Denmark made headlines in 2024 as the first country to implement a carbon tax on livestock emissions. The country's ambitious 70% emissions reduction target by 2030 includes agricultural reductions of 55-65%. But what makes Denmark's tripartite agreement truly remarkable isn't the tax itself—it's the 60% tax deduction corresponding to mitigation potential. This signals that Denmark's approach isn't anti-livestock, but rather pro-innovation, explicitly avoiding targets on livestock numbers while incentivizing farmers to adopt technologies and practices that can reduce emissions by up to 40%.

The impact of Denmark's inclusive policy-making approach through the tripartite agreement cannot be understated. Ministers, farmer representatives, nature organizations, labor unions, and industry came together to craft comprehensive solutions extending far beyond livestock taxation—encompassing voluntary land reform with full compensation, significant afforestation efforts, biodiversity enhancement, and water protection.

Today we are joined by Tobias Gräs, Head of Policy at the Danish Agriculture and Food Council, where he coordinates climate action through the World Farmers' Organization and represents Danish farmers and major European cooperative businesses in Brussels. Fresh from COP 30 in Belém, Brazil, Gräs brings insights from Denmark's pioneering policy implementation and an ambitious $50 million Green Climate Fund project transforming dairy production in Kenya's Lake Victoria region.

Danish farming implements this policy through a combination of immediate action and long-term planning. On January 1st, 2025, the government introduced a subsidy scheme for feed additives for cows alongside a voluntary sign-up requirement for approximately 90-95% of conventional producers, with regulatory follow-up for non-compliance. This rapid deployment from limited trials to half a million livestock revealed practical challenges—insufficient feed additive diversity on the market and some implementation complications—providing valuable real-world lessons for global policy makers.

The Tunza GCF project demonstrates how Denmark's cooperative model can drive change across vastly different contexts. Partnering with FAO as the accredited entity to the Green Climate Fund, this five-year initiative received board approval in February 2025 for $50 million in funding—$30 million from the Green Climate Fund, $14 million from the Government of Kenya, and $6 million from the Kingdom of Denmark. An additional $10 million loan component from Kenyan banks (Equity Bank and Cooperative Bank) provides cooperatives with capital to invest in new equipment and practices.

The project targets 130 agricultural cooperatives representing 80,000 farmers across six value chains in Kenya's Lake Victoria region: dairy, coffee, tea, poultry, African leafy vegetables, and fruit trees. While Danish dairy cows operate in intensive, technologically advanced systems, Kenyan dairy cows in the Lake Victoria region average just three liters per day—with potential to reach seven liters through improved feed and management practices. The project aims to achieve 1.2 million tons of greenhouse gas emission savings by 2030 and 4.3 million tons by 2035.

The project's success relies on the strategic positioning of farmer-owned cooperatives. These organizations sit above and below farmers simultaneously—owned by members yet with management authority to implement change while returning value through dividends. A key innovation is the "agri-pooler" system: agricultural advisors from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Kenya who travel to the Lake Victoria region providing technical assistance to cooperatives on climate-efficient practices across value chains.

The Tunza project deliberately focuses resources on farmers seeking to grow or improve

Send us a text

Animal Health as a Climate and Food Security Solution

In this episode of the Ash Cloud podcast, we explore an often-overlooked opportunity in the fight against climate change with Dr. Nick Wheelhouse, Professor of Comparative Infectious Disease at Edinburgh Napier University and co-lead of the Global Research Alliance Animal Health and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity Network.

Dr. Wheelhouse brings unique expertise spanning both veterinary research and animal science. After completing his BSc in Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition at Newcastle University and PhD in Animal Science at the University of Aberdeen, he worked as a Senior Postdoctoral Scientist at the Moredun Research Institute before joining Edinburgh Napier University. His research focuses on bacterial pathogens affecting reproduction—particularly Chlamydia, Brucella, Coxiella burnetii, and Listeria—in both humans and livestock, with extensive work on disease surveillance across Africa.

The central thesis challenges conventional thinking: while sick animals are universally recognized as unproductive, the climate implications remain surprisingly underexplored. Wheelhouse reveals that approximately 20% of global animal production is lost due to health issues, with higher burdens in the Global South. This represents not just wasted resources and food insecurity, but significant greenhouse gas emissions as animals continue producing emissions while failing to produce food.

The conversation explores specific case studies, including ongoing work with Kenyan dairy farmers where 53% of animals show subclinical mastitis. For farmers earning approximately $70 per cow per year, the $10 treatment cost represents a substantial investment. Yet through basic hygiene and management interventions rather than expensive pharmaceutical solutions, the project aims to demonstrate tangible productivity improvements that make economic sense while delivering environmental co-benefits.

Throughout the discussion, Wheelhouse unpacks the complexity of animal health as a climate solution. The counterintuitive reality is that healthier, more productive animals do produce more emissions, but they generate far more food per unit of emission. The goal is to close the productivity gap caused by disease, thereby reducing the emissions intensity of animal-source foods rather than absolute emissions. In Tanzania, research on abortion in livestock suggested potential emissions reductions of 8% in cattle and 16% in small ruminants, while hundreds of thousands could benefit from the additional food that would otherwise be lost.

Wheelhouse is candid about the challenges: the complexity of measuring disease impacts, lack of robust data collection systems in many regions, and difficulty quantifying climate benefits from health interventions. These have kept animal health as a "slow burner" in climate discussions. However, he notes an encouraging shift following FAO reports that elevated the topic among international partners and potential investors.

The discussion touches on broader implications, including research from Tanzania showing that increased livestock disease correlated with decreased school attendance for girls—demonstrating how animal health impacts cascade through communities beyond immediate productivity losses.

Looking forward, Wheelhouse emphasizes disease prioritization must account for local contexts, since farming systems and solutions vary dramatically across regions. He advocates for starting with achievable interventions that farmers can see working among their peers, rather than waiting for perfect technological solutions. The key is empowering farmers with tools delivering tangible results worthy of their effort and investment.

Ultimately, this conversation makes a compelling case for why animal health

Send us a text

The cost living is an increasing global challenge. Food inflation in 2023 was 13.6%, however food prices increased by up to 30% in many low income countries. Currently 60-80% of voters consider food price as a decisive factor in their choice of candidate and across 60% of countries food costs represent more than 25% of the CPI basket.

Right now, 670 million people—8.2% of our global population—are going hungry. By 2030, projections show that 300 million people in Africa alone could face food insecurity. But here's the paradox: we have the technology, the knowledge, and the resources to address this crisis. So what's holding us back?

Food insecurity is never just about hunger. Throughout history, the impacts of food crises have freuquently included geopolitical instability, increased migration and conflcit.

Today we are joined by Maximo Torero, Chief Economist at FAO, where he is working to build resilient, inclusive, and sustainable agrifood systems. Previously Maximo served as served as Executive Director at the World Bank Group.

Send us a text