, 2014
[17]
).
While Denmark has a policy of full cost recovery for municipal waste collection and
management services (Box 4.4), municipalities are responsible for setting waste fees.
Several municipalities operate pay-as-you-throw programmes with volume-based waste
charges, which encourage waste prevention. Some municipalities have experimented with
prepaid refuse bags (Dri, M. et al, 2018
[12]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0184.png
182
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Box 4.4. Municipal waste charges
A policy of full cost recovery for municipal waste collection and disposal services is
embedded in
Denmark’s
legal framework (Environmental Protection Act and statutory
order on waste). Municipalities thus charge households and companies according to the
cost of waste management services and cannot cross-subsidise waste management
programmes. Those that charge an overall waste management fee to households must be
able to break down the various types of service (administration, waste for incineration, dry
recyclables, and hazardous, garden and bulky waste).
Within such a framework, municipal waste charges cannot be used to finance waste
prevention activities and programmes.
Businesses located in buildings that also contain households may take part in the collection
of dry recyclables and are charged separately for it. For other private companies,
municipalities must offer access to at least one recycling station. The fee for such access
can be paid per visit or by subscription. Municipalities may provide collection of waste for
incineration, for which businesses would also pay a separate fee.
Businesses were formerly charged a municipal fee for administration (e.g. planning,
regulation) relating to businesses. This fee was abolished in January 2019, mainly because
the cost of administrating it (collection, exemptions and complaints) amounted to almost
half of the revenue of the fee. The expenses paid by the fee is now financed through taxes.
Around 7% of household waste is avoidable food waste (247 000 tonnes in 2017). This
issue is a priority of the waste prevention strategy. A partnership on reducing food waste
by businesses, stakeholders and authorities was formed between 2014 and 2017 to identify
possible solutions. A subsidy supported projects to reduce food waste in the food value
chain through an awareness raising campaign called Check the Date in 2016 and 2018 to
better inform people about food labelling. The Food Waste Hunters initiative in 2016-17
engaged with commercial food service kitchens sector on waste reduction opportunities. In
2016, the food donation rules were modified to facilitate such donations from businesses.
These efforts are starting to have tangible results: it is estimated that Danish households
reduced food waste by 8% per person per year between 2011 and 2017.
Plastic waste from households is another priority, although it represents a smaller fraction
of household waste (134 000 to 198 000 tonnes in 2016, according to Plastic Europe, but
estimates are uncertain). Denmark has several economic instruments to influence this waste
stream and in 1993 was one of the first countries to require a fee for carrier bags (paper or
plastic). The fee of DKK 22 (EUR 2.9) per kg helped halve consumption of plastic bags,
but consumption is still around 445 million bags per year. Denmark also has a fee on
single-use tableware (knives, forks, spoons, cups, plates and other items). The objective of
both instruments is to influence consumer behaviour towards more durable alternatives. A
fee on polyvinyl chloride (PVC) was abolished in 2019. The government published a
Plastic Action Plan in December 2018 (Box 4.5).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0185.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
183
Box 4.5. The Plastic Action Plan
The Plastic Action Plan was a government proposal that formed the basis for an all-party
political agreement in Parliament in January 2019.
The political agreement includes a mix of measures, such as product bans, campaigns,
voluntary agreements, research and innovation. It aims to promote waste prevention
(e.g. through a ban on free plastic carrier bags and thin plastic carrier bags, and criteria on
reducing single use plastic at public events), to increase plastic recycling and recyclability,
and to both better understand micro-plastics in the environment and reduce the discharge
of them by half.
Source:
Country submission.
While waste prevention benefits from a dedicated strategy, waste reduction targets and
instruments remain weak: there is no overall objective to reduce waste generation per capita
or in absolute terms. Significant market and policy trends (chiefly excess incineration
capacity and the focus on securing stable secondary raw material flows to boost recycling
and biogas production) contribute to high levels of waste generation. Denmark should
balance these trends with stronger incentives for waste prevention.
4.4.2. Extended producer responsibility and deposit-refund programmes
Denmark has several extended producer responsibility programmes mandated by
EU requirements, and outperforms EU recycling targets in most instances. It established an
independent entity, DPA-system (DPA System, 2018
[25]
), as a clearinghouse to manage the
work of producer responsibility organisations (PROs). Aside from that, the involvement
and steering role of public authorities in extended producer responsibility is limited.
Enhancing design for environment via such programmes is seen as difficult.
WEEE and batteries
In accordance with EU directives, Denmark mandated extended producer responsibility for
WEEE in 2006 and for batteries in 2009. For both waste streams, producers are responsible
for the financial and organisational aspects of collecting and treating waste corresponding
to their market share. Other obligations include labelling products, informing consumers
on waste management, complying with the national producer register and reporting waste
statistics. Producers can choose between managing their duties individually or joining a
PRO to act on their behalf. They have to ensure that minimum collection, recovery and
recycling targets are met. These are set in accordance with EU legislation.
While Denmark does not regulate or intervene in the business models of PROs, it has set
up DPA-system as a clearing house to handle producer registration and monitor the amount
of electronic and electrical equipment (EEE) put on the market and collected for treatment.
Such a system is usually considered to be among OECD best practices, as it helps
co-ordinate the
PROs’
work and ensure a level playing field for operators. It also ensures
that collection is provided everywhere it is needed and that cherry picking of easily
accessible or valuable WEEE is avoided. Producers pay a yearly administrative fee to
DPA-system.
Of the four PROs operating in Denmark, two are private commercial entities (ERP
Denmark and RENE) and two are non-profit associations with EEE producers on the board
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0186.png
184
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
of directors (LWF and Elretur). As municipalities are in charge of establishing collection
points for WEEE and batteries, DPA-system allocates municipal sites annually to producers
and PROs. Some PROs have established collection systems via retailers.
While Denmark far exceeded EU recovery/reuse and recycling targets in 2016 for WEEE
and batteries (Table 4.3), collection rates were less impressive (48% of marketed EEE and
45% of batteries; the EU target is 45% for each waste stream). Collection of WEEE peaked
in 2007 at 98 000 tonnes and has stabilised at around 72 000 tonnes per year since 2013
(Table 4.4).
Table 4.3. Denmark exceeds EU targets for recovery/reuse and recycling of WEEE and
batteries
Waste electrical and electronic equipment, 2016
Danish
recovery
rate
(%)
93
96
96
96
95
96
96
96
85
97
EU target
(%)
85
75
80
80
80
75
75
75
75
75
75
85
Danish reuse/
recycling rate
(%)
81
95
94
92
94
94
92
94
79
95
EU target
(%)
80
55
70
70
70
55
55
55
55
55
55
80
(1) Large household appliances
(2) Small household appliances
(3) IT & telecom equipment
(4) Consumer equipment and photovoltaic panels
(4a) Consumer equipment
(4b) Photovoltaic panels
(5.1) Lighting equipment
(5.2) Luminaires
(6) Electrical & electronic tools
(7) Toys, leisure and sports equipment
(8) Medical devices
(9) Monitor and control instruments
(10) Automatic dispensers
Batteries, 2016
Danish recycling efficiency, 2017
(%)
79.1
82.0
55.9
EU target
(%)
65
75
50
Lead-acid batteries
Nickel-cadmium batteries
Other batteries (incl. button cells)
Source:
Country submission.
As in other OECD countries, important WEEE flows are disappearing from official
collection systems, especially WEEE of high value. In 2013, the Electronic Waste
Collection Partnership was set up to enhance collection rates and map all flows of WEEE,
including those not entering the official system. The partnership carried out several projects
to estimate the amount of used EEE exported to third countries, amounts accumulated in
society due to consumer behaviour, and thefts from municipal collection points and
recycling sites. It is estimated that 50% of WEEE is collected outside the official system
(MEF and MIBFA, 2018
[7]
).
To overcome such difficulties, the circular economy strategy and political agreement
proposes allowing additional certified companies (which are in effect already operating on
the market) to collect WEEE directly from households for reuse and recycling.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0187.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
185
Table 4.4. Collection of WEEE has decreased and is stabilising
Generation of WEEE
Collected WEEE
(tonnes)
2006
60 245
2007
98 308
2008
77 627
2009
84 399
2010
82 931
2011
84 319
2012
76 200
2013
72 080
2014
71 557
2015
72 482
Source:
Country submission.
End-of-life vehicles
The extended producer responsibility programme for ELVs was set up in 2007 and applies
to old and new cars sold in Denmark. Importers or manufacturers have to ensure that
consumers can hand over their used vehicles to be treated in an environmentally sound
manner free of charge. In addition, registration in the producer register handled by
DPA-system is compulsory. Car importers have established a PRO called Refero to handle
their producer obligations including reporting and information obligations.
The programme is complemented by a scrapping allowance (around DKK 2 200) paid
when a used car is delivered to an approved car dealer. The allowance applies only to
private cars and vans registered in Denmark after 1 July 2000. In 2017, Denmark
restructured its taxation of cars to facilitate repair. A high registration tax is charged on all
vehicles, including those that are put back on the market after major repair. Repair limits
to determine if the registration tax is due will be gradually increased from 2018 to 2020 to
facilitate repair. Denmark meets the EU reuse and recovery target of 95% for ELVs and
has exceeded the 85% target for recovery and recycling (Table 4.5).
Table 4.5. End-of-life vehicles
2006
ELV waste generated
(tonnes)
99 354
2007
98 249
2008
101 173
2009
99 515
2010
104 866
2011
100 816
2012
114 392
2013
128 869
2014
118 597
2006
Total recovery and
reuse (%)
Total recycling and
reuse (%)
80
80
2007
81.2
81
2008
82.9
82.7
2009
82.3
82
2010
90.7
90.5
2011
92.9
92.8
2012
92.6
92.4
2013
86.7
86.6
2014
86.1
86
2015
95
90
2016
95
89
Source:
Country submission.
Packaging waste
Denmark achieves high levels of recycling and recovery of packaging waste and this waste
stream is experiencing positive trends. Denmark has already met the 2030 recycling target
of 70% included in the recent EU circular economy package (Table 4.6).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0188.png
186
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Table 4.6. Packaging waste recycling is increasing
Packaging waste
%
Recovery (%)
Recycling (%)
2004
92
53
2005
90
53
2006
94
56
2007
97
57
2008
98
60
2009
108
84
2010
108
84
2011*
91
54
2012
89
62
2013
93
70
2014
92
70
2015
94
74
* Break in the series: in 2011, a new waste information system was set up.
Source:
Country submission.
Denmark has applied a deposit system for refillable beverage containers since 1910. Since
2000, the system has been operated by Danskretursystem (The Danish Deposit System:
Danskretursytem, 2018
[26]
), a privately owned non-profit organisation. In 2002, the deposit
system was extended to some single use beverage containers (NCM, 2014
[16]
). The return
rate of beverage containers covered by the system (beer, soda, cider, mineral water,
lemonade and iced tea) is 90%. The country is well equipped with reverse vending
machines. Operating fees paid by importers and producers make up 45% of the
system’s
revenue and the resale of materials such as plastic, glass and aluminium accounts for 24%.
Surplus revenue from deposit funds, which occurs when a beverage container is not
returned to a store despite payment of the deposit, represents 29%. The new plastic action
plan proposes extending the deposit system in 2020 to include juice and fruit drink
concentrate bottles.
Denmark also applies a volume-based tax on packaging waste from several types of
beverage container (wine, liquor, beer, mineral water, cider, soda with alcohol, fruit wine).
Items included in the deposit-return system are taxed at a lower rate. While the country
does not have an extended producer responsibility programme for packaging, it plans to
develop one by 2025 as a requirement of the 2018 EU circular economy package.
4.4.3. Towards higher-quality recycling of construction and demolition waste
Construction and demolition waste makes up a majority of total waste generation (54%,
including soil). EPA forecasts indicate C&D waste amounts could nearly double by 2030
(Deloitte, 2015
[27]
). Nearly half of domestic national material consumption is non-metallic
minerals, including stone, gravel and sand extracted for construction activities. This makes
C&D a key strategic sector for the transition to a circular economy.
Policy instruments to promote resource efficiency in the construction sector include a tax
of DKK 5 per m
3
on volume of extracted raw material. The level is so low that it does not
affect waste prevention, however. Denmark recovers most C&D waste (87% in 2016),
demonstrating a long-standing effort to promote recycling for this waste stream and to limit
contamination by substances of concern. The weight-based landfill tax and the ability to
recover sorted, unpolluted and processed C&D waste without a permit under the
Environmental Protection Act have been key factors in this regard (Deloitte, 2015
[27]
).
To limit contamination of the waste stream by substances of concern for health and the
environment, the EPA supported studies and guidance documents for treating contaminated
waste such as PCBs. Screening for PCBs is mandatory when demolishing or refurbishing
a building dating from 1950 to 1977, to allow for separate removal and appropriate disposal
of PCB-containing material. Such mandatory auditing and mapping of buildings or
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0189.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
187
structures to be demolished, dismantled or refurbished is considered a best environmental
practice for C&D waste (Dri, M. et al, 2018
[12]
).
Despite high recycling rates, recovery activities are still low-value operations, mainly using
crushed concrete and bricks to replace stone and gravel. To foster higher-quality recycling,
Denmark is embarking on a circular agenda for construction, promoting reuse and selective
demolition, and support initiatives to create momentum in this respect.
Mechanisms to mobilise stakeholders with public support have enhanced dialogue in the
construction value chain (Box 4.6). The Danish Eco-Innovation Programme has funded
several knowledge platforms and networks on sustainable construction as well as
technology developments on waste prevention in the building sector and on C&D waste.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0190.png
188
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Box 4.6. Platforms to mobilise the construction sector on a circular economy agenda
A partnership on sustainable construction and waste prevention was established in
2016 to foster collaboration between operators in the construction value chain,
relevant authorities, and stakeholder organisations. It focused on practical
solutions in two main areas: selective demolition and fostering an effective market
for recycled building materials.
The Knowledge Centre for Managing and Recycling Building Waste was founded
in 2016 on the initiative of the Danish Construction Association. It is financed by
MEF, the Landowners’ Investment Foundation and Realdania, a private
association in Denmark which supports projects in architecture and planning. The
centre guides building owners, contractors, advisers and municipalities on
recycling of C&D waste and on problematic substances in rebuilding, renovation
and demolition. In January 2019, it was renamed the Knowledge Centre for
Circular Economy in Construction.
The advisory board on circular economy drew up the following innovative and
ambitious recommendations for the building sector between autumn 2016 and
summer 2017:
o
additional information requirements for amounts of reused, recycled and
recyclable materials and for undesirable substances in new buildings and large
renovation projects from 2020, with a voluntary sustainability classification
system for buildings becoming mandatory in 2025
o
a standardised, freely available digital building passport, plus a product
database for suppliers with digital factsheets for building products
o
a selective demolition plan to identify materials and the content of hazardous
substances, assess materials’ recycling/reuse value and specify demolition
methods
o
public building procurement based on total costs and life-cycle calculations.
Several Danish stakeholder networks are active in the area of sustainable construction and
management of C&D waste. Initiatives include:
a network for construction waste established by the Danish Waste and Resource
Network in 2012
Sustainable Build, a collaboration between the Danish Industry Foundation and the
Danish Architectural Centre to promote sustainable architecture.
The Danish construction industry established the Innovation Network for Sustainable
Construction (InnoBYG), co-financed by the Danish Agency for Institutions and Educational
Grants, to focus on knowledge sharing, networking and development in the industry in Denmark
and internationally.
Realdania launched the
“Circular
Construction Challenge: Rethink Waste” in
October 2018, calling for innovative ways to reuse, recycle and upcycle
1
waste for the built
environment. The teams of architects and planners that come up with the best ideas for
turning waste into a valuable resource through innovative use and design will receive
substantial long-term development support.
Source:
Country submission
.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0191.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
189
Among the various knowledge-sharing platforms and networks, the 2016 partnership on
sustainable construction and waste prevention was instrumental in identifying practical
barriers and common solutions to promote selective demolition and establish effective
markets for recycled building materials. Stakeholders called for practical tools such as
platforms to help match supply and demand, compilation of standards and guidance
documents, demonstration projects focusing on cost, and more strategic use of green public
procurement.
This paved the way for the advisory board on circular economy, which made several
innovative and ambitious recommendations for the building sector. These included new
information requirements for new buildings and large-scale renovation projects (on
amounts of reused, recycled and recyclable materials), digital passports for buildings,
mandatory selective demolition plans, and public procurement based on total costs during
the life cycle of a building (Box 4.6).
Some were picked up in the national circular economy strategy, including a voluntary
sustainability classification for buildings. The strategy is less ambitious on other aspects,
however, such as mandatory information requirements and selective demolition plans.
Instead, it notes that many companies fail to comply with existing requirements to sort
C&D waste. Hence enforcement activities are likely to be strengthened.
