Danish outdoor groups are demanding that the country’s massive forest expansion also delivers public access, not just climate credits. With 250,000 hectares of new forest planned by 2040, the battle over who gets to use it is heating up.
Denmark is planting forests at a pace not seen in generations. The official goal is to reach 25 percent forest cover by 2040, adding roughly 250,000 hectares of new woodland to a landscape already squeezed by intensive farming, wind turbines, and housing demand. On paper, everyone loves more trees. In practice, the question of who gets to walk under them is turning into a full blown argument.
Friluftsrådet, Denmark’s national outdoor council, published a sharp opinion piece in late April arguing that forest expansion is a public investment and should come with public access. The group points to a Voxmeter survey showing that nine out of ten Danes believe good access to forests is important. Four out of five want at least half of the new forest to be publicly owned. Yet much of the planting is happening on private land, funded by public grants, with limited guarantees that you or I will ever be able to walk through it.
The Economics Are Clear
The economic case for accessible forests is surprisingly solid. According to De Økonomiske Råd, the recreational value of state owned forest with good access is more than ten times higher than privately planted forest with restricted entry. Even though public forest costs more to establish, the social benefits far outweigh the extra expense. Denmark is spending over 43 billion kroner on the Green Tripartite climate deal. If the new nature created by that money remains off limits, the return on investment collapses.
I have lived here long enough to know that Danes take their outdoor access seriously. This is a country where forests like Rold Skov are woven into national identity. There are roughly 133 million nature visits in Denmark each year, 90 million of them to forests. That is not a niche hobby. It is how people stay sane.
The Health Argument
Public health researchers have documented clear links between forest access and mental well being. Studies from Statens Institut for Folkesundhed show that time in nature reduces stress, depression, and lifestyle disease. After COVID, municipalities started writing green prescriptions and funding outdoor health programs. But if the new forests are far from cities or lack trails and transit links, those health benefits evaporate.
The debate is sharpest around what are called nature national parks. Since 2021, the government has rolled out 15 such parks, many with large grazing animals and fencing that local residents say restricts movement. At places like Fussingø and Gribskov, horse riders and mountain bikers have protested. The environmental ministry insists fences and rewilding are necessary for biodiversity. Outdoor groups counter that zoning and planning can balance nature protection with recreation, if anyone bothers to try.
Private Land, Public Money
A big chunk of new forest is being planted by private landowners who receive state subsidies. Landbrugsstyrelsen administers grants that come with some access requirements, but enforcement is patchy. Meanwhile, water utilities are co financing forest projects to protect groundwater, and private companies are planting trees to earn climate credits. These projects often sit far from population centers with minimal trails or facilities.
Friluftsrådet argues that any project receiving public funds should guarantee public access. That means trails, parking, signage, and transit. It also means consulting local users early, not tacking on a gravel path as an afterthought. Municipalities support the idea in principle but complain that grant schemes cover setup costs, not the long term expense of maintaining trails and facilities.
Farmers Push Back
Landowners and farming groups are less enthusiastic. Landbrug & Fødevarer has repeatedly warned that state purchases of farmland for forest threaten food production and rural jobs. They prefer voluntary schemes and targeting marginal land, not productive fields. Local landowners worry about property rights and increased foot traffic near their homes.
The tension is not going away. Denmark has committed under EU climate rules to increase carbon uptake through land use. The LULUCF regulation and the new nature restoration law both push member states toward more forest and wetland. That pressure will keep the state buying land and planting trees, whether farmers like it or not.
A Missed Opportunity
I have walked through enough Danish forests to know that good design makes all the difference. Well planned trails spread out visitor pressure. Zoning lets sensitive areas rest while active zones handle bikes and dogs. Other countries manage it. Germany and the Netherlands have urban forest belts that combine high use with strong biodiversity.
Denmark could do the same, but only if access is built into forest projects from day one, not retrofitted later when the budget is gone. Friluftsrådet is right to frame this as a public investment question. If we are spending billions on new nature, the public should be able to use it. Otherwise, forest expansion becomes a subsidy for private landowners and a fig leaf for climate inaction, delivering neither the carbon cuts nor the health gains that justify the cost.
Sources and References
