A Danish agricultural organization has backed biochar as a climate tool but warned against the government’s plan to invest 10 billion kroner in large industrial plants, arguing instead for small-scale, farm-based production using clean feedstocks.
The debate over biochar has landed in Danish politics with a clarity that’s been missing from most climate discussions. Frie Bønder – Levende Land, a group representing small-scale farmers, issued a statement that cuts through the hype. Yes to biochar, they say, but not the way the government wants to do it.
The government inherited a roadmap from its predecessor that commits 10 billion kroner from 2027 to support biochar production. That’s taxpayer money flowing toward what critics call oversized industrial facilities. Frie Bønder – Levende Land argues this approach contradicts the government’s own promises to support smaller farms.
What Biochar Actually Is
Biochar is charcoal made from biomass through a process called pyrolysis. You heat organic material with limited oxygen. What you get is a carbon-rich substance that can be added to soil. It stores carbon, potentially for centuries, and can improve soil health if done correctly.
The key phrase is “if done correctly.” Bjarne Laustsen, a project leader working on biochar in East Africa, told the press that the technology is fully developed and tested internationally. He emphasized that biochar strengthens soil microbiology and biodiversity while increasing yields. But he also warned that it must use clean, appropriate feedstocks, not fractions of manure or sewage sludge.
Denmark’s climate law requires a 70 percent CO2 reduction by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. That target has created political interest in negative emissions technologies. Biochar is one of several tools being considered alongside afforestation and carbon capture.
The EU is developing a Carbon Removal Certification Framework that will likely include biochar. Any Danish support scheme will need to align with those rules. That framework is still being negotiated, with environmental groups pushing for strict safeguards against biomass sourcing that harms forests or food production.
The Case for Small Scale
Ole Kjærulff Davidsen, chairman of Frie Bønder – Levende Land, didn’t mince words. He called the plan to hand 10 billion kroner to large industry at the expense of agriculture “frankly reprehensible.” He argued that value creation should happen within farming itself.
The organization supports mobile, small-scale pyrolysis units that can be operated at farm level or in local cooperatives. Laustsen pointed out that such units are already mass-produced in China. Denmark could start its own production and create jobs in rural areas. Small units require less transport of materials back and forth. That cuts both costs and emissions.
The process also produces surplus energy in the form of gas that can be used locally. This is not an energy-intensive technology when done at the right scale. It generates more energy than it consumes.
Clean Feedstocks and Local Control
The argument hinges on what you burn and where you do it. Using agricultural residues like straw or clean wood waste makes sense. Using manure fractions or industrial sludge raises contamination concerns. Neighbors near some biochar facilities have reported health problems, though the organization disputes that properly made biochar harms soil health.
Davidsen emphasized that biochar should undergo further processing before soil application. Microorganisms and nutrients need to be added first. This step can be done more cheaply and effectively at farm level than in distant industrial plants.
Danish farmland is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. Supporting large industrial biochar production would accelerate that trend. Small-scale systems keep control and revenue in the hands of farmers.
Why the Skepticism Matters
I’ve watched Denmark pursue grand climate projects before. The rhetoric around biomass for district heating turned out to mask serious sustainability problems with imported wood pellets. When the government talks about pouring billions into a technology, it’s worth asking who benefits.
The biochar debate mirrors wider tensions in Danish agriculture. On one side, large operations and industrial partners push for scale and efficiency. On the other, small farmers and environmental groups argue for distributed systems that build soil health and rural resilience. The government’s rhetoric favors the latter. Its budget decisions often favor the former.
Biochar is not a silver bullet. It’s one tool among many for building carbon in soil and reducing emissions. It works best when integrated into regenerative farming systems that also reduce synthetic inputs, protect biodiversity, and keep farmland productive.
What “Done Right” Means
Frie Bønder – Levende Land sees biochar as part of agroecological production. They want transparency about carbon accounting and strict limits on feedstocks. They want farmers, not energy conglomerates, to control the process and capture the economic benefit.
Davidsen closed his statement with a pointed comment about politicians learning from “common smallholder sense.” That’s a dig at top-down planning. It’s also a reminder that Denmark’s rural areas have practical knowledge that gets ignored in Copenhagen ministries.
The government says it wants dialogue. Frie Bønder – Levende Land says they’re ready for one. The question is whether ministers will listen or simply write the checks to whichever companies promise the biggest numbers.
Biochar done right could strengthen Danish soils and sequester carbon without creating new environmental problems. Biochar done wrong becomes another subsidy for industrial agriculture wrapped in green language. The difference is in the details, and those details are worth fighting over.
Sources and References
Ritzau: Ja til biochar – men det skal gøres rigtigt
The Danish Dream: Danish farmland prices soar amid investor rush
The Danish Dream: Denmark converts farmland to wetlands for climate
The Danish Dream: Denmark tests vertical solar panels on farmland