4.5. Fostering the transition to a circular economy
Denmark has long paved the way for circular economy approaches by promoting
sustainable consumption, eco-design, clean production and eco-innovation as well as green
purchasing by the public sector. A 2015 study estimated that improving circular economy
opportunities in five key areas (food and beverage, construction and real estate, machinery,
plastic packaging and hospitals) could lead to an increase in GDP by between 0.8% to 1.4%
and help create 7 000 to 13 000 jobs in Denmark (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015
[13]
).
In September 2018, Denmark adopted the national circular economy strategy with its
15 initiatives. The focus is largely on how companies can drive the circular economy
agenda, with measures to assist them (one-stop shop, access to financing, digitalisation).
As part of its circular economy efforts, Denmark has also pledged to develop a bio-based
economy, one based on using renewable biological resources to produce food, materials
and energy. The construction sector has also been identified as a priority.
4.5.1. Promoting sustainable consumption and the sharing economy
Denmark has a long history of mechanisms to promote sustainable consumption through
labelling and information campaigns. In 2012, it was estimated that 90% of Danish
inhabitants knew about the Nordic Swan eco-label and 35% about the other official third-
party verified label, the EU eco-label, and that 8 000 eco-labelled products were available.
Not surprisingly, the share of Danes who say they buy eco-friendly products, at 48% in
2014, is second only to Sweden (60%) and trending up (from 39% in 2011) (European
Commission, 2014
[17]
).
As part of the strategy on the sharing economy, citizens are encouraged to use sharing
platforms with tax reductions on income from sharing activities. While most projects relate
to use of assets such as car and lodging, some may have a more direct impact on waste
management. For instance, on the meal-sharing platform, individuals can sell private meals
as a P2P business model, and on a business platform called Too Good to Go grocery stores
can sell food cheaply instead of throwing it out (B2C).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0192.png
190
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
4.5.2. Promoting markets for recycling and secondary raw materials
The recycling market is characterised by small facilities handling materials such as glass,
wood, plastic, construction materials, electronics, metal and textiles. Turnover of recycling
activities in 2016 was estimated at DKK 4.8 billion and value added at DKK 0.9 billion.
Apart from glass packaging, most recyclable waste is exported for recycling, especially
cardboard, plastic, electronics and treated wood.
Municipalities and the private sector alike are considering expanding recycling capacity in
Denmark. Many private operators claim, however, that they are holding back investment
due to fragmentation of the recyclables market. While private recycling companies have
access to commercial waste, municipalities have a monopoly for managing household
waste and tend to favour their own facilities. Uncertainty regarding access to recyclable
waste may thus slow down development in waste sorting and recycling and lead to
suboptimal investment strategies, with some duplication of efforts between municipalities
and the private sector. For instance, in Odense on the island of Funen (Fyn), a private
company invested EUR 13 million to develop a recycling plant for food waste from
supermarkets, separating the plastic for reuse and the bio-based content to produce energy.
The Odense city council is planning a public tender to build and operate a similar plant to
treat municipal household waste, which private operators say could duplicate and
jeopardise the private investment.
In this context, the 2016 Utilities for the Future strategy proposes an in-depth reorganisation
of the waste management sector by increasing competition for incineration and giving the
private sector a greater role in waste collection and recycling. Discussions over practical
implementation have stalled, however, and uncertainty may deter private and public
investment for the circular economy. Another aspect under discussion as part of the circular
economy strategy is the need to better harmonise collection of recyclable fractions of
household waste to promote economies of scale.
4.5.3. Green public procurement
Denmark has developed a wide range of policy instruments to promote green public
procurement. They range from regulatory instruments (mandatory purchasing rules) to
voluntary initiatives and information campaigns (Box 4.7). A national smart public
procurement strategy (Government of Denmark, 2013
[28]
) was launched in 2013, adapting
and incorporating the EU indicative target of making 50% of all public tendering
procedures green. In 2012, it was estimated that between 60% and 80% of public tenders
included green criteria in Denmark, while their value was between 20% and 40% of the
public procurement budget.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0193.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
191
Box 4.7. Denmark has a well-developed strategy on green public procurement
Regulatory instruments:
Mandatory green public procurement rules are in place for
timber, energy-using products and road transport vehicles.
Voluntary instruments:
The Partnership for Green Public Procurement is a free
voluntary initiative that gathers 15 partners, including municipalities, regions and
central authorities. Partners commit to adopt a green procurement strategy and
common green procurement goals for product categories including building and
construction, food, timber, information technology, paper and printing, and
cleaning supplies. Purchasing criteria, including recyclability, recycled content and
toxic content, have been defined for these categories. Together the partners account
for 20% of Danish public procurement.
Information and knowledge sharing instruments:
The Responsible Purchaser
website, for both public and private purchasers, gathers guidance and tools
including the European
Commission’s green public procurement criteria and
an
EPA tool on total cost of ownership. An open platform called Forum on Sustainable
Procurement disseminates knowledge and news on sustainable procurement and
organises thematic working groups to discuss challenges and barriers to sustainable
procurement.
The strategy has helped the country develop innovative tools to promote alternative
business models for the circular economy and green purchasing, such as the EPA guidance
on total cost of ownership. This tool allows public and private procurement agents to take
into account the price of both initial purchase and operation. The EPA is expanding the tool
to include the cost of waste disposal.
4.5.4. Promoting circular business models and innovation
While regulatory instruments on product design are an EU responsibility (related to product
requirements and bans on substances of concern), Denmark has set up a wide range of other
policy instruments to promote circular business models.
Information and dissemination of good practices include EPA publication of case studies
on resource efficiency in businesses, for instance in the book Stronger without Waste. A
web portal for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the Circular Company, was
launched in September 2017. A one-stop shop on the sharing economy provides advice and
guidance to companies and citizens on regulatory aspects. The circular economy strategy
also envisages a single point of entry on the circular economy in general.
Subsidies and co-financing programmes are available to assist companies with
development of products or circular business models and to provide education and training
to SMEs. Circular economy projects can benefit from the main eco-innovation finance
programmes, the Eco-Innovation Programme and the Green Investment fund. In addition,
some grant and co-financing programmes are dedicated to the circular economy, such as
Circular Business Model and Circular Business (Box 4.8).
In addition to information instruments and financing programmes, Denmark is attempting
to use economic instruments to favour business models based on product reuse/recycling
and discourage single-use products. For example, disposable tableware is subject to
taxation based on volume (DKK 19.20 per kg).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0194.png
192
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Despite the wide range of initiatives, circular business practices are far from common
among SMEs. A September 2017 survey of European SMEs on resource efficiency and
green markets in the EU between 2015 and 2017 (European Commission, 2018
[29]
),
Denmark reports the largest decline in SMEs declaring waste minimisation and companies
recycling or reusing waste internally. In 2017, 49% of Danish SMEs declared that they
minimised waste (the EU average is 65%) and 29% claimed to recycle waste internally
(compared with the EU average of 42%).
Box 4.8. Support for circular economy innovation
Denmark has several financing programmes to support the transition to a circular economy
in businesses, particularly SMEs.
The Danish Eco-Innovation Program is a public subsidy programme supporting
development and application of new environmental and resource-efficient
solutions in selected priority areas, along with co-operation between companies
and knowledge-based institutions. The 2018 budget was about DKK 86 million
(EUR 12 million).
The Danish Green Investment Fund (Danmarks Grønne Investeringsfond) is an
independent state loan fund which co-finances economically viable projects to
bridge the gap between traditional bank financing and equity capital (Chapter 3).
It is open to private companies, non-profit housing associations and public sector
companies and institutions (with budgets separate from municipalities, regions and
the state).
Circular Business Models (Cirkulære Forretningsmodeller) is a co-financing
programme for SMEs to implement circular business models. It is co-ordinated
with a partnership of business organisations. The budget for 2018-22 is
EUR 15 million.
Circular Business (Cirkular Forretning) is a grant programme for business
organisations to help them train their SME members on circular economy.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0195.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
193
Recommendations on waste, material management and the circular economy
Reinforce waste prevention as a key priority
For household waste, expand pricing based on volume or weight
–
as in pay-as-
you-throw programmes
–
while facilitating recycling and composting.
Accelerate R&D on sorting and recycling technology and innovative reusable and
recyclable materials (e.g. biopolymers).
Develop policies to minimise output of single-use products, such as plastics.
Foster competition in incineration and better manage excess capacity
Improve the cost-effectiveness of incineration by reforming municipal waste
management, giving companies flexibility to choose where to incinerate their
combustible waste and making public tenders mandatory for municipal waste
incineration.
Continue efforts to steer the transition to a circular economy
Harmonise criteria for sorting and collecting municipal waste fractions and
consider unifying household and business recyclable waste markets to create
economies of scale and encourage investment in innovation and large-scale
recycling facilities.
Foster circular product design by introducing eco-modulation of fees in extended
producer responsibility systems, based on recyclability, reparability and reusability.
Continue encouraging circular design by SMEs (e.g. through training and access to
finance) and supporting companies in establishing take-back programmes and
circular business models, e.g. with closed loops for products and materials.
Promote voluntary agreements between business and government on circular
economy, ensuring that the objectives go beyond what is required by law.
Encourage voluntary initiatives and pilot projects to reduce “downcycling”
(recycling that produces material of lesser quality and functionality than the
original material) in the construction, textile and plastic sectors.
Secure financing to develop data for circular economy (e.g. green accounts and
material flow information for industry sectors).
Notes
1
Upcycling can be defined as the process of recycling waste into new materials or products of better
quality and environmental value.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0196.png
194
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
References
Amager Resource Centre (2018),
Website,
https://www.a-r-c.dk
(accessed on 14 November 2018).
Brown, M. (2016),
Refuse Derived Fuel: A European Market Heading for Overcapacity,
Thomé-
Kozmiensky Verlag, Neuruppin,
http://www.vivis.de/phocadownload/Download/2016_wm/2016_WM_363-374_Brown.pdf.
Copenhagen Resource Institute (2013),
From land filling to recovery: Danish waste management
from the 1970s until today,
Copenhagen Resource Institute, Copenhagen,
https://eng.ecoinnovation.dk/media/mst/8051407/Affald_Baggrundsartikel_affald_web_15.01.
13.pdf.
DAKOFA (2018),
DAKOFA Waste and Resource Network website,
https://dakofa.com
(accessed
on 14 November 2018).
Deloitte (2015),
Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Denmark,
Deloitte, London.
DPA System (2018),
DPA System,
http://www.dpa-system.dk
(accessed on 14 November 2018).
Dri, M. et al (2018),
Best Environmental Management Practice for the Waste Management Sector:
Learning from frontrunners,
JRC Science for Policy Report, European Commission, Brussels,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/50247.
EA (2018),
Kapacitet til affaldsforbraending i Danmark (Waste incineration capacity in
Denmark),
Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen.
EEA (2016),
More from Less: Material Resource Eficiency in Europe 2015 - Overview of policies,
instruments and targets in 32 countries, Denmark country profile,
European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015),
Delivering the Circular Economy: A toolkit for Policymakers
- Denmark case study,
http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/toolkit-for-
policymakers.
EPA (2018),
Affaldsstatistikken 2016 [Waste Statistics 2016],
Danish Environmental Protection
Agency.
EPA (2017),
Evaluering af Ressource Strategi for affalds-Håndtering:
“Danmark uden affald“,
(Evaluation of resource strategy for waste management: Denmark without waste), Danish
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://mst.dk/media/133157/eval-af-ress-
strategi_samlet-rapport-ekskl-bilag.pdf.
European Commission (2018),
“SMEs, Resource efficiency and green markets”, Flash
Eurobarometer, No. 456,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2873/93689.
European Commission (2018),
European Construction Sector Observatory: Country profile
Denmark,
European Commission, Brussels.
[22]
[24]
[4]
[20]
[27]
[25]
[12]
[30]
[14]
[13]
[23]
[19]
[29]
[1]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0197.png
II.4. WASTE, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
195
[17]
European Commission (2014),
“Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment”, Special
Eurobarometer No. 416,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2779/25662.
Genanvend (2018),
Website,
https://genanvend.mst.dk
(accessed on 14 November 2018).
Government of Denmark (2017),
Strategi for vaekst gennem deleøkonomi.
Government of Denmark (2015),
Denmark without Waste II A Waste Prevention Strategy.
Government of Denmark (2013),
Denmark without waste - Recycle more-incinerate less.
Government of Denmark (2013),
Strategi for intelligent offentligt indkøb,
https://www.fm.dk/nyheder/pressemeddelelser/2013/10/ny-regeringsstrategi-vi-skal-spare-
penge-og-fremme-innovation-og-baeredygtighed-ved-at-koebe-klogere-ind.
Kalundborg Symbiosis (2018),
Website,
http://www.symbiosis.dk/en
(accessed on
14 November 2018).
MEF (2017),
The Advisory Board for Circular Economy Recommendations for the Danish
Government,
Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
https://en.mfvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/MFVM/Miljoe/Cirkulaer_oekonomi/Advisory-
Board-for-Circular-Economy-Report-2017-Content_Single_pages_WEB.pdf.
MEF (2016),
Material Resource Productivity in Denmark,
Ministry of Environment and
Food/Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen/Odonse.
MEF and MIBFA (2018),
Strategi for cirkulaer økonomi Mere vaerdi og bedre miljø gennem
design, forbrug og genanvendelse (Circular economy strategy: More value and better
environment through design, consumption and recycling),
Ministry of Environment and
Food/Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs, Copenhagen,
https://mfvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/MFVM/Miljoe/Cirkulaer_oekonomi/Strategi_for_cirku
laer_oekonomi.pdf.
NCM (2014),
The Use of Economic Instruments in Nordic Environmental Policy 2010–2013,
Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen,
http://www.norden.org.
OECD (2013),
“Waste Management Services” in Competition Policy
Roundtables,
OECD
Publishing, Paris,
http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/Waste-management-services-2013.pdf.
PwC (2018),
Afgiftsvejledningen 2018 (2018 tax guide),
PwC Denmark, Hellerup,
https://www.pwc.dk/da/publikationer/2018/pwc-afgiftsvejledningen-2018.pdf.
SD (2017),
Statistical Yearbook 2017,
Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen,
http://www.dst.dk/yearbook.
The Danish Deposit System: Danskretursytem (2018), ,
https://www.danskretursystem.dk/en
(accessed on 14 November 2018).
Vestforbrænding (2018),
Website,
https://www.vestfor.dk/engelsk-site
(accessed on
14 November 2018).
[18]
[8]
[6]
[5]
[28]
[11]
[9]
[3]
[7]
[16]
[10]
[15]
[2]
[26]
[21]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0199.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
197
Chapter 5. Chemicals management
This chapter reviews Denmark’s
chemicals management framework, with a particular
focus on industrial chemicals. It analyses pressures from chemicals on health and the
environment
in Denmark and the country’s involvement in chemicals management at the
regional and global levels. The Danish framework is part of the broader EU context, and
a significant part of chemicals management is regulated at that level. This chapter does
not focus on EU-level polices, but highlights Danish contributions to implementation and
complementary activities at the national level.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The
use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli
settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0200.png
198
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
5.1. Introduction
The main drivers of Danish activity in the area of chemicals management include protection
of the public (with a focus on consumers and vulnerable groups) and substitution of
dangerous chemicals. They respond to major pressures for health and the environment from
the use of chemicals in the country (e.g. reliance on imported goods, in particular products,
along with low fertility and vulnerability of children and the elderly to chemical exposure).
Synergy exists in the activities of the authorities, industry and society, and Denmark has a
robust chemicals management framework. Some areas could benefit from further
enhancement or improvement, as this chapter will show.
5.2. Pressures on health and the environment from chemicals
Denmark has a relatively small and export-oriented chemical industry. The number of
hazardous installations has been relatively stable and the country faced few major accidents
in the last decade. Denmark achieved significant emission reductions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs), acidifying gases, air pollutants and heavy metals from industrial processes and
product use.
The country’s
system of chemical monitoring in the environment supports
identifying its priorities in relation to chemicals management and efforts to address
pressures from chemicals on health and the environment. Despite this, pressures persist
(e.g. from endocrine disrupters and pesticides).
5.2.1. Chemical production and use
In 2016, the Danish chemical industry accounted for about 1% of the EU market. It
consisted of 245 chemical companies with 11 400 employees and total turnover of
EUR 5.5 billion. Danish companies’ share of research and development within the EU
chemical industry is higher at EUR 670 million or 3% (CEFIC, 2018
[1]
). Investment in the
broad chemical sector (including pharmaceuticals, oil refining, rubber and plastic products
and non-metallic mineral products) almost doubled in 2010 prices between 2007 and 2015.
The chemical industry is largely export oriented: some 65% of production is exported and
the broad chemical sector is the
country’s
second largest export sector, after machinery and
transport equipment. The Danish share in beyond-EU exports placed it at ninth place in
2017. The value of sales of chemicals and pharmaceuticals increased between 2007 and
2018 by over 90%, with the pharmaceutical sector as the main driver (Figure 5.1). The
import and export of chemicals have shown fairly stable growth (except in 2009). Denmark
is a net exporter of some chemicals (e.g. organic chemicals, chemical materials and
products) and a net importer of others (e.g. inorganic chemicals, primary plastics)
(Denmark, 2018
[2]
; Eurostat, 2018
[3]
).
