Denmark’s push to triple forest cover by 2100 has sparked a sharp debate over who gets to use the new trees—and whether public money should guarantee public access.
Friluftsrådet, Denmark’s national outdoor recreation council, has thrown down the gauntlet. In a recent opinion piece published on Friluftsrådet, the group argues that afforestation is not a private project. It is a societal investment. And if Danes are footing the bill, they should be able to walk, cycle, and breathe in the results.
The timing matters. Denmark is legally committed to increasing forest cover from roughly 15 percent today to 25 percent by 2100. That means planting trees on an additional 250,000 hectares. The Nature and Biodiversity Package alone earmarks over 43 billion kroner for green initiatives, including new forests. But as the money flows, a question lingers: whose forest is this, anyway?
Private Forests, Public Limits
Right now, most Danish forest is privately owned. And while state forests offer broad access—24 hours a day on foot, extended hours for cyclists—private forests are far more restrictive. You can walk marked paths between 6 a.m. and sunset. That is it. No night hikes. No off-trail wandering. No guarantee of mountain bike trails or accessible paths for people with disabilities.
Friluftsrådet is not buying it. According to a Voxmeter survey they commissioned, nine out of ten Danes believe everyone should have good access to forests. Four out of five want at least half of the new 250,000 hectares to be publicly owned. The message is clear: Danes want forests they can actually use.
The Economics of Access
The council is not just making a feel-good argument. They cite analysis from De Økonomiske Råd showing that the recreational value of state-owned forests is more than ten times higher than that of private forests. Yes, state afforestation costs more up front. But when you factor in public health, mental well-being, and sheer usage, the social return dwarfs the extra expense.
I have lived in Denmark long enough to see how much forests like Hareskoven, Gribskov, and Rold Skov shape everyday life here. They are not weekend luxuries. They are mental health infrastructure. Yet Copenhagen and Aarhus remain conspicuously short on nearby woodland. Land prices near cities are sky-high, so most new state forests end up in rural peripheries where few people live.
The Biodiversity Catch
Meanwhile, nature protection is pulling in the opposite direction. Denmark’s new nature national parks and rewilding zones impose stricter limits on access to protect vulnerable species and ecosystems. Some trails have been closed. Mountain bikers and horse riders face new restrictions. The intent is noble. The friction is real.
Friluftsrådet acknowledges the tension but insists the solution is not less access. It is better planning. Zone forests intelligently. Put high-traffic recreation near cities. Reserve sensitive areas for biodiversity. Compensate landowners who open their land to the public. But do not lock people out in the name of nature.
A Question of Fairness
Access to nature in Denmark is unequal. Lower-income families and ethnic minorities live farther from green spaces and visit them less often. If the new forests are planted far from cities and kept private, that gap will widen. Friluftsrådet argues that afforestation should be directed toward “green-poor” neighborhoods. That means using public health data, not just land prices, to decide where trees go.
There is precedent for this. Some municipalities are already building climate forests near urban centers with explicit goals around public health and social integration. Green prescriptions—nature-based therapy for stress and chronic illness—are gaining traction in the healthcare system. But these programs need accessible forests to work.
The Landowner Pushback
Not everyone is on board. Danish agricultural organizations warn that large-scale afforestation threatens food production and property rights. They want voluntary, market-driven tree planting, not top-down mandates. And private forest owners, according to Dansk Skovforening, worry that increased public access will damage ecosystems and discourage afforestation altogether.
Friluftsrådet dismisses this as a narrow reading of a much bigger task. Denmark needs forests for climate, water protection, biodiversity, and public health. Subsidies should reflect those multiple goals. And when public money changes hands, public access should follow.
The debate boils down to this: is afforestation a climate accounting exercise, or is it nation-building? If it is the latter, Danes deserve forests they can walk into without checking a map for property lines.
Sources and References
Friluftsrådet: Skovrejsning er en samfundsinvestering – derfor
