A Danish law professor who has been paid by farming lobby groups has criticized the new fertilizer law in the media without disclosing those payments, prompting corrections from DR and Berlingske.
Frederik Waage, professor of constitutional and administrative law at the University of Southern Denmark, has spoken sharply against the fertilizer law in several outlets this week. Information reported on September 4 that he has received payment from farming organizations on several occasions.
Among those assignments was a legal opinion on the coming nitrogen regulation, written last year for the interest group Bæredygtigt Landbrug. The trade magazine Journalisten described the connection on Friday. Both DR and Berlingske have since published corrections.
In Berlingske on Tuesday, Waage said the law reminded him of the corona period. The same day he spoke at a demonstration against the law on Christiansborg Slotsplads, telling farmers that property rights and the constitution also apply in the fields.
On Thursday, DR published an article headlined that farmers accuse politicians of a possible constitutional breach, with experts split. Waage said there was no doubt the law could conflict with, or violate, property rights. Per DR, the payments should have been stated when the article was published, and the broadcaster apologized.
No disclosure once the job is done
Waage confirmed to Information that he did not tell journalists at DR or Berlingske about the payments. In his view, a memo written for Bæredygtigt Landbrug a year ago does not require him to declare a tie every time he comments on agriculture.
He declined to say how much he received. He said his fee typically matches the rate of a first-year lawyer at a large firm, around 2,000 kroner per hour, and that a legal opinion takes 15 to 20 hours. That corresponds to 30,000 to 40,000 kroner per memo.
Waage said he has also done paid work for De Danske Svineproducenter and Mejeriforeningen, as well as for the Danish Tax Agency, pharmaceutical companies and others. He said he does declare the connection when the news concerns the memo itself, as happened in June last year in Landbrugsavisen.
Jens Elo Rytter, professor of constitutional law at the University of Copenhagen, told Information that stricter environmental rules are clearly not expropriation. He pointed to strong Supreme Court practice holding that polluters must accept being told to stop, without compensation.
Rytter did not rule out that individual farmers could be hit so hard that expropriation applies. He said the law allows courts to award compensation in such cases, so it can never amount to a constitutional breach. He declined to comment on Waage’s paid work and said he has received no payment from parties in the case.
Waage said he agrees that the starting point is not expropriation, and that the framing of the coverage set the two experts against each other. He added that nobody yet knows how many farmers will be affected severely enough for expropriation to arise.