Data from the national product registry, which covers not only manufacturers but also users
of chemicals, show that the number of companies issuing chemical product notifications,
the number of substances and products and total tonnage in 2015 did not differ substantially
from 2005 (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Sales of pesticides and biocides (in tonnes/year) generally decreased by about 12% between
2007 and 2016 due to actions by the authorities to limit their use. A tax on pesticides
introduced in 2013 resulted in stockpiling of certain pesticides and lower-than-usual sales
in the following years. The lower sales may not be indicative of lower use over the short
term (Ørum and Holtze, 2017
[4]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0201.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
199
Figure 5.1. A pharmaceuticals boom stimulated growth in the chemical sector
Manufacturers' sales of chemicals by main SITC group, 2007-17
51 Organic chemicals
54 Medicinal and pharmaceutical products
58 Plastics in nonprimary forms
DKK million
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
52 Inorganic chemicals
56 Fertilizersͣ
59 Chemical materials/products, N.E.S.
53 Dyeing, tanning, coloring materials
57 Plastics in primary forms
Note:
According to the Standard Industrial Trade Classification (SITC).
a)
Exports include group 272, imports exclude group 272.
Source:
Country submission; Statistics Denmark (2018),
“Manufacturers'
sales by main SITC group”,
StatBank (database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002433
Chemical facilities are spread relatively evenly around the country, but concentrated near
the biggest cities: Aalborg, Aarhus, Copenhagen, Esbjerg and Odense. However, relatively
bigger facilities are overwhelmingly located in the greater Copenhagen area (EEA, 2018
[5]
;
Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
5.2.2. A stable number of hazardous facilities and visible efforts in reducing
emissions of chemicals
The number of Danish installations classified as hazardous under the applicable
EU legislation has been relatively stable. There are about 120, of which some 45% are
upper tier installations (more hazardous) and some 35% fuel storage facilities (above the
EU average of 11%, but in line with national policy to secure fuel supplies). Denmark
expands the scope of application of the EU rules to also cover smaller installations
(i.e. chlorine and ammonia installations), so the total number of hazardous installations is
almost 140. Information on hazardous establishments is publicly available via a dedicated
website (Denmark, 2018
[2]
; EMA, 2017
[6]
).
Since 2005, Denmark has reported only two industrial accidents to the e-MARS chemical
accident reporting database; they resulted in one casualty and damage to a marine habitat
(Denmark, 2018
[2]
). The biggest accident in recent times, an explosion in a fireworks
storage facility, took place in 2004. Post-accident action led to enhanced enforcement and
amendment of national legislation. Moreover, Denmark proposed enhanced standardisation
at the European level (French Ministry for Sustainable Development, 2009
[7]
; EMA,
2017
[6]
).
The relatively stable number of major hazardous installations and low number of accidents
suggest that measures to prevent major chemical accidents work relatively well in
Denmark. Moreover, the country has a co-ordination forum for authorities to build on the
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0202.png
200
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
experience of accidents, which is working on dedicated web pages to support experience
sharing (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Reducing emissions of chemicals is a strategic goal included in relevant legal and policy
frameworks in Denmark. The Environmental Protection Act and Act on Chemicals set the
overall goal of reducing pollution caused by chemical production and use, while national
action plans include implementation measures (MEF, 2017
[8]
; Government of Denmark
et al., 2017
[9]
). Denmark reduced emissions of GHGs
1
from industrial processes and
product use by over 20% between 2005 and 2016. Significant reductions also occurred for
acidifying gases, air pollutants and heavy metals
2
in industrial processes and product use
and in manufacturing industries and construction (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2. Emissions from industrial processes and product use are generally on the decline
Trends in the emissions of GHGs and other air pollutants from industrial processes and product use (IPPU), 2005-17
SO
2005=100
120
NOₓ
NMVOCs
PM
₅
Pb
Cd
Hg
GHGs
100
80
60
40
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Note:
IPPU consists of mineral industry, chemical Industry, metal industry, non-energy products from fuels and solvent use, electronics industry, product
uses as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances and other product manufacture and use.
Source:
Nielsen et al. (2019),
Denmark's National Inventory Report 2019;
EMEP (2019),
WebDab
(database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002452
5.2.3. Despite monitoring of chemicals, pressures on health and the environment
are significant
Denmark has a system of monitoring chemicals in the environment that supports
identification of the country’s priorities in relation to chemicals management.
It includes a
pollutant release and transfer register. Denmark has undertaken biomonitoring activities
and co-operates with other countries in this field. Monitoring and biomonitoring results
(Box 5.1) are publicly available.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0203.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
201
Box 5.1. Examples of chemical monitoring/biomonitoring results that have helped shape
Danish chemicals management priorities
Studies showed that 40% of the male population had reduced semen quality; it is
suspected that exposure to phthalates contributed to this result (EPA, 2013
[10]
).
A cohort study of non-persistent environmental chemicals suspected of
endocrine-disrupting properties concluded that nearly everyone in the population
might be exposed to the monitored chemicals and that EU-wide restrictions had
had a positive effect in Denmark. For instance, decreasing excretion of the
phthalates DnBP and DEHP was observed following the introduction of restrictions
on food contact materials and toys (Choi et al., 2015
[11]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
;
Frederiksen et al., 2014
[12]
). Increased public awareness contributed to decreased
use.
DEMOCOPHES revealed that Danes were widely exposed to PCBs (mostly from
food) and PFAS (used, for example, in food packaging, non-stick coatings and
textile coatings) (Choi et al., 2015
[11]
; Mørck et al., 2015
[13]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
)
In the work of CEHOS, the effects of perinatal bisphenol A exposure on both male
and female rat sexual development were identified at doses that could warrant a
decrease in the tolerable daily intake of this substance (Bourguignon, Hutchinson
and Slama, 2017
[14]
).
Danish biomonitoring results were included in the restriction proposal for four
phthalates jointly issued in 2016 by Denmark and the European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA) (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
A 2012-15 initiative on better control of nanomaterials found, among other
conclusions, that inhalation of nanomaterials might constitute a risk (Christensen
et al., 2015
[15]
).
In 2015, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested an
evaluation of health hazards from exposure to PFAS. This led to establishment of
limit values for 12 PFAS in soil, drinking water and groundwater, and to further
monitoring and screening activities (OECD
[16]
)
In 2016, pesticides and their metabolites were found in 34.3% of groundwater
samples and in concentrations exceeding the quality standard of 0.1 ug/l in 8.6% of
samples (reduced from 37.3% and 13.6%, respectively, in 2007). The data for 2017
showed a slight increase, but the data set differed significantly from previous years
(GEUS, 2019
[17]
). This outcome led to actions at national level to expand the scope
of monitoring.
Concentration of zinc in agricultural soils increased by 19% between 1998 and
2014 and some 25% of streams had zinc concentrations above the environmental
quality standard. The situation is expected to worsen due to the elevated
concentration of zinc in manure from pig farming (Jensen and Bak, 2018
[18]
).
National Allergy Research Centre research supported regulatory action on
chromium in leather and methylisothiazolinone in cosmetics (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0204.png
202
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
A key tool to monitor chemicals in the Danish environment is the National Monitoring and
Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment (NOVANA),
established in 2004. It analyses pollution sources, trends, policy actions and environmental
pressures in various categories (surface water, sediment, biota, groundwater, air and point
sources, wastewater and rainwater installations), in particular to support compliance with
Danish and EU legislation and international conventions. Since its inception, the
programme has been adapted to evolving EU policies (e.g. Natura 2000, river basin
management plans, emission ceilings). In the current monitoring period, 2017-21, it covers
more than 250 substances in one or more categories and with varying monitoring
frequency, e.g. 25 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 13 per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), 20 metals, 17 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 8 plasticisers,
20 pharmaceuticals, and 66 pesticides and their metabolites. Denmark also monitors
persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metal levels in the Arctic (EPA, AU and
GEUS, 2017
[19]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
As pesticide exposure remains a cause of concern, there are dedicated monitoring
subprogrammes, including the National Groundwater Monitoring Programme and the
Pesticide Leaching Assessment Programme. Denmark has also undertaken and supported
efforts to address emerging issues of concern, such as the presence in the environment of
antibiotics (antibiotic resistance was identified in 2017 as one of the
country’s
four key risk
challenges) and micro plastic (EUSBSR, 2017
[20]
; Løkkegaard et al., 2017
[21]
; Denmark,
2018
[2]
; EMA, 2017
[6]
).
As the country relies for its drinking water on groundwater that is not chemically treated
(it is subject only to aeration and sand filtration), particular focus on enhanced monitoring
is needed in this area. A key concern is so-called legacy pesticides (and their metabolites),
no longer authorised for use in Denmark but found in groundwater sources.
Denmark would benefit from further enhancement of pesticide and legacy pesticide
monitoring in groundwater and under the Pesticide Leaching Assessment Programme. It
should also consider supplementing its actions with surface water monitoring (relevant for
biocides), in line with the recommendations of its national expert-based water panel. In
January 2019, Denmark announced that pesticide monitoring in groundwater would be
expanded (MEF, 2019
[22]
), which should be applauded. Denmark should also consider
enhanced monitoring of emerging pollutants (e.g. pharmaceuticals in surface and
groundwater) and heavy metals (e.g. zinc in soil and water).
Biomonitoring
Denmark does not have a long-term biomonitoring programme for environmental
chemicals like those in, for instance, Germany and the USA.
3
However, it is a one of the
relatively few countries that have undertaken biomonitoring for non-occupationally
exposed populations and it co-operates with other countries in this field within the
EU framework. Both public and private sources, but mainly the latter, finance this work.
Denmark collaborated with 16 other European countries in the DEMOCOPHES project
(DEMOnstration of a study to COordinate and Perform Human biomonitoring on a
European Scale) on exposure to bisphenol A, other phenols, parabens, cadmium, cotinine
and phthalate metabolites in urine, POPs in blood and mercury in hair. It also funded
supplementary actions to increase knowledge of exposure of its population to potential
endocrine disrupting chemicals (Mørck et al., 2015
[23]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
). And it currently
participates in the EU flagship human biomonitoring project, HBM4EU. Launched in
2017, the project aims to harmonise exposure assessment methods based on biomonitoring
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0205.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
203
data. In 2017, Denmark hosted a Nordic workshop to discuss priorities for the project
(HBM4EU
[24]
; Knudsen and Hansen, 2017
[25]
). The Danish action plan on industrial
chemicals (Section 5.3.1) includes biomonitoring in the context of endocrine disruptors.
An external evaluation of the Danish Centre for Endocrine Disrupting Substances
(CEHOS) recommended in 2017 that the country should increase public investment in
biomonitoring (Bourguignon, Hutchinson and Slama, 2017
[14]
). Denmark would benefit
from enhanced biomonitoring, taking into account the trade-offs needed to balance it with
predictive risk assessment to proactively identify chemicals that require regulatory action
before a negative impact can be detected in humans or the environment. These actions
should take into account a science/policy nexus, for instance supporting identification of
the source of exposure or aligning the efforts
with Denmark’s regulatory priorities
(e.g. under the EU REACH Regulation).
Consumers and workers
To ensure a high level of protection of the public (particularly consumers and workers)
from risk related to chemicals, Danish research centres, supported by public resources, are
undertaking activities to monitor and prevent risk in relation to:
endocrine disruptors (CEHOS and the International Centre for Research and
Research Training in Endocrine Disruption of Male Reproduction and Child
Health)
allergies to chemicals (the National Allergy Research Centre)
the impact of chemicals on occupational health (Working Environment Research
Fund) (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Pollutant release and transfer register
Danish companies have reported environmental information via so-called green accounts
since 1995. In 2008, Denmark ratified the Kiev Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer
Registers to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-
Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. It was implemented through the
2006 EU Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) Regulation and national
legislation. The EU/Danish PRTR covers 91 substances and some 65 economic activities.
It includes 90 out of 126 chemicals from the OECD harmonised list of pollutants (OECD,
2014
[26]
). Danish reporting to the E-PRTR started in 2007 and to the Kiev Protocol in 2010.
PRTR data are complemented by estimating emissions for substances with diffuse sources.
Since 2012, geographical mapping of emissions from Danish diffuse sources in the PRTR
has been publicly available (AU, 2018
[27]
).
Companies report measured, calculated or estimated data annually to the PRTR, usually
via a one-stop portal.
4
The EPA provides technical support. Companies, local authorities
and the EPA contribute to data quality assurance. No overall assessment of the submitted
data has yet done; such an assessment could help authorities understand the completeness
and relevance of the data (MEF, 2016
[28]
). PRTR data are available to the public via the
national PRTR register or the E-PRTR portal; national reports are subject to public
consultation. Both registers offer a wide choice of search options (MEF, 2016
[28]
).
The scope of PRTR reporting was visibly reduced in the review period. Regulatory changes
(modifying green account reporting in 2010 and abolishing it in 2015 in favour of a separate
national regulatory framework for the PRTR) (EPA
[29]
) led to a reduction of the economic
activities covered as well as strict application of E-PRTR scope and thresholds. The number
of companies reporting environmental information in the green accounts and the PRTR fell
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0206.png
204
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
by 52% between 2007 and 2014; the number of Danish companies in the E-PRTR dropped
by 48% between 2007 and 2016 (Figure 5.3) (EEA, 2018
[5]
; EPA
[30]
). The number of
chemical industry facilities reporting dropped almost by half (from 49 to 25), mostly
following the 2015 abolition of green accounts (EEA, 2018
[5]
; EPA
[30]
).
Fewer reporting companies means less information available for the authorities and
stakeholders (e.g. companies and general public). This can contribute to the reduced ability
of Denmark’s
PRTR system to provide comprehensive data on emissions that could support
broader decision making.
Figure 5.3. The number of Danish companies reporting to the E-PRTR and national
PRTR/green account programmes has fallen
Facilities reporting to the European PRTR and national PRTR/green account programmes, 2007-16
European PRTR
800
700
600
500
400
Danish PRTR/green account programmes
300
200
100
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Note:
PRTR: Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. As of 2015, some installations reporting to the European PRTR, e.g. urban waste plants or offshore
installations, are not included in the national PRTR/green account programmes (for which last available year for comprehensive data is thus 2014).
Source:
EEA (2019), “Facility level”,
E-PRTR
(database); EPA (2019),
Virksomhedssøgning
(Company Search) (database).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002471
5.3. Policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks
Denmark has a comprehensive policy and regulatory framework consisting of EU and
national legal instruments, with national rules sometimes exceeding the EU
rules’
scope.
Denmark manages all enforcement activities on chemicals at the national level and
co-operates at the regional level in this field. Stakeholders are actively involved in
chemicals management, and the use of economic analysis in decision making is on the rise.
EU membership had direct, comprehensive implications for the Danish legal system in the
review period, for instance through introduction of the new EU horizontal legislation
(applying to all chemicals not regulated by specific regimes) for industrial chemicals: the
REACH Regulation and Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation.
However, the influence does not go just one way. Denmark has actively and rather
successfully pursued its national objectives on chemicals both at the EU level and in a
broader international context.
5.3.1. A comprehensive policy, legal and institutional framework is in place
Policies
Denmark has mainstreamed chemicals management into its national policy framework.
Several high-level policy documents address chemicals management and reflect national
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0207.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
205
objectives and pressures. They take into account policy documents adopted at the EU level,
notably the Environmental Action Programmes (EAPs).
General chemicals management
At the national level, since 2005 Denmark has prepared and implemented strategic policy
documents related to general chemicals management. They take the form of four-year
action plans, currently called the Chemical Initiatives. Negotiations between the
government and main political parties outside government precede adoption of these policy
documents. This approach secures a broad commitment from the political level, along with
medium-term resources, to prioritise chemicals management. The current action plan
covers 2018-21 (Box 5.2).
Box 5.2. Danish Chemical Initiatives 2018-21
The 2018-21 Chemical Initiatives, agreed by all parties in the Danish Parliament, build on
previous plans and set the following priorities for national actions regarding chemicals:
credible information to consumers on chemicals (with particular attention to
chemicals in products, vulnerable groups, and food and food packaging)
a level playing field for enterprises, particularly effective regulation of chemicals
and good enforcement, with a particular focus on promotion of standard setting for
Danish companies, better data quality, imported products, and support to SMEs
initiatives on five groups of chemicals of concern
–
substances that are
carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction; chemicals affecting brain
development; endocrine-disrupting chemicals; allergenic chemicals; and chemicals
of high concern for the environment
research and knowledge building (in particular on endocrine disruptors).
The plan supports Denmark in meeting its obligations under the EU acquis on chemicals
and the international agreements in this field.
Source:
(Government of Denmark et al., 2017
[9]
).
Danish action plans on chemicals can serve as a best practice example. They have secured
continuity and coherence of Danish priorities: focus on consumers, enforcement,
implementation of EU legislation and support of international work. The priorities have
been modified where activities did not yield the expected results. The action plans have
reflected ongoing policy discussions (e.g. on endocrine disruptors or circular economy) and
Danish reliance on imported products (e.g. focus on users of chemicals and imported
products). They have also highlighted
consumers’
right to know and encouraged
stakeholder involvement. The level of detail of the action plans has been enhanced over the
review period.
The Chemical Initiatives have served as a guide for Danish efforts in the European and
global arenas and as vectors to promote Danish knowledge and expertise. They have been
aligned with and supported policy developments at the EU level, e.g. the EU EAPs and the
Conclusions of the Council of the European Union (Government of Denmark, 2005
[31]
;
Government of Denmark, 2010
[32]
; Government of Denmark, 2013
[33]
; Government of
Denmark et al., 2017
[9]
). The Chemical Initiatives respond to the interests of various
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0208.png
206
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
stakeholders. For instance, in line with industry expectations, the current plan prioritises
respecting growth and innovation when substituting hazardous chemicals (Danish industry,
2017
[34]
).
An area that might benefit from further improvement is chemicals’ role in Danish policy
documents on occupational health and safety (OHS). The 2011-20 OHS strategy only
marginally addresses chemicals. This is surprising, given the important interface of
EU industrial chemicals and OHS legislation, as well as the significant involvement of
Danish OHS authorities in chemicals management in Denmark (Government of Denmark
et al., 2011
[35]
). The 2019 political negotiations in Denmark on the strategy beyond 2020
offer an opportunity to improve this situation.
The first external evaluation of the Chemical Initiatives, in 2017, produced data that were
not systematically gathered to evaluate the previous plans’ effectiveness. As EPA staff
were directly involved in preparation of the evaluation methodology, it should be beneficial
for future assessments. The results also gave a clear signal for policy makers that evaluation
should be a standard procedure. Indicators to better track progress of the action plans should
be further developed and their use improved.
Pesticides
The first pesticide action plan was introduced in 1986. All strategic documents of the last
ten years in this area share the same overall objective: limiting the use of pesticides and
(from 2013) minimising the pesticide load on the environment and health (Government of
Denmark and the Danish Peoples’ Party, 2009
[36]
; ME, 2013
[37]
; MEF, 2017
[38]
).
The pesticide strategy for 2013-15
5
initiated a significant change in pesticide management,
introducing a pesticide load indicator (PLI) based on the impact of individual pesticides on
human health, nature and groundwater. This replaced a treatment frequency index, whose
reduction targets had not been achieved. In addition, a differentiated tax based on the
environmental and health burden, with the rate higher for pesticides with higher load,
replaced a pesticide levy based on percentage of retail price (Box 5.3).
Box 5.3. Results of the 2013 pesticide load indicator reform are not yet fully known but
appear promising
Pesticide load calculated on sales data (but not consumption) allowed Denmark to meet its
goal of a 40% PLI reduction in 2016. Since the reform, pesticides with a greater load have
largely been replaced with ones with a lower load (e.g. in cases of certain insecticides or
growth regulators), which made it possible to meet the target on the most problematic
substances in 2016. Moreover, the reform coincided with reclassification of chemical
substances and mixtures in line with the EU CLP Regulation. In many cases, this led to
stricter classification in relation to health hazards and heavier health loads.
The complete effects of the PLI reform on consumption were still not known in 2018, as
farmers stockpiled pesticides ahead of the reform. The authorities need to monitor whether
the reform negatively affects resistance to certain pesticides (e.g. antifungal resistance) due
to, for instance, increased use of the least taxed pesticides. An action plan to address this,
and to strengthen efforts to develop integrated pest management, will be implemented over
2019-22. Results of a research project to analyse how the tax reform changed farmer
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0209.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
207
behaviour are expected in 2019. Further discussion on the tariff changes is expected to
follow in 2020.
Measures to compensate farmers and gain their support accompanied implementation of
the reform. These included reducing the land value tax and using tax revenue to support
organic farming and administrative services.
Source:
(Pedersen, 2016
[39]
; MEF, 2017
[38]
; Holtze, Kühl and Hyldebrandt-Larsen, 2018
[40]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
;
MEF, 2019
[22]
; Böcker and Finger, 2016
[41]
).
The new tax has four components: basic tax, health tax (with rates differing by health
hazard), environmental toxicity tax (with rates differing by species) and a tax covering
persistence, bioaccumulation and leaching. The major goal of the strategy was reducing
pesticide sales, based on PLI, by 40% to a level equivalent to a pesticide load of 1.96
(Figure 5.4). It also included a 40% reduction target for the health burden of the use of
carcinogens and hormone disrupting substances (ME, 2013
[37]
).
The pesticide strategy for 2017-21 has four main areas: pesticide authorisation; targeted
and reinforced inspection efforts (focused on distributors); a pesticide research programme;
and information, advice and guidance. The strategy serves as the National Action Plan for
Sustainable Pesticide Use (MEF, 2017
[38]
). In January 2019, a supplement to the strategy
was agreed. It contained additional measures regarding reduction of the risk of pesticidal
contamination of groundwater in well vicinity protection zones, addressed pesticide
resistance and banned (as of 2020) the sale of concentrated pesticides to non-authorised
individuals. Additional measures and funding to strengthen monitoring of pesticides in
groundwater were also agreed (MEF, 2019
[22]
).
Figure 5.4. A differentiated tax, introduced in 2013, helped reduce the pesticide load
Pesticide sales and consumption based on pesticide load indicator (PLI), 2010-16
Sales
PLI/ha
6
Sales, updated PLI
Consumption, updated PLI
Consumption
Target for sales
5
4
3
2
1
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Note:
For the evaluation of the tax, data were recalculated for all the years with an updated database (e.g new classifications under the CLP Regulation)
and updated data collection filters, especially the spray journal reports for the first years.
Source:
Holtze et al., (2018),
Evaluering af den differentierede pesticidafgift
(Evaluation of the differentiated pesticide tax).
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002490
Regulatory framework
The regulatory framework for chemicals management is comprehensive and addresses all
relevant aspects. It consists of EU and national legal instruments.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0210.png
208
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
In the last 13 years, the EU has substantially revised its legislation on industrial chemicals,
in particular by adopting horizontal legislation, i.e. the REACH and CLP regulations. These
rules have heavily influenced chemicals management in Denmark: on the one hand they
imposed certain constraints (it was no longer possible to regulate some aspects of chemicals
management at the national level), but on the other they provided new opportunities
(e.g. making it possible to influence the EU-wide legal framework). There are also several
EU regulations addressing more specific areas of chemicals management or groups of
chemicals, such as those on cosmetics, detergents, and export and import of hazardous
chemicals, POPs and mercury. In addition, EU directives addressing important areas of
chemicals management include the Seveso Directive on major industrial accidents and the
Industrial Emissions Directive.
At the national level, key Danish legal instruments related to chemicals management are
the Act on Chemicals, the Environmental Protection Act and the Act on the Working
Environment. They are the basis for executive orders issued to, among other things,
transpose the relevant EU directives into the Danish legal framework or address areas of
chemicals management that are beyond or outside of the scope of EU regulations and
directives. For instance, the Danish regulatory framework requires companies to provide
information on substances not covered by the REACH Regulation, e.g. produced or
imported in amounts between 100 kg and 1 tonne (Denmark, 2018
[2]
). Pesticides and
biocides are covered by both EU legislation (the Biocidal Products and Plant Protection
Products regulations) and national rules (EC
[42]
; ECHA
[43]
).
In relation to prevention, preparedness and response to chemical accidents, Denmark
expanded the scope of the applicable EU legislation to address smaller ammonia and
chlorine installations as well. Denmark provides information on hazardous installations to
other countries and exchanges information on accidents and near misses via the
e-MARS database. Provision of information on hazardous installations to the public is also
regulated, as is public participation in decision making (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
An ongoing process of removing administrative burdens in Denmark, exemplified by a
focus on avoiding over-implementation of EU regulations, has had some impact on the
regulatory framework. It led to a significant reduction of the scope of reporting under the
Danish PRTR and green account programmes and the removal of certain taxes on
chemicals (e.g. phthalates) (Denmark, 2018
[2]
). This process has not affected the ambitious
and well-resourced multi-year national action plans on chemicals or the areas of chemicals
management where the country is a standard setter.
Institutional arrangements
At the national level, the Ministry of Environment and Food (MEF) is responsible for
environmental protection in general and oversees and co-ordinates chemicals management,
covering industrial chemicals, pesticides and biocides. MEF has a unit on chemicals and a
unit on industrial regulation (MEF
[44]
). The EPA is responsible for implementation and
enforcement of the vast majority of chemical legislation.
Participation in EU work on chemicals undertaken by the EU authorities has been
enshrined in Danish policy documents since the enactment of the REACH, CLP and
biocides regulations. It occurs at both the policy level (Council of the European Union) and
the technical level, through ECHA and the European Commission (EC). MEF and EPA are
the main participating authorities. For instance, EPA staff have worked on all of ECHA’s
main bodies: the Member State Committee, the Committee for Risk Assessment, the
Committee for Socio-economic Analysis, the Biocidal Products Committee and the
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0211.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
209
Enforcement Forum and Management Board (of which Denmark has been a deputy chair
since 2017), as well as several ECHA working groups (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Some chemicals management tasks are attributed to the Veterinary and Food
Administration (VFA, monitoring food and feed for harmful chemical substances) and
Agricultural Agency (AA, for fertilisers). Both are part of MEF. Important institutions not
under MEF are the Working Environment Authority (WEA), which is part of the Ministry
of Employment and is responsible for OHS; the Maritime Authority (MA); and customs.
The Ministry of Health is involved on poisons and its research centres support the
MEF/EPA work on chemicals. Finally, local authorities are responsible for certain tasks
(Denmark, 2018
[2]
; EPA, 2015
[45]
). Those regarding chemical accidents are shared between
the national Emergency Management Agency (EMA, under the Ministry of Defence),
central and local environment authorities, and other authorities such as the police
(Denmark, 2018
[2]
; EMA, 2017
[46]
).
The national institutional framework was modified in 2015 by merging the ministries
responsible for environment and food (actions related to food were included for the first
time in the 2018-21 Chemical Initiatives). In addition, the EPA is being relocated from
Copenhagen to Odense, with some former EPA staff integrated into MEF.
As a majority of authorities responsible for chemicals are in the same ministry,
co-ordination mainly takes the form of ad hoc intra-institutional consultations (or
inter-institutional, for legislative procedures). Authorised access to registers and databases
containing information on chemicals or installations (e.g. the Digital Environment
Administration portal) supports information sharing among authorities. In some cases, the
regulatory framework directly imposes co-operation among authorities (e.g. on major
accidents or the REACH Regulation) (Denmark, 2018
[2]
; MEF, 2016
[47]
).
Financing chemicals management, performance measurement and cost saving
Denmark has multi-year action plans on chemicals (including biocides) and pesticides that
guarantee stability of midterm funding. The Chemical Initiatives budget, for example,
increased from some EUR 8.5 million for 2006-09 to some EUR 28 million for 2018-21.
Between 2006 and 2017, this financing was highest in 2012-13 when activities under
REACH peaked in relation to consumer products and information on chemicals. (Denmark,
2018
[2]
; Government of Denmark, 2005
[31]
; Government of Denmark et al., 2017
[9]
). Many
chemicals management actions are undertaken and financed at the EU level, where
Denmark contributes by transferring a percentage of its gross national income to the EU
budget.
For 2018, the EPA had a total budget of some EUR 24 million for chemicals management.
The main sources of funding were, in descending order, the action plans on chemicals and
pesticides (29% and 37%, respectively, or 66% in all), fees for biocides and pesticides
(21%) and the general budget (Table 5.1). The budget for pesticides is slightly higher than
for general chemicals management. The pesticide action plan also contributes resources to
the AA and VFA, and the budgets of other Danish institutions help fund actions on
chemicals management (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0212.png
210
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
Table 5.1. The EPA’s 2018 budget for chemicals
(DKK million)
Chemical
action plan
37.5
7.4
7.0
Pesticide
action plan
Outside of
action plans
22.5
13.5*
25.2*
5.7
Total
60.0
20.9
84.6
20.8
3.0
5.2
1.5
196.0
Industrial chemicals and consumer products
Biocides
Pesticides (plant protection products)
Chemical inspection
Agricultural Agency
Veterinary and Food Administration
Green labelling
Total
59.4
8.1
3.0
5.2
75.7
1.0
52.9
0.5
67.4
*
This amount comes mainly from fees.
Note:
The budget does not reflect the fact that in the organisational change some resources were moved to MEF
but still allocated to chemicals.
Source:
Country submission.
In 2018, the EPA had over 120 employees in chemicals management. Slightly more staff
were involved in pesticide work (38%) than in general chemicals management (32%); some
17% worked in biocides and the rest in enforcement. Employees of other national
authorities working on chemicals, management, particular in OHS (over ten persons),
increase the number. Some work is outsourced: for instance, the EPA and VFA have a
co-operation agreement with Technical University of Denmark to provide scientific advice
on toxicological assessments and scientific research on safety of chemicals for human
health (Denmark, 2018
[2]
; EPA, 2015
[45]
).
The human and financial resources secured by Denmark for chemicals management are
encouraging. They support actions at the national level as well as in the international
context, particularly within the EU. They also show that this area is a priority for the
country. However, the EPA relocation process has triggered a visible turnover in staff,
which entails risk in relation to institutional memory and current or planned activities when,
for instance, new staff need to be hired and trained.
For industrial chemicals, a cost-recovery mechanism is essentially enshrined at the
EU level, under the REACH and CLP regulations, rather than at the national level.
Companies’
fees, for registration of chemicals and application for authorisation, support
covering the cost of services delivered by ECHA and national authorities. Part of the fee
revenue is transferred to national authorities for work on substance evaluation, restriction
proposals and authorisation applications (ECHA, 2017
[48]
). This cost-recovery mechanism
may create challenges for the future, as it is likely to diminish after the last batch of REACH
registrations in 2018. The EC stated in 2018 that implementing REACH required long-term
financial and resource stability and greater national contributions in view of the diminishing
fee income (EC, 2018
[49]
). As this could entail additional pressure on future Danish
financial and human resources for chemicals management, it might be worth it to
commence analyses on what form of enhanced contribution to ECHA’s work would be in
line with Danish priorities.
In relation to pesticides and biocides, it is the national authorities that charge the fees.
Denmark charges annual fees on each authorised product (pesticides and biocides) and each
place of sale (pesticides), as well as fees every three years for inspection of spraying
equipment. These fees constitute a significant part of the Danish authorities’ budget
(Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0213.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
211
5.3.2. Compliance and enforcement need enhancement to meet Danish
priorities on chemicals
Unlike many areas of chemicals management, where efforts are shared between the EU and
its members, Denmark regulates and performs all enforcement activities in relation to
chemicals management at the national level, including implementation of EU legislation.
However, common EU efforts on REACH and CLP compliance are increasing. While the
approach to inspections concerning industrial chemicals is generally risk-based, it is more
systematic in regard to pesticides and chemical accidents.
The main Danish enforcement bodies are the Chemical Inspection Service (CIS, within the
EPA), WEA and MA. CIS, with a staff of 17-18 persons, is responsible for industrial
chemicals (including in electronics and toys), pesticides, biocides and cosmetics. The WEA
is responsible for information obligations in the supply chain and for downstream users and
OHS in general (including at offshore installations). The MA is responsible for chemicals
related to obligations on ships. Some enforcement tasks related to chemicals management
(e.g. on food) are attributed to other MEF agencies or other public authorities, particularly
municipalities and customs (Box 5.4) (Denmark, 2018
[2]
; Dupont, Pelsy and Oulès,
2016
[50]
).
Box 5.4. A project to protect children from harmful chemicals shows potential for further
work sharing and co-operation
As part of a broad initiative in 2013-16 to protect children from harmful chemicals, the
EPA and customs conducted joint targeted border control actions. They built on an analysis
of import volumes at various custom offices and used the relevant customs codes.
The results suggested that, while certain chemicals (e.g. heavy metals) can be effectively
controlled at borders, compliance checks for most products in the retail chain can be just
as effective if not more so. The main reason is that border controls do not prevent products
from entering the market, as they are released following sampling, yet further actions (e.g.
chemical analysis) may be needed to determine product compliance.
As the EPA plans to continue prioritising chemical import control and e-commerce,
successful co-operation with customs (to be expanded to other stakeholders through the
Danish Chemicals Forum) is expected. However, the above-mentioned results indicate
more resources for enforcement in the supply chain may be needed to meet Danish
objectives.
Source:
(Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Both informal and formal co-operation by enforcement authorities as well as joint
inspections take place in Denmark. The enforcement authorities set their own inspection
strategy. During the review period, some had a strategy that was not in line with the
EU-wide
strategy adopted by ECHA’s Enforcement Forum
(EPA, 2015
[45]
), but that
situation was recently resolved (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
The approach to inspections concerning industrial chemicals is risk based. In practice, this
means complying companies can benefit from less frequent inspections, and enforcement
focuses on certain geographical areas, particularly the capital region. Denmark makes its
enforcement strategies publicly available. CIS focuses its activities on 15 to 18 targeted
campaigns per year, plus response to complaints (some 400 per year). The WEA performs
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0214.png
212
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
general inspections in which all aspects of OHS are checked (Denmark, 2018
[2]
; EPA,
2015
[45]
).
For pesticides, enforcement takes the form of systematic supervision of companies
introducing products to the market. As there are fewer of them than of companies dealing
with industrial chemicals, the effects of enforcement are more tangible. For instance,
increased inspections in relation to sale of illegal pesticides led to a sharp decrease in
infringements, from 30% in 2016 to 10% in 2017 (EPA, 2018
[51]
).
Denmark participates in EU-wide enforcement activities, particularly regarding
downstream users or consumers, in line with its approach to chemicals management. It also
co-operates with other Nordic countries on inspections, with a focus on the EU legislation
(EPA
[52]
; Kristiansen et al., 2018
[53]
).
The country carries out systematic appraisal of measures applied by operators of Seveso
installations.
6
Almost all Danish upper tier installations have an external emergency plan
prepared by the authorities (police and municipalities), which is above the EU average.
However, testing of these plans has been an issue since 2003: it only took place for some
50% of installations due to an unclear division of responsibility. In 2018 the EPA published
updated guidance material to aid authorities in addressing this issue (EC, 2017
[54]
; Amec
Foster Wheeler, 2017
[55]
; EPA, 2018
[56]
).
Denmark has a dual system of penalties for non-compliance with chemical legislation.
Heavy fines (proportional to income and applicable to legal persons) or a criminal sanction
can be applied, but in practice, the authorities focus on preventive and educational actions.
The most common enforcement tool is a warning; legal proceedings are rarely initiated
(Denmark, 2018
[2]
; Rass-Masson, Blainey and Pelsy, 2010
[57]
; Dupont, Pelsy and Oulès,
2016
[50]
).
There are fewer inspections concerning industrial chemicals than in comparable EU
countries (Dupont, Pelsy and Oulès, 2016
[50]
), which may be linked to potential differences
in the scope of inspections and could become an issue in the long term. The results of recent
enforcement campaigns related to chemical products (e.g. 80% of inspected hazardous
mixtures sold online did not meet hazard information and labelling requirements) show that
there is room for compliance improvement.
Additional efforts may be required in the future, in particular to cope with a priority area
for Denmark: chemicals in products. Moreover, coherent and mutually supportive activities
of all countries implementing the REACH and CLP regulations may be necessary, so
Denmark could benefit from increased involvement in EU-wide activities. Beyond the
EU context, product supply chains are becoming increasingly global, so global action will
be needed. Danish stakeholders support enhanced enforcement (Danish industry, 2017
[34]
).
5.3.3. Exemplary public participation and involvement in chemicals
management
Denmark actively involves stakeholders in chemicals management. Hence it is no surprise
that Danes have the
EU’s
highest level of trust in national authorities (Eurostat, 2018
[58]
).
They also top the EU rankings for understanding and use of safety information on
chemicals (e.g. safety instructions, warning symbols, labels). They consider themselves
well informed about the risk posed by chemicals and feel that chemical safety has improved
in last 10 to 15 years (EC, 2011
[59]
; EC, 2013
[60]
; EC, 2014
[61]
; EC, 2017
[62]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0215.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
213
At the national level, Danish stakeholders can take part in the public consultation
mechanism employed during legislative discussions. A Special Government Committee for
the Environment, open to all organisations with an interest in environmental matters, is
consulted on the Danish position in the EU and other international forums, and non
government organisations (NGOs) are occasionally included in Danish delegations to
international negotiation meetings (Denmark, 2018
[2]
). Improved, formalised dialogue with
the industry has been an inherent part of the Chemical Initiatives. The creation of the
Danish Chemicals Forum in 2014 strengthened stakeholder engagement in the chemicals
area. The forum groups representatives from public authorities, industry, labour, NGOs and
academia and focuses on dialogue, co-operation, knowledge and dissemination of
information on chemicals management (Sørensen et al., 2017
[63]
). Stakeholder bodies are
also in place for biocides (the Biocide Panel) and pesticides (the Pesticide Dialogue
Forum). All meet a few times a year. MEF also meets regularly with stakeholders from the
Danish cosmetic and toy sectors. Dedicated chemical events for stakeholders include
Chemistry Day, organised annually since 2005; the 2018 edition focused on sustainable
chemistry in the future (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
The public has access to non-confidential information on chemicals and has been the target
of a vast number of initiatives, heavily supported by communication activities. The current
Chemical Initiatives highlight the strategic importance of ensuring that consumers receive
honest information about risks related to chemicals (whether in substances, products or
food) so they can make informed choices.
To increase awareness about hazardous chemicals and chemical exposure in the general
population, and contribute to EU and OECD work, the EPA has undertaken information
campaigns on chemicals in consumer products. Particular attention has been paid to
vulnerable groups such as children. Another example is correct pesticide use. The EPA has
published an exemplary amount of information on chemicals for consumers, including,
since 2001, over 160 studies on everyday products such as toys, furniture, clothing and
sport equipment. It has prepared educational material for school-age children. Since 2013,
it has run a Facebook account called Hverdagskemi (Everyday Chemicals) to advise on
safe use of chemicals (Denmark, 2018
[2]
). In September 2018, a website on chemicals in
consumer products and food, bridging information from the EPA and VFA, was launched
(EPA, 2018
[64]
). Stakeholders are often involved in these activities.
Many other awareness-raising activities are directed towards supporting industry
compliance with regulatory measures (EPA, 2015
[45]
). Thematic national and international
workshops have been organised to promote knowledge sharing on chemicals of particular
interest for Denmark, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) (OECD, 2010
[65]
;
EPA
[66]
). Danish authorities support NGO work related to chemicals management and
co-ordinate activities with them to build synergy (Government of Denmark et al., 2017
[9]
).
For instance, the EPA and Danish Consumer Council launched a smartphone application
to give consumers information on hazardous substances in products (Box 5.5) The same
NGO launched THINK Chemicals, an initiative to test consumer products (e.g. earphones,
diapers, cosmetics, chewing gum, cleansing tissues), in co-ordination with the EPA (Danish
Consumer Council
[67]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0216.png
214
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
Box 5.5. Denmark is at the forefront of best practices stimulating public involvement in
chemicals management
In 2014, the EPA and Danish Consumer Council launched a mobile app called Tjek
Kemien (Check Chemicals) enabling consumers to scan products for information on
whether they contain substances of very high concern (SVHCs) under the REACH
Regulation. It increased consumers’
awareness of their right to information on hazardous
chemicals in everyday products. This experience and that of Germany, which launched a
similar app, led to discussions on developing such an app at the EU level. It is being
developed under the AskREACH
project funded by the EU’s LIFE Programme, with
Danish stakeholder participation). It is expected to be launched in 2019.
Sources:
(Sørensen et al., 2017
[63]
; ECHA, 2015
[68]
; Chemical Watch, 2017
[69]
; Chemical Watch, 2018
[70]
; LIFE
AskREACH, 2018
[71]
).
5.3.3. Increasing the use of economic analysis in decision making
Economic analysis in relation to decision making (including chemicals management) is
built into the legislative framework at both the EU and national levels. At the national level,
due to the growing importance of the horizontal EU legislation on chemicals, economic
analysis has been increasingly used, particularly to influence EU-wide decisions and
policies (e.g. in the work of ECHA technical committees). It was also influenced by studies
showing the pressures from chemicals on Danish society.
For instance, a high prevalence of male reproductive disorders, in comparison with
neighbouring Finland, and a decline in the onset of puberty in girls have been observed in
Denmark, with EDCs being identified as a potential factor (Krysiak-Baltyn et al., 2010
[72]
;
Mouritsen et al., 2010
[73]
). It has been estimated that exposure to EDCs in Denmark leads
to total yearly health and economic costs of more than EUR 2 billion (some 1.3% of GDP,
which is above the EU average) (Trasande et al., 2016
[74]
). There are also statistically
significant healthcare costs and productivity losses for adults with contact dermatitis. The
socio-economic costs of contact allergies have been estimated at EUR 2.4 billion per year
(Saetterstrøm, Olsen and Johansen, 2014
[75]
; Sørensen et al., 2017
[63]
)
Denmark has begun evaluating the effects of its action plans on industrial chemicals. The
2017
ex post
evaluation of the 2014-17 Chemical Initiatives, for example, assessed their
qualitative and quantitative impact by identifying the overall goals and later establishing
effect chains
7
for each of the 14 actions. In effect chains, inputs, activities, outputs and
effects are combined to explain how and why a given planned activity should lead to the
desired effect. The analysis by external consultants and the EPA suggested, among other
things, that the environmental and health benefits of the actions over the long term (50
years) would outweigh the costs in all scenarios, with benefits ranging from
EUR 27 million to EUR 1.2 billion. An
ex ante
analysis of the 2018-21 Chemical
Initiatives, mainly establishing the framework for a future
ex post
evaluation, followed in
2018. It recognised the use of the effect chains developed in principle for the
ex ante
evaluations (Denmark, 2018
[2]
; Sørensen et al., 2017
[63]
).
Other public authorities in Denmark that have employed economic analysis in their work
include the VFA, which in 2013 produced economic impact assessment tools for its staff
to support cost-benefit analysis of its policy measures, and the EPA, which used economic
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0217.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
215
analysis to estimate the pesticide tax’s impact on agricultural producers (Sørensen et al.,
2017
[63]
; Holtze, Kühl and Hyldebrandt-Larsen, 2018
[40]
).
5.4. International forums and regional settings
Denmark has long been at the forefront of global and regional discussions on chemicals
management and has prioritised international co-operation in national strategic documents.
5.4.1. Multilateral environmental agreements and international organisations
Denmark actively participates in the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and
non-binding
initiatives on chemicals, and contributes to international organisations’ work.
It is a party to all relevant chemical MEAs (e.g. the Minamata Convention on mercury, the
Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent, the Stockholm Convention on persistent
organic pollutants) and to regional agreements in the UNECE framework, including the
Helsinki Convention on transboundary effects of industrial accidents and the Kiev PRTR
protocol. Danish implementation is usually through laws transposing the applicable
EU legislation (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Among non-binding global initiatives on chemicals, Denmark has implemented the
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling via the CLP and REACH
regulation ( the latter in relation to safety data sheets). It is active in the Strategic Approach
to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), including involvement in and support
for the SAICM Beyond 2020 process (EPA, 2018
[76]
).
Denmark has provided both in-kind and financial support to the work of international
organisations involved in chemicals management, particularly in areas aligned with its
national priorities, such as EDCs. Over the review period, Denmark continued to be one of
the top 15 contributors to the Environment Fund of UN Environment (Denmark, 2018
[2]
;
UN Environment, 2018
[77]
; Urho et al., 2019
[78]
). Finally, Denmark contributes to the
OECD work on chemicals: it chaired the Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and
Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology in 2015-17, and continues its
participation in that body and its working parties and groups.
5.4.2. Regional and bilateral co-operation
Although co-operation within the EU (see Sections 5.5 and 5.6 for Denmark’s contribution
to chemicals management at the EU level) has become more important for Denmark, in
line with the evolution of regional legislation on chemicals, it has not completely replaced
other modes of regional involvement. They continue to exist, as do bilateral initiatives.
Nordic co-operation
Important regional co-operation on chemicals takes place within the Nordic Council of
Ministers, an inter-governmental co-operation forum comprising Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Greenland
and the Ǻland Islands
(Norden
[79]
).
The main vector for co-operation on chemicals is the Nordic Chemical Group, whose
overarching goal is
“sustainable development based on high-level
health and environmental
protection for both the present and future generations”
(Norden
[80]
).
For over 30 years, the group has co-ordinated members’ activities to support national
efforts on chemicals management. Its 2019-24 priorities include supporting substitution of
hazardous chemicals; strengthening EU regulations on grouping of hazardous substances;
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0218.png
216
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
co-operating on supervision of chemicals in articles, in recycling and in e-commerce; and
paying special attention to the presence and impact of chemicals in northern regions and
the Arctic (NCM, 2018
[81]
).
Arctic region
The Arctic Council is a co-operation forum comprising Canada, Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States, along with Arctic
indigenous communities and other inhabitants. Of particular importance for chemicals
management are its:
Arctic Contaminants Action Program
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)
Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group (AC
[82]
;
Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Denmark is very active in the work concerning the region (for instance, in AMAP),
particularly due to its ties with the Faroe Islands and Greenland (Box 5.6).
Box 5.6. Continuing co-operation in the Arctic is important
The Kingdom of Denmark consists of Denmark and the territories of the Faroe Islands and
Greenland. The territories face serious environmental challenges. For instance, Denmark’s
2017 National Risk Profile identifies increased activity in the Arctic region as one of four
challenges for the kingdom and calls for greater commitment to maintain effective civilian
preparedness throughout the realm.
A common policy document of Denmark and the territories, Strategy for the Arctic 2011-
20, underlines the importance of monitoring the Arctic environment and protecting it from
such hazardous substances as POPs and mercury. It also highlights focusing on national
implementation of international environmental agreements and on prevention of accidents
involving chemicals. Denmark and its territories co-operate on chemicals management, for
instance through long-term monitoring of POPs and heavy metals in Greenland and related
human health effects in Greenland and the Faroes. About half of Danish funding for
research and monitoring in the Arctic is devoted to chemicals. The results support Danish
activity at the EU level (e.g. under the REACH Regulation) and internationally (e.g. under
the MEAs).
Sources:
(Prime Minister's Office
[83]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
; Governments of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe
Islands, 2011
[84]
; EMA, 2017
[6]
).
North-east Atlantic Ocean
Denmark co-operates with 14 European countries and the EU within the OSPAR
Commission under the OSPAR Convention.
8
The goal of co-operation on chemicals is to
prevent pollution by reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances.
The Hazardous Substances & Eutrophication Committee implements OSPAR’s Hazardous
Substances Strategy, for instance via assessments of substances of concern for the maritime
environment, regional data collection and co-ordinated monitoring. This work
complements and supports the work of the EU and international organisations (OSPAR
Hazardous Substances & Eutrophication Committee, 2018
[85]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0219.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
217
Baltic Sea
Denmark co-operates on chemicals in the Baltic Marine Environment Protection
Commission, HELCOM,
9
whose aim is to protect the Baltic Sea marine environment from
all pollution sources. On chemicals, the main goal is for the Baltic to be undisturbed by
hazardous substances (HELCOM
[86]
). The work includes co-operation on environmental
monitoring and reduction of inputs of hazardous substances to the Baltic Sea. Denmark led
the project on risk of oil and hazardous substance spills in the Baltic Sea and is a lead
country for developing the core indicators for
“PAH
and their metabolites” and
“TBT
and
imposex” (HELCOM, 2015
[87]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
). In 2018, Denmark signed a regional
declaration whose commitments included jointly re-examining the effectiveness of
measures and recommendations for legacy pollutants, identifying the scale of problems of
contaminants of emerging concern, identifying and assessing further hazardous substances
and contaminants from offshore sources, and developing appropriate mitigation measures
(HELCOM, 2018
[88]
).
Bilateral co-operation
In 2014, EPA signed a bilateral agreement with the Swedish Chemicals Agency on
co-operation in the EU context, e.g. on chemicals in consumer products and on EDCs. It
aims to support information exchange and experience sharing (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
5.5. Systematic investigation of chemicals
Since 2007, the REACH Regulation has set the framework for systematic investigation of
industrial chemicals at the national and European levels. Denmark actively contributes to
priority setting and assessment processes at the EU level and to identification of chemicals
of concern.
5.5.1. Gathering, exchanging and protecting information on chemicals
Several chemical inventories at the EU level contain information provided by Danish
companies. Examples include the database of substances registered under the REACH
Regulation, the ECHA classification and labelling database (C&L Inventory), and databases
on biocides and pesticides. Non-confidential information from these is publicly available,
while the confidential part is accessible to authorised EU and national authorities (ECHA
[89]
).
Denmark complements the EU inventories with its own databases. The Danish Product
Registry, run jointly by the WEA and EPA, covers low-volume hazardous substances (of
which between 100 kg and 1 000 kg is manufactured or imported per year) and mixtures
(more than 100 kg produced or imported per year) placed on the market for professional
use; biocides not yet covered by the authorisation system; and offshore chemicals. The
registry contains information on about 38 000 registered products (WEA
[90]
). The Danish
Nanoproduct Register (whose data are accessible only to the Danish authorities) gathers
information on mixtures and articles containing nanomaterials (EPA
[91]
). Denmark also has
a database of chemicals in consumer products (EPA
[92]
); a database of pesticides and
biocides, including information on cancelled, rejected or expired authorisations (EPA
[93]
);
and a database of advisory self-classifications (EPA
[94]
).
Exchange and protection of chemical data
Several mechanisms enable the exchange of various types of information on chemicals
between Denmark, other countries and regional and international bodies. They serve
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0220.png
218
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
mainly to facilitate work at the EU level (e.g. confidential information is exchanged
between ECHA, national authorities and industry) (Denmark, 2018
[2]
). In addition to
EU data-sharing mechanisms, Denmark exchanges non-confidential information on
chemical products with other Nordic countries and provides information to international
bodies, for instance through reporting under MEAs, SAICM and AMAP (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Confidentiality provisions are part of the national and EU legal framework. For instance,
information in the Danish Product Registry is protected to ensure that companies can only
gain access to their own confidential information (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
5.5.2. Involvement in assessment of chemicals
Priority setting and assessment
Priority setting for industrial chemicals is in principle done at the EU level but in practice
is a joint effort of the EU and national authorities. The Community rolling action plan
(CoRAP) lists prioritised substances for evaluation. ECHA and the national authorities
identify substances that could be included in CoRAP and subsequently evaluated by the
national authorities (ECHA, 2018
[95]
; ECHA, 2018
[96]
). The EU legislation directly
applicable to Denmark lays out a process for hazard, exposure and risk assessment of
industrial chemicals, as well its timeline. Box 5.7 provides an example of the approach to
chemical assessment in a non-EU OECD country: Australia.
Box 5.7. Assessment of industrial chemicals: The Australian perspective
Australia introduced the Inventory Multi-tiered Assessment and Prioritisation (IMAP)
framework in 2012 to accelerate assessment of industrial chemicals and complement the
work done in the Priority Existing Chemicals (PECs) process. This science- and risk-based
framework is used to identify and rapidly assess existing chemicals of concern. It is also used
to enhance risk management of industrial chemicals by increasing the flow of chemical safety
information to industry, risk management bodies and the public. IMAP has extensively used
assessments performed abroad, particularly in Canada, the United States and the EU.
The number of industrial chemicals on the national inventory considered in the IMAP
framework is significantly greater than the number considered in the PEC process: more
than 12 000 chemicals were assessed between 2012 and 2018. The framework reduced the
gap of unassessed chemicals from 92% to 61%. It has been used to identify environmental
contaminants of emerging concern and has raised awareness of the need for risk reduction
strategies for high concern chemicals.
The accelerated rate of assessment of industrial chemicals achieved using the IMAP
framework relies on a tiered approach in which chemicals are assessed at a level
corresponding to their potential risk to human health or the environment. In 2016, the
assessment focus shifted from identification of concerns (IMAP stage 1) to
de-prioritisation (IMAP stage 2) (see Chapter 5 of the 2019 OECD Environmental
Performance Review of Australia for further information). The human health and
environmental assessments are often conducted separately, which allows resources to be
efficiently allocated to addressing areas of concern.
Under IMAP, chemicals are frequently assessed in groups, using OECD principles for
building chemical categories, and a weight-of-evidence approach is used to consider
relevant, reliable data from domestic and international sources. A comprehensive
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0221.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
219
Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship strategy, including custom-built tools, was
established to support decision making. A significant investment was made in developing
chemical informatics software that enables rapid assessment and maximises the use and reuse
of the large amounts of quality-assured regulatory information generated in assessments.
Once the Australian National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme
reform enters into force, it is expected to replace both the PECs process and the IMAP
framework with a new legislative tool.
Source:
(Australia, 2019
[97]
; OECD, 2019
[98]
).
Denmark has actively contributed to priority setting and assessment processes at the
EU level (Figure 5.5). Danish priorities for selecting chemicals are set in a multi-year
action plan on chemicals and have been relatively stable over the last decade. The current
Chemical Initiatives prioritise actions in relation to carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
reproduction (CMR) substances; chemicals affecting brain development; EDCs; allergenic
chemicals; and chemicals of high concern to the environment (Government of Denmark
et al., 2017
[9]
).
Denmark has been especially active in estimating properties of chemicals from their
molecular structure using results of SAR or QSAR modelling, known collectively as
(Q)SARs. The National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark, supported
by the EPA, NCM and ECHA, launched a publicly available (Q)SAR database with
estimates from more than 200 (Q)SARs and (Q)SAR predictions for more than
600 000 chemical substances. It is part of the OECD QSAR Toolbox (NFI
[99]
).
The country has been involved in investigating chemicals outside the EU framework, for
instance under the Helsinki and OSPAR conventions. It has actively participated in
development of the OECD test methods for EDCs (e.g. it led the development and adoption
of a test for endocrine-disrupting effects in fish and updates on test methods for screening
of reproductive effects and for developmental toxicity), and worked within the OECD to
prepare guidance for authorities and industry on the use of the test methods for EDC
assessment (EPA
[66]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0222.png
220
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
Figure 5.5. Denmark is an active player in evaluation of chemicals at the EU level
Selected countries and institutions involved in certain chemicals management activities
Substance evaluation under the Community rolling
action plan, CoRAP, 2012-21
a
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DEU FRA
ITA
BEL DNK SWE NLD ESP AUT POL
100
0
500
400
Number of proposals for amendments to ECHA's
decision in dossier evaluation and to other countries'
substance evaluation, 2010-15
Dossier evaluation
Substance evaluation
300
200
DNK DEU GBR NLD ECHA BEL
ITA
IRL
FIN
FRA
Endocrine disruptor assessement under the REACH
and Biocidal Products Regulations, 2013-19
ITA FIN
AUT 4%
3%
6%
SWE
9%
NOR
1%
30
25
20
Persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT)
assessment, 2013-19
b
DEU
26%
15
GBR
9%
FRA
23%
BEL
9%
10
5
DNK
0
DEU GBR NLD BEL ECHA FIN FRA AUT SWE DNK
10%
a)
The list includes substances that have been evaluated or will be evaluated by 2021 (March 2019). Denmark also co-evaluated one additional substance.
b)
The list includes the substances undergoing a PBT/vPvB assessment under the REACH Regulation or Biocidal Products Regulations. For REACH substances,
inclusion in the list means that an informal hazard assessment for PBT/vPvB properties either is under development or has been completed since the start of the
implementation of the SVHC Roadmap in February 2013 (March 2019).
Source:
Dupont, Pelsy and Oulès (2016),
Service Contract for Technical Assistance to Review the Existing Member State Reporting Questionnaire under Article 117
REACH, Including the Evaluation and Configuration of an Appropriate IT Tool for the Reporting: Final Report;
ECHA (2019), ECHA, Information on chemicals (website),
https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002509
Pesticides and biocides
The EU legislation on pesticides and biocides includes specific pre-marketing requirements
and timelines. In principle, national authorities must authorise a product before it is placed
on the market. There were about 650 authorised pesticides in Denmark in 2016 and some
350 authorised biocidal products in 2018 (Denmark, 2018
[2]
; ECHA
[89]
). Over 2008-17,
Denmark evaluated 26 biocide active substances/product type combinations and
13 pesticide active substances (with co-responsibility for evaluation of further 14), with the
final decision taken at the EU level. The validity of authorisation for an active substance in
pesticides and biocides, and for a biocidal product, is typically no more than ten years. The
validity of a pesticide product authorisation is linked to the active substance authorisation
(ECHA, 2018
[100]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0223.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
221
For pesticides, Denmark is responsible for hazard, exposure and risk assessment of
products, based on information provided by the applicant. The EPA accepts the use of
assessments performed in other countries, with limitations (e.g. adoption of Danish
requirements on leaching to groundwater). Denmark collaborates on assessments with
other countries in a so-called northern zone,
10
but the final decision is taken by national
authorities (Northern zone, 2018
[101]
). For biocides, Danish authorities evaluate products
under application for EU-wide authorisation and co-operate with other countries for
product evaluation if an applicant seeks mutual recognition in multiple jurisdictions
(ECHA, 2018
[102]
).
Testing requirements
For industrial chemicals, pesticides and biocides, the applicable EU legislation sets out
testing requirements. The OECD Test Guidelines also apply. The EU legislation requires
application of the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). Good
Experimental Practice (GEP) applies for field trials on plant protection products. The
Danish Accreditation Fund is responsible for GLP compliance and the EPA (with support
from Aarhus University) for GEP compliance. For chemicals used offshore, the testing
requirements follow the OSPAR Convention (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
5.5.3. Contribution to identification of chemicals of concern
Denmark has long worked actively on identification of chemicals of concern. In recent
years, the tendency has been to focus actions on supporting EU-wide activities.
As early as 1998, Denmark established a List of Undesirable Substances (LOUS). It was
not legally binding, but guided the industry on what should be substituted. The latest
version (2009) included 40 substances or groups of substances selected in line with EPA
criteria (based on hazardous properties identified, for instance, by computer models). Over
2012-15, Denmark reviewed all the substances and groups of substances, in co-operation
with stakeholders, with a budget of some EUR 6.4 million. The LOUS has not been
updated, as its criteria largely overlap with those of the REACH SVHC.
Selection of substances for the LOUS allowed Danish authorities to create a 2009 list of
effects, including 19 500 substances that fulfilled the LOUS criteria but whose use had not
been assessed in Denmark (EPA, 2010
[103]
). The selection of chemicals for both lists was
supported by the Danish work on (Q)SARs, prioritised in all Danish action plans on
chemicals.
In line with national priorities, Denmark made significant efforts to identify potential EDCs
and address combined effects of chemicals and nanomaterials (Box 5.8). Over 2013-15, the
EPA carried out initiatives targeted at children, using the results as the basis for evaluation
of total exposure of children (including those unborn) to more than 60 selected substances
that were hormone disruptive, suspected of being hormone disruptive or posed neurotoxic
and related risks (Larsen et al., 2017
[104]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0224.png
222
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
Box 5.8. Top priorities for Denmark: Endocrine disruptors and nanomaterials
Denmark has assessed several potential EDCs and undertaken studies on the exposure of
children to EDCs. It included potential EDCs on LOUS and ranked EDCs high on its
environmental agenda during its 2010 presidency of the Nordic Council of Ministers and
2012 presidency of the Council of the European Union. In 2011, Denmark proposed EDC
criteria for the REACH and plant protection product regulations and later pushed for their
adoption. It also participated in the development of relevant OECD test methods and
guidance documents. Denmark supported preparation of the 2018 UN Environment report
on global EDC-related initiatives. Also in 2018, the government asked CEHOS to perform
annual screenings of hazardous chemicals to support addressing EDCs at the EU level. In
the context of EDCs, Denmark pushed for action to address phthalates at the national level
(a holistic strategy adopted for 2013-15, a new set of compliance initiatives agreed in 2017)
and the EU level.
On nanomaterials, Denmark has undertaken projects aiming at investigating, and
generating new knowledge on, the presence of nanomaterials in products on the Danish
market and assessing possible associated risk to consumers and the environment. About
30 reports are available.
Source:
(Danish Chemicals Forum, 2015
[105]
; UN Environment/IPCP, 2017
[106]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
; CEHOS,
2018
[107]
; Christensen et al., 2015
[15]
).
Regarding industrial chemicals, Denmark has actively supported identification of potential
SVHCs at the EU level. It has been among the most active countries in this area, submitting
ten dossiers between 2010 and 2018 (ECHA
[89]
). On pesticides and biocides, the EPA
Pesticide Research Programme, in place since 1987, generates information that supports
the regulatory measures for these chemicals. The National Allergy Research Centre,
established in 2001, played an important role in providing documentation on human
exposure to allergens, relevant for the EU-wide restrictions on the use of chromium in
leather goods (2015) and the prohibition of methylisothiazolinone in leave-on cosmetics
(2017). The Working Environment Research Fund, established in 2003, aims to strengthen
research and development in occupational safety and health (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Pollution caused by pharmaceuticals is an emerging environmental problem. At the
regional level, Denmark co-operates in the HELCOM collaboration platform on
pharmaceuticals (EUSBSR, 2017
[20]
). Efforts at the national level have focused on
pharmaceuticals in wastewater treatments plants, especially from hospital discharges
(Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
Identification and evaluation of chemicals of concern were high on the agenda in Denmark
during the review period. Multi-year action plans provided stability of funding. However,
additional effort may
be needed to sustain Denmark’s standard-setting
role in this area. The
amount of work is rising (e.g. on analysing submitted data quality) and the transfer of fees
from the EU level to support national activities started to diminish in 2016. The increasing
amount of data (e.g. from research and implementation of legislation), combined with the
increasing digitalisation of regulations and tools, will also require additional resources and
capacity to better manage and use the information.
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0225.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
223
5.6. Risk management
Denmark applies a broad mix of instruments to risk management of chemicals. Regulatory,
voluntary and other tools are adopted at the EU or national level. Denmark supports
substitution of hazardous substances.
Danish environmental legislation incorporates the polluter-pays principle. The main legal
instrument on chemicals, the Act on Chemicals, supplements this principle by making it
possible for authorities to carry out chemical tests at industry’s expense if the latter does
not do it upon request. The Environmental Protection Act requires industry to take
precautions to avoid or minimise pollution and, failing that, to address its consequences.
Certain fees collected by national and EU authorities help finance relevant measures by
Denmark (EPA, 2017
[108]
; MEF, 2017
[109]
).
5.6.1. Use of risk management approaches
Regarding industrial chemicals, risk reduction provisions correspond to the authorisation
and restriction stages of the REACH Regulation and harmonised classification and
labelling under the CLP Regulation. Denmark has actively contributed to the relevant
EU processes where possible (Figure 5.6), although initiative is reserved for the
Commission in some areas. The timeline for application of risk management measures is
usually enshrined in the applicable EU legislation. However, if a risk is of a national
character, national measures can be applied, with no set timelines (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
National regulations apply in areas not fully covered by EU or international legal
frameworks. For instance, Denmark is one of the few countries with restrictions on the use
of lead in gun ammunition (it applies a total ban, including outside wetlands) and fishing
sinkers (ECHA, 2018
[110]
). The national restriction on importing or selling products
containing lead is stricter than that of the EU (Fråne et al., 2018
[111]
).
For plant protection products and biocides, risk mitigation measures are identified during
the authorisation process. Denmark applies additional measures in certain areas
(e.g. voluntary agreements on pesticide use in public areas, thresholds for use on golf
courses, training for professional users and distributors). For biocides, specific
authorisation is required to use rodenticides with anticoagulants or to fumigate for pests.
Danish rules on evaluation and approval of biocidal insecticides include provisions to
protect bees and other non-target insects (Denmark, 2018
[2]
; MEF, 2017
[8]
).
Denmark has used taxes to reduce exposure to certain hazardous chemicals, but the PVC
tax was recently abolished after a political agreement on easing the administrative burden
on companies, and the phthalate tax was rescinded due to an agreement on an EU-wide
restriction (Denmark, 2018
[2]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0226.png
224
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
Figure 5.6. Denmark actively contributes to risk management of chemicals at the EU level
50
45
40
35
30
100
Regulatory management option analysis,
2013-19
a
120
Registry of classifications and labelling (CLH)
intentions, 2008-19
b
80
60
40
20
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
DEU DNK SWE FRA NLD ECHA AUT GBR IRL
BEL
DEU AUT FRA GBR NDL SWE NOR MIDU DNK IRL
25
Registry of restriction intentions,
2009-19
c
60
50
Proposals to identify SVHC,
2008-19
d
20
40
15
30
10
20
5
10
0
ECHA SWE NOR FRA DNK DEU ITA
NLD POL GBR
0
ECHA DEU SWE FRA NLD AUT DNK NOR BEL
UK
a)
The regulatory management option analysis (RMOA) list includes substances for which an RMOA is either under development or has been completed since
the start of the implementation of the SVHC Roadmap in February 2013.
b)
CLH - Harmonised classification and labelling; MIDU - manufacturers, importers or downstream users.
c)
Includes co-submissions.
d)
Denmark is a co-submitter for one entry. Countries or ECHA may prepare Annex XV dossiers for the identification of substances of very high concern (SVHC).
Source:
ECHA (2019),
ECHA, Information on chemicals
(website), https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals.
StatLink 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934002528
The area of occupational work and safety features national legislation and guidelines,
combined with monitoring, research and stakeholder collaboration on safe work. It includes
considerable flexibility in adopting national risk management measures related to CMR
substances. In the last ten years, Denmark has adopted occupational guidelines for
17 substances, most of which had to be implemented within three to five years (Denmark,
2018
[2]
).
The unintentional poisoning mortality rate dropped between 2006 and 2016 from 5.4 to
3.8 per 100 000 people (SD, 2018
[112]
). Poison centres support safe use of chemicals, as
well as preventive and curative measures, by providing medical advice to the public and
doctors on emergencies related to exposure to chemicals. The information is provided to
both the EPA and, for mixtures in professional use, the WEA (ECHA
[113]
)
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0227.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
225
Labelling programmes in Denmark include official ones (e.g. the EU eco-label and Nordic
Swan) and private ones (e.g. the Blue Wreath and Allergy Certified). All support risk
reduction by limiting the use of hazardous chemicals and promoting substitution by less
hazardous alternatives.
5.6.2. Promoting substitution of hazardous chemicals
Substitution of hazardous chemicals is enshrined in EU and Danish legislation and policy
documents and in international agreements such as the OSPAR Convention (Denmark,
2018
[2]
). Danish OHS rules require replacing hazardous substances with less hazardous
ones, even if the effects of the former are insignificant (Camboni, 2017
[114]
).
The LOUS has long supported substitution by informing industry about substances whose
use should be reduced or terminated. The 2014-17 Chemical Initiatives included a
partnership between industry and academia to support substitution of certain chemicals of
concern (Danish Chemicals Forum, 2015
[105]
; Denmark, 2018
[2]
; Kemi i Kredsløb,
2018
[115]
). A new innovation centre on substitution of hazardous chemicals follows up on
that initiative under the 2018-21 Chemical Initiatives. An eco-innovation subsidy
programme, under the 2015-18 MEF Environmental Technology Development and
Demonstration Programme, supported research on substitution (MEF
[116]
). The Pesticide
Research Program supports reduction of pesticide use (including biocides) and research on
their negative effects on human health and the environment. Since 2016, the Chemical
Initiatives have supported substitution with less harmful biocides (e.g. by subsidising their
authorisation under a simplified procedure) (Denmark, 2018
[2]
). The Centre for Catalysis
and Sustainable Chemistry at Technical University of Denmark is working on chemistry
innovation and on improvement to known processes in areas such as renewable chemicals
and sustainable production of chemicals (Centre for Catalysis and Sustainable Chemistry,
2017
[117]
).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0228.png
226
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
Recommendations on chemicals management
Develop innovative tools to help decision making
Further expand risk-based monitoring of chemicals. For instance, enhance
monitoring of legacy pesticides and their metabolites in groundwater and approved
pesticides under the Pesticide Leaching Assessment Programme, and consider
supplementing it with surface-water monitoring (relevant for biocides). Consider
enhanced monitoring of emerging pollutants (e.g. pharmaceuticals in surface water
and groundwater) and heavy metals (e.g. zinc in soil and water).
Strengthen biomonitoring to provide better evidence of people’s actual
exposure to
endocrine-disrupting chemicals and possible effects on human health to support
policy making in this area; address trade-offs between monitoring and proactive
identification of chemicals requiring regulatory action, taking into account the
science-policy nexus (e.g. identification of exposure source).
Make assessment of the Chemical Initiatives’ effects a standard procedure and
consider further development such as increasing the use of indicators to track
implementation progress.
Make better use of PRTR data (e.g. for tracking trends in releases or benchmarking
among companies).
Implement and influence EU legislation
Continue identifying national priority areas for strengthened chemicals
management and performing an active role at the EU level in identifying chemicals
of concern (including the need for substitutes) and assessment of chemicals,
including predictive risk assessment (e.g. in relation to endocrine-disrupting
chemicals and quantitative structure-activity relationships) and risk management.
Assess implications of the coming reduction in REACH registration fees on
activities that the fees are intended to support in Denmark.
Strengthen efforts at the national and international levels on compliance assurance
for high-risk chemicals in products (including imports and e-commerce), for
instance through enhanced co-operation with customs.
Assess the effectiveness of new measures to strengthen emergency response for the
most hazardous facilities (covered by the EU Seveso III Directive).
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0229.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
227
Notes
1
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur
hexafluoride.
2
Acidifying gases: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia
.
Air pollutants: non-methane volatile
organic compounds, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, particulate matter. Heavy
metals: lead, cadmium, mercury.
3
The German Environmental Survey for Children and the US National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey.
4
www.virk.dk.
In certain cases the data is collected by the EPA and added to the national PRTR,
e.g. on emissions from farms (from the Central Husbandry Register or Fertiliser and Livestock
Reporting Body), from wastewater treatment plants (from NOVANA) and from aquaculture (from
the aquaculture database). The EPA conducts a manual review of the data (MEF, 2016
[28]
).
5
6
Later extended to 2016.
The inspection programme addresses the establishment’s production and risk conditions, the
surrounding area and factors relevant for individual establishments (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2017
[55]
).
7
For each effect chain, inputs, activities, outputs and effects are listed. The effect chains were
prepared by the EPA, validated by external experts and submitted to industry consultation. The
resulting knowledge led to qualitative and, where possible, quantitative analyses of effects (Sørensen
et al., 2017
[63]
).
8
The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. The
parties are Belgium, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom (OSPAR Commission
[118]
).
9
The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. The parties
are Denmark, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia
and Sweden (HELCOM
[119]
).
10
The zone covers Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden (European
Parliament and Council of the EU, 2012
[120]
).
References
AC (n.d.),
The Arctic Council: A backgrounder (website),
https://arctic-
council.org/index.php/en/about-us
(accessed on 10 September 2018).
Amec Foster Wheeler (2017),
Analysis and
summary of Member States’ reports on the
implementation of Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving
dangerous substances,
Amec Foster Wheeler, London,
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/26c9aa63-523e-11e7-a5ca-
01aa75ed71a1
(accessed on 27 August 2018).
[82]
[55]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0230.png
228
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
AU (2018),
Emissioner fra diffuse kilder under PRTR (Emissions from diffuse sources under
PRTR),
Aarhus University, Environmental Science Institute, Aarhus,
http://envs.au.dk/videnudveksling/luft/emissioner/prtr/
(accessed on 25 September 2018).
Australia (2019),
Country submission (unpublished).
Böcker, T. and R.
Finger (2016), “European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis
of Experiences and Developments”,
Sustainability,
Vol. 8/No. 12, p. 378,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8040378.
Bourguignon, J., T. Hutchinson and R. Slama (2017),
External evaluation of the Danish Centre
for Endocrine Disrupting Substances (CeHoS),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
http://www.cend.dk/files/Report-on-external-evaluation-of-CEHOS-2008-2017.pdf
(accessed
on 5 July 2018).
Camboni, M. (2017),
Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th EAP: Sub-
study a - Substitution, including grouping of chemicals & measures to support substitution,
European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/non-
toxic/pdf/Sub-study%20a%20substitution%20grouping%20NTE%20final.pdf
(accessed on
27 September 2018).
CEFIC (2018),
Landscape of the European Chemical Industry 2018,
European Chemical
Industry Council, Brussels,
http://www.chemlandscape.cefic.org/wp-
content/uploads/combined/fullDoc.pdf
(accessed on 6 March 2019).
CEHOS (2018),
List of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals,
Danish Centre for Endocrine
Disrupting Substances, Copenhagen,
http://cend.dk/files/DK_ED-list-final_2018.pdf
(accessed on 12 December 2018).
Centre for Catalysis and Sustainable Chemistry (2017),
Research, website,
Technical University
of Denmark, Centre for Catalysis and Sustainable Chemistry, Lyngby,
http://www.csc.kemi.dtu.dk/research
(accessed on 19 September 2018).
Chemical Watch (2018),
EU-wide app to learn from Danish project problems,
Chemical Watch,
Shrewsbury,
https://chemicalwatch.com/64821/eu-wide-app-to-learn-from-danish-project-
problems
(accessed on 20 September 2018).
Chemical Watch (2017),
Consumers send 30,000 Article 33 requests via German app,
Chemical
Watch, Shrewsbury,
https://chemicalwatch.com/55806/consumers-send-30000-article-33-
requests-via-german-app
(accessed on 20 September 2018).
Choi, J. et
al. (2015), “Review of the state of the art of human biomonitoring for chemical
substances and its application to human
exposure assessment for food safety”,
EFSA
Supporting Publications,
Vol. 12/No. 2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-724.
Christensen, F. et al. (2015),
Better control of nano: Summary of the 4-year Danish initiative on
na-nomaterials,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2015/12/978-87-93352-89-6.pdf
(accessed on
1 October 2018).
[27]
[97]
[41]
[17]
[114]
[1]
[107]
[117]
[70]
[69]
[19]
[22]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0231.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
229
[105]
Danish Chemicals Forum (2015),
Open letter to the European Commission, ECHA, authorities,
NGOs and the business community,
Danish Chemicals Forum,
http://mst.dk/media/89905/outreach-up-final-kemikalieforum-brev-2015_eng.pdf
(accessed
on 28 June 2018).
Danish Consumer Council (n.d.),
Danish Consumer Council THINK Chemicals, website,
Danish
Consumer Council, Copenhagen,
https://kemi.taenk.dk/english
(accessed on
20 September 2018).
Danish industry (2017),
Erhvervslivets indspil til Miljø- og Fødevareministeriets nye fælles
kemiindsats 2018-21 (Industry input to MEF new chemical initiatives 2018-2021),
https://dfl.di.dk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Forsiden/Erhvervsindspil_A4_WEB.pdf
(accessed
on 6 July 2018).
Denmark (2018),
Country submission (unpublished).
Dupont, C., F. Pelsy and L. Oulès (2016),
Service contract for technical assistance to review the
existing Member State reporting questionnaire under Article 117 REACH, including the
evaluation and configuration of an appropriate IT tool for the reporting: FInal Report,
European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/pdf/final_report_2016.pdf
(accessed on
19 September 2018).
EC (2018),
Commission General Report on the operation of REACH and review of certain
elements: Conclusions and Actions,
European Commission, Brussels,
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:116:FIN
(accessed on
11 September 2018).
EC (2017),
“Chemical safety”, Special Eurobarometer 456,
European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instru
ments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2111
(accessed on 21 February 2018).
EC (2017),
Report on the application in the Member States of Directive 96/82/EC on the control
of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances for the period 2012-2014,
European Commission, Brussels,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1535359481102&uri=CELEX:52017DC0665
(accessed on
27 August 2018).
EC (2014),
“Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment”, Special Eurobarometer
No. 416,
European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instru
ments/SPECIAL/search/416/surveyKy/2008
(accessed on 21 February 2018).
EC (2013),
“Chemicals”, Flash Eurobarometer No. 361,
European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/flash_arch_374_361_en.htm
(accessed on 21 February 2018).
[67]
[34]
[2]
[50]
[49]
[62]
[54]
[61]
[60]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0232.png
230
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
EC (2011),
“Consumer understanding of labels and the safe use of chemicals”, Special
Eurobarometer No. 360,
European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instru
ments/SPECIAL/search/360/surveyKy/872
(accessed on 21 February 2018).
EC (n.d.),
Legislation on Plant Protection Products, website,
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/eu_rules_en
(accessed
on 6 September 2018).
ECHA (2018),
Annex XV Investigation Report: A review of the available information on lead in
shot used in terrestrial environments, in ammunition and in fishing tackle,
European
Chemicals Agency, Helsinki,
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13641/lead_ammunition_investigation_report_en.pd
f
(accessed on 12 September 2018).
ECHA (2018),
Biocidal Active Substances (database),
https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-
chemicals/biocidal-active-substances
(accessed on 17 September 2018).
ECHA (2018),
Biocidal Products (database),
https://www.echa.europa.eu/information-on-
chemicals/biocidal-products
(accessed on 13 September 2018).
ECHA (2018),
Evaluation under REACH: Progress Report 2017 - 10 years of experience,
European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2823/76886
(accessed on
5 July 2018).
ECHA (2018),
Substance Evaluation: CoRAP,
European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki,
https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/evaluation/community-rolling-action-
plan/corap-table
(accessed on 13 September 2018).
ECHA (2017),
Revised decision of the Management Board on the financial arrangements for the
transfer of a proportion of fees to the Member States,
European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki,
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/2792271/FINAL_MB_36_2017_Transfer_of_Fees_r
evised_decision_signed_at_MB48_en.pdf/235fdafe-6652-6c44-dc60-2412e504903c
(accessed on 6 September 2018).
ECHA (2015),
Danish app for consumers a big success,
European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki,
https://newsletter.echa.europa.eu/home/-/newsletter/entry/1_15_danish-app-for-consumers-a-
big-success
(accessed on 20 September 2018).
ECHA (n.d.),
Information on chemicals website,
European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki,
https://www.echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals
(accessed on 5 March 2019).
ECHA (n.d.),
Poison centres website,
European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki,
https://poisoncentres.echa.europa.eu/
(accessed on 5 July 2018).
ECHA (n.d.),
Understanding BPR website,
European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki,
https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/biocidal-products-regulation/understanding-bpr
(accessed
on 6 September 2018).
[59]
[42]
[110]
[100]
[102]
[95]
[96]
[48]
[68]
[89]
[113]
[43]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0233.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
231
[5]
EEA (2018),
“Facility level” European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, website,
http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/#/facilitylevels
(accessed on 28 June 2018).
EMA (2017),
Accidents Involving Chemicals Agents in: National Risk Profile for Denmark,
Emergency Management Agency, Birkerød,
https://brs.dk/viden/publikationer/Documents/National%20Risk%20Profile%20for%20Denm
ark.pdf
(accessed on 18 September 2018).
EMA (2017),
Chemical emergency management,
Emergency Management Agency, Birkerød,
http://brs.dk/eng/aboutus/Documents/Chemical%20emergency%20management.pdf
(accessed on 18 September 2018).
EPA (2018),
Ekstern beredskabsplan (External emergency plan), website,
Environmental
Protection Agency, Odense,
https://risikohaandbogen.mst.dk/virksomheder/beredskabsplaner/ekstern-beredskabsplan/
(accessed on 13 December 2018).
EPA (2018),
Information om farlig kemi halter ved nethandel (Lacking information on
hazardous chemicials in e-commerce), Press release,
https://mst.dk/service/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2018/maj/information-om-farlig-kemi-halter-ved-
nethandel/
(accessed on 11 January 2019).
EPA (2018),
Overtrædelser for ulovlige pesticider falder (Violations in relation to illegal
pesticides are falling), press release,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://mst.dk/service/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2018/feb/overtraedelser-for-ulovlige-pesticider-
falder
(accessed on 19 September 2018).
EPA (2018),
Slip for unødig kemi med ny hjemmeside (Get rid of unwanted chemicals with the
new website), press release,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://mst.dk/service/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2018/sep/slip-for-unoedig-kemi-med-ny-
hjemmeside
(accessed on 1 October 2018).
EPA (2017),
Bekendtgørelse af lov om kemikalier (Consolidated Act on Chemicals),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=186352
(accessed on
3 September 2018).
EPA (2015),
2015, “Denmark” in Member States Reports on the operation
of REACH (Art.117),
website,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reports_en.htm
(accessed on
6 September 2018).
EPA (2013),
Phthalate Strategy,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2013/06/978-87-93026-22-3.pdf
(accessed on
27 June 2018).
EPA (2010),
Effektlisten 2009 (2009 List of effects),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publikationer/2010/978-87-92668-19-6/pdf/978-87-92668-20-
2.pdf
(accessed on 17 September 2018).
[6]
[46]
[56]
[76]
[51]
[64]
[108]
[45]
[18]
[103]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0234.png
232
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
EPA (n.d.),
Baggrund for LOUS-projektet (LOUS project bacground) (website),
https://mst.dk/kemi/kemikalier/fokus-paa-saerlige-stoffer/listen-over-uoenskede-
stoffer/baggrund-for-lous/
(accessed on 17 September 2018).
EPA (n.d.),
Danish Nanoproduct register,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://eng.mst.dk/chemicals/chemicals-in-products/nanomaterials/the-danish-nanoproduct-
register
(accessed on 13 September 2018).
EPA (n.d.),
Database for bekæmpelsesmidler (pesticide and biocide database),
Environmental
Protection Agency, Odense,
https://mst.dk/kemi/database-for-bekaempelsesmidler
(accessed
on 4 September 2018).
EPA (n.d.),
Database over kemiske stoffer i forbrugerprodukter (Database of chemicals in
consumer products),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://mst.dk/kemi/kemikalier/fokus-paa-saerlige-produkter/database-over-kemiske-stoffer-i-
forbrugerprodukter
(accessed on 13 September 2018).
EPA (n.d.),
Endocrine disruptors and combination effects,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Odense,
https://eng.mst.dk/chemicals/chemicals-in-products/endocrine-disruptors/endocrine-
disruptors-and-combination-effects/
(accessed on 31 August 2018).
EPA (n.d.),
Liste over virksomheder med grønne regnskaber (List of companies with green
accounts),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://miljoeoplysninger.mst.dk/PrtrPublicering/Search?ignoreResultSizeLimit=&Virksomhe
dsnavn=&Aar=2017&Vejnavn=&By=&Postnr=&Kommune=&CvrNr=&PNr=&MedtagListe
punktISoegning=false&ListepunktKategori=&MedtagStofISoegning=false&Stof=&Udlednin
gTilLuft=true&Ud
(accessed on 23 August 2018).
EPA (n.d.),
Nordic and European cooperation,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://eng.mst.dk/chemicals/chemicals-in-products/the-chemical-inspection-service/nordic-
and-european-cooperation/
(accessed on 19 September 2018).
EPA (n.d.),
Om PRTR (About PRTR),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://miljoeoplysninger.mst.dk/PrtrPublicering/OmPrtr
(accessed on 23 August 2018).
EPA (n.d.),
The Advisory list for self-classification of dangerous substances, website,
https://mst.dk/service/publikationer/publikationsarkiv/2010/jun/the-advisory-list-for-self-
classification-of-dangerous-substances/
(accessed on 18 April 2019).
EPA, AU and GEUS (2017),
NOVANA Det nationale overvågningsprogram for vandmiljø og
natur 2017-21 Programbeskrivelse (NOVANA National Monitoring Program for Aquatic
Environment and Nature 2017-21 Program Description),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Odense,
http://mst.dk/overvaagning
(accessed on 27 August 2018).
European Parliament and Council of the EU (2012),
Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on
the market and use of biocidal products,
European Parliament, Strasbourg,
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/528/oj
(accessed on 14 September 2018).
[120]
[91]
[93]
[92]
[66]
[30]
[52]
[29]
[94]
[10]
[121]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0235.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
233
[3]
Eurostat (2018),
“Extra-EU trade in chemicals by Member State”, in Production and
international trade in chemicals,
Eurostat, Brussels,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Production_and_international_trade_in_chemicals#EU_is_the_largest_e
xporter_of_chemical_products
(accessed on 24 September 2018).
Eurostat (2018),
“Figures 16.8 and 16.9”, in Sustainable development in the European Union:
Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context
—
2018 edition,
Eurostat,
Brussels,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2785/401485
(accessed on 1 October 2018).
EUSBSR (2017),
“CWPharma – Clear Water from Pharmaceuticals” in Project Descriptions,
http://www.swedishepa.se/Environmental-objectives-and-cooperation/Cooperation-
internationally-and-in-the-EU/International-cooperation/Multilateral-cooperation/Baltic-Sea-
Region-EUSBSR/Policy-Area-Hazards/A-cooperation-to-reduce-pharmaceuticals-in-the-Balt
(accessed on 15 June 2018).
Fråne, A. et
al. (2018), “PVC waste treatment in the Nordic countries”,
http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2019-501.
Frederiksen, H. et
al. (2014), “Human urinary excretion of non-persistent
environmental
chemicals: an overview of Danish data collected between 2006 and 2012”,
Reproduction,
Vol. 147/No. 4, pp. 555-65,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/REP-13-0522.
French Ministry for Sustainable Development (2009),
Explosion in a fireworks storage facility:
3 November 2004. Kolding, Denmark,
Ministry for Sustainable Development, Paris,
https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/wp-
content/files_mf/FD_28480_Kolding_2004_ang.pdf
(accessed on 29 June 2018).
GEUS (2019),
Grundvandsovervågning 1989-2017, (Groundwater monitoring 1989-2017),
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen,
https://www.geus.dk/media/20715/grundvand_1989-2017.pdf
(accessed on 6 March 2019).
Government of Denmark (2013),
Agreement on new chemicals initiative 2014-2017,
Government of Denmark, Copenhagen,
http://eng.mst.dk/media/mst/Attachments/KemikalieaftaleOktober2013_engelskversion.pdf
(accessed on 6 July 2018).
Government of Denmark (2010),
Chemicals Action Plan 2010–2013: Safety in Denmark
–
international cooperation,
Government of Denmark, Copenhagen,
http://eng.mst.dk/media/mst/69076/chemicals_action_plan_2010-2013.pdf
(accessed on
6 July 2018).
Government of Denmark (2005),
Styr på kemikalier. Regeringens handlingsplan for en styrket
kemikalieindsats 2006-2009 (Chemicals management - Government action plan for
strenghthening chemicals initiatives 2006-2009),
Government of Denmark, Copenhagen,
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publikationer/2005/87-7614-849-1/pdf/87-7614-850-5.pdf
(accessed on 6 July 2018).
[58]
[11]
[111]
[20]
[7]
[24]
[33]
[32]
[31]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0236.png
234
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
Government of Denmark and the Danish
Peoples’ Party (2009),
Agreement on Green Growth,
Government of Denmark, Copenhagen,
https://eng.mst.dk/media/mst/69152/Danish%20Agreement%20on%20Green%20Growth_30
0909.pdf
(accessed on 28 August 2018).
Government of Denmark et al. (2017),
Political Agreement on new joint chemicals initiatives
2018-21,
Government of Denmark, Copenhagen,
http://mst.dk/media/143466/kemiindsats-
engelsk.pdf
(accessed on 6 July 2018).
Government of Denmark et al. (2011),
A strategy for working environment efforts up to 2020,
Government of Denmark, Copenhagen,
http://engelsk.arbejdstilsynet.dk/~/media/AT/at/12-
English/Rapporter/2020%20engelskpdf.pdf
(accessed on 18 September 2018).
Governments of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands (2011),
Kingdom of Denmark:
Strategy for the Arctic 2011– 2020,
Government of Denmark, Copenhagen,
http://library.arcticportal.org/1890/1/DENMARK.pdf
(accessed on 10 September 2018).
HBM4EU (n.d.),
National hubs. Denmark, website,
https://www.hbm4eu.eu/about-
hbm4eu/national-hubs/
(accessed on 22 August 2018).
HELCOM (2018),
Declaration of the Ministers of the Environment of the Baltic Coastal
Countries, and the EU Environment Commissioner, HELCOM Brussels Declaration 2018,
HELCOM Secretariat, Helsinki,
http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/HELCOM%20Brussels%20Min
isterial%20Declaration.pdf
(accessed on 11 February 2019).
HELCOM (2015),
HELCOM expert network on Hazardous Substances Terms of Reference,
HELCOM Secretariat, Helsinki,
http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20EN%20Hazardous%20substances%20Term
s%20of%20Reference%202015-2018.pdf
(accessed on 11 September 2018).
HELCOM (n.d.),
About us,
http://www.helcom.fi/about-us
(accessed on 11 September 2018).
HELCOM (n.d.),
Baltic Sea Action Plan, website,
http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan
(accessed on 11 September 2018).
Holtze, M., H. Kühl and M. Hyldebrandt-Larsen (2018),
Evaluering af den differentierede
pesticidafgift (Evaluation of the differentiated pesticide tax),
Environmental Protection
Agency, Odense,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2018/05/978-87-93710-28-3.pdf
(accessed on 10 July 2018).
Jensen, J. and J. Bak (2018),
Zink og kobber i vandmiljøet. Kilder, forekomst og den
miljømæssige betydning (Zinc and copper in the water environment. Sources, occurence and
the environmental importance),
Aarhus University, National Center for Environnment and
Energy, Aarhus,
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR263.pdf
(accessed on 11 December 2018).
Kemi i Kredsløb (2018),
Kemi i Kredsløb, website,
http://eng.kemiikredsloeb.com
(accessed on
19 September 2018).
[36]
[9]
[35]
[84]
[15]
[88]
[87]
[119]
[86]
[40]
[25]
[115]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0237.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
235
[16]
Knudsen, L. and P. Hansen (2017),
Workshop Report HBM4EU,
Nordic Council of Ministers,
Copenhagen,
http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/NA2017-914.
Kristiansen, A. et al. (2018),
Classification and Labelling of Construction Products: Nordic CLP
Project 2016–2017,
Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen,
http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2017-565.
Krysiak-Baltyn, K. et al. (2010),
“Country-specific
chemical signatures of persistent
environmental compounds in breast milk”,
International Journal of Andrology, Vol. 33, No.
2, pp. 270-78,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2009.00996.x.
Larsen, P. et al. (2017),
Børn og ufødte børns samlede udsaettelse for udvalgte kemiske stoffer
(Overall exposure of children and unborn children to selected chemicals),
Environmental
Protection Agency, Odense,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2017/04/978-87-
93529-85-4.pdf
(accessed on 9 July 2018).
LIFE AskREACH (2018),
Enabling REACH consumer information rights on chemicals in
articles by IT-tools,
LIFE Programme, Brussels,
https://www.askreach.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/AskREACH-leaflet.pdf
(accessed on 11 December 2018).
Løkkegaard, H. et al. (2017),
Partnerskab om mikroplast i spildevand 2017 (Partnership on
microplastics in wastewater),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
http://mst.dk/media/143341/partnerskab-om-mikroplast-i-spildevand-2017.pdf
(accessed on
3 May 2018).
ME (2013), “Protect water, nature and human health: Pesticides strategy 2013-2015”,
http://eng.mst.dk/media/mst/69655/MST_spr%C3%B8jtemiddelstrategi_uk_web_let.pdf
(accessed on 7 March 2018).
MEF (2019),
Tillægsaftaletekst til Aftale om Pesticidstrategi 2017-2021 (Text of the
supplementary agreement to the Agreement on Pesticide Strategy 2017-2021),
Ministry of
Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
https://www.danva.dk/media/5136/tillaegsaftale-til-
pesticidstrategien.pdf
(accessed on 14 January 2019).
MEF (2017), “Danish National Action Plan on Pesticides 2017-2021:
Facts, caution and
consideration”,
https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_sup_nap_denmark-rev_en.pdf
(accessed on 9 July 2018).
MEF (2017),
Bekendtgørelse af lov om miljøbeskyttelse (Consolidated Environmental Protection
Act),
Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=192058#id5fde50ec-3f41-47ac-befe-
0bc791d88726
(accessed on 3 September 2018).
MEF (2017), “Danish National Actionplan on Pesticides 2017
-2021 Facts, caution and
consideration”,
https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_sup_nap_denmark-rev_en.pdf
(accessed on 7 March 2018).
[53]
[72]
[104]
[71]
[12]
[37]
[13]
[8]
[109]
[38]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0238.png
236
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
MEF (2016),
Bekendtgørelse om kontrol med risikoen for større uheld med farlige stoffer
(Executive order on the control of risks of major accident with dangerous substances),
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=179901
(accessed on
4 September 2018).
MEF (2016),
Denmark: Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers Implementation
Report,
Ministry of Environment and Food, Copenhagen,
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/prtr/PRTR_NIRs/PRTR_NIRs_2017/DK_3_ye
ar_PRTR_reporting_English_2016_with_T_C.docx
(accessed on 4 July 2018).
MEF (n.d.),
The Danish Eco-Innovation Program (website),
https://eng.ecoinnovation.dk/the-
danish-eco-innovation-program/
(accessed on 19 September 2018).
MEF (n.d.),
The Department website,
https://en.mfvm.dk/the-ministry/the-department/
(accessed
on 4 September 2018).
Mørck, T. et
al. (2015), “The Danish contribution to the European DEMOCOPHES project: A
description of cadmium, cotinine and mercury levels in Danish mother-child pairs and the
perspectives of supplementary sampling and measurements”,
Environmental Research,
Vol. 141, pp. 96-105,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.07.028.
Mørck, T. et
al. (2015), “PFAS concentrations in plasma samples from Danish school children
and their mothers”,
Chemosphere,
Vol. 129, pp. 203-209,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.07.018.
Mouritsen, A. et
al. (2010), “Hypothesis: exposure to endocrine-disrupting
chemicals may
interfere with timing of puberty”,
International Journal of Andrology,
Vol. 33/No. 2, pp. 346-
359,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2010.01051.x.
NCM (2018),
Programme for Nordic Co-operation on the Environment and Climate 2019-2024,
Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen,
http://norden.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1268544/FULLTEXT01.pdf
(accessed on 11 December 2018).
NFI (n.d.),
Danish (Q)SAR Database,
Technical University of Denmark, National Food Institute,
Lyngby,
http://qsar.food.dtu.dk/
(accessed on 4 July 2018).
Norden (n.d.),
Formal Nordic Co-operation website,
Nordic Council of Ministers and Nordic
Council, Copenhagen,
http://www.norden.org/en/om-samarbejdet-1/formal-nordic-co-
operation
(accessed on 10 September 2018).
Norden (n.d.),
Nordic Chemical Group,
Nordic Council of Ministers and Nordic Council,
Copenhagen,
https://www.norden.org/en/information/about-nordic-chemical-group-nkg
(accessed on 10 September 2018).
Northern zone (2018),
Guidance document on work-sharing in the Northern zone in the
authorization of plant protection products.,
https://mst.dk/media/149814/northern-zone-
guidance-document-version-7-may-2018.pdf
(accessed on 14 September 2018).
[47]
[28]
[116]
[44]
[14]
[21]
[73]
[81]
[99]
[79]
[80]
[101]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0239.png
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
237
[98]
OECD (2019),
OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Australia 2019,
OECD
Environmental Performance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264310452-en.
OECD (2014), “Global Pollutant Release and Transfer Register: Proposal for a Harmonised List
of Pollutants”,
Series on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers, No. 16,
ENV/JM/MONO(2014)32,
OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2014)
33&doclanguage=en.
OECD (2010),
Workshop report on OECD countries activities regarding testing, assessment and
management of endocrine disrupters,
OECD, Paris,
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2010)
3&doclanguage=en
(accessed on 31 August 2018).
OECD (n.d.),
“Denmark” in: Portal on Per and Poly Fluorinated Chemicals, website,
http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/portal-perfluorinated-
chemicals/countryinformation/denmark.htm
(accessed on 13 February 2019).
Ørum, J. and M. Holtze (2017),
Bekaempelsesmiddel: statistik 2016 (Pesticides and biocides:
statistics 2016),
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2017/11/978-87-93614-41-3.pdf
(accessed on
20 August 2018).
OSPAR Commission (n.d.),
OSPAR Convention (website),
https://www.ospar.org/convention
(accessed on 11 September 2018).
OSPAR Hazardous Substances & Eutrophication Committee (2018),
Programme of work for
HASEC 2018/19,
OSPAR Commission, London,
https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/33251/annex15_work_programme_hasec_2018_19.do
cx
(accessed on 11 September 2018).
Pedersen, A. (2016),
Pesticide Tax in Denmark,
Aarhus University, National Center for
Environment and Energy, Aarhus,
https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/504788d7-
db01-4dd8-bece-ee7b9e63979e/DK%20Pesticide%20Tax%20final.pdf
(accessed on
28 August 2018).
Prime Minister’s
Office (n.d.),
The unity of the Realm, website,
http://www.stm.dk/_a_2752.html
(accessed on 11 September 2018).
Rass-Masson, N., M. Blainey and F. Pelsy (2010),
Report on penalties applicable for
infringement of the provisions of the REACH Regulation in the Member States: Final Report,
European Commission, Brussels,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/pdf/report_reach_penalties.pdf
(accessed on
16 February 2018).
Saetterstrøm, B., J. Olsen and J. Johansen (2014),
“Cost-of-illness
of patients with contact
dermatitis in Denmark”,
Contact Dermatitis,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cod.12231.
[26]
[65]
[23]
[4]
[118]
[85]
[39]
[83]
[57]
[75]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0240.png
238
II.5. CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT
SD (2018),
Mortality rate attributed to unintentional poisoning, website,
Statistics Denmark,
Copenhagen,
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/Sdg/03-sundhed-og-trivsel/delmaal-
09/indikator-3#istart
(accessed on 20 December 2018).
Sørensen, M. et al. (2017),
Effect Assessment of the Chemicals Initiatives 2014-2017,
Environmental Protection Agency, Odense,
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2017/11/978-87-93614-34-5.pdf
(accessed on
9 July 2018).
Trasande, L. et al. (2016),
“Burden of disease and costs of exposure to endocrine disrupting
chemicals in the European Union: an updated analysis”,
Andrology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 565-
72,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/andr.12178.
UN Environment (2018),
“Denmark” in Your Contributions,
UN Environment, Nairobi,
https://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment/funding/why-invest-us/your-
contributions
(accessed on 26 September 2018).
UN Environment/IPCP (2017),
Overview Report I: Worldwide initiatives to identify endocrine
disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and potential EDCs,
UN Environment, Nairobi,
http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25633/EDC_report1.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y
(accessed on 10 July 2018).
Urho, N. et
al. (2019), “International Environmental Governance: Accomplishments and Way
Forward”,
http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2019:518.
WEA (n.d.),
Notify substances and materials in the Product Registry, website,
http://engelsk.arbejdstilsynet.dk/en/produktregistret
(accessed on 4 September 2018).
[112]
[63]
[74]
[77]
[106]
[78]
[90]
OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: DENMARK 2019 © OECD 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and
environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to
help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the
information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting
where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good
practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and
research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and
standards agreed by its members.
OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
ISBN 978-92-64-56803-7 – 2019
 MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 136: OECD’s ev aluering af dansk m iljøpolitik
2106904_0242.png
OECD Environmental Performance Reviews
DENMARK
Denmark’s energy and carbon intensities are among the lowest in the OECD area. Green taxation as a share
of GDP is the highest in the OECD, and the country is a leader in eco-innovation. Denmark has also achieved
impressive results in the material recovery of most waste streams and reached a political agreement to move
to a circular economy. It is an international standard setter for chemical risk assessment. However, municipal
waste generation remains the highest in the OECD area. Many bodies of water do not reach good ecological
status. Levels of exposure to fine particles remain above international standards. Terrestrial biodiversity suffers
from the lack of well-connected protected areas. Further steps will need to be taken to achieve the stated goal
of a climate neutral economy by 2050.
This is the third Environmental Performance Review of Denmark. It evaluates progress towards sustainable
development and green growth, with special features on waste, materials management and the circular
economy and chemicals management.
Consult this publication on line at
https://doi.org/10.1787/1eeec492-en.
This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.
Visit
www.oecd-ilibrary.org
for more information.
ISBN 978-92-64-56803-7
2019
9HSTCQE*fgiadh+