Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2023-24
MOF Alm.del Bilag 79
Offentligt
Annex 2. Comments from stakeholders to the first draft of the
international evaluation report
Content
1.
Danish Agriculture and Food Council (Landbrug & Fødevarer)
– pp. 2-6
2.
The Danish society for Nature Conservation (Danmarks Naturfredningsforening)
– pp. 7-11
3.
Bæredygtigt Landbrug
– pp. 12-15
4.
Green Transition Denmark (Rådet for Grøn Omstilling)
– pp. 16-19
5.
SEGES Innovation
– pp. 20-25
6.
Limfjordsrådet
– p. 26
7.
Ocean Institute (Tænketanken Hav)
– pp. 27-28
8.
Danish Sports Fishing Association (Danmarks Sportsfiskerforbund)
– pp. 29-33
9.
Fair Spildevand
– pp. 34-38
10.
University of Aarhus: Danish Centre for Environment and Energy
– p. 39
11.
DHI, DTU, AU: Coastal modelling group
– p. 40
Page
1
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
1. Comments from Danish Agriculture and Food Council (DAFC)
(Landbrug & Fødevarer)
Comments from the Danish Agriculture and Food Council (DAFC) to the confidential draft:
International evaluation of the scientific and legal basis for nitrogen reductions in the 3rd Danish
river basin management plan
The DAFC would like to thank the Panel for their diligent work in analyzing and commenting on the complex background
material for the Danish RBMP3.
We are familiar with the comments from SEGES, containing specific comments and questions to the report, and the DAFC
finds it very important to assess these issues thoroughly.
Respecting spatial limits for commentating we will not here engage in a comprehensive assessment of the draft evaluation
and all its recommendations but instead focus on asking the panel to clarify and elaborate on assessments and
recommendations within each chapter, to ensure a correct interpretation of, and an understanding of the reasoning behind,
the Panels’ conclusions.
Chapter 1: Reference conditions, G/M boundary target and intercalibration
Supporting the questions and
remarks by SEGES we here add the following questions:
A)
We agree with the Panel that a major change in RBMP3 has been the calculation of water body specific,
instead of type specific, reference conditions (p. 10). We also note that the Panel finds that misclassifications of water
bodies into an unfit type have entailed that reference conditions for the water bodies in RBMP2, although “generally
valid”, were “far off in some cases”. Does the Panel thus agree that when a 10 pct. uncertainty of the RBMP2 MAIs
was reported to stakeholders and government; this was far off in some cases? (see also questions regarding
uncertainty below).
B)
It is mentioned that DHI/DCE have remarked that reference nitrogen concentrations in undisturbed
streams, used as reference, have been underestimated by, on average, 13.5 pct. (p. 9). This is quite a lot and could
potentially affect MAI. Revisiting the DCE comments to the COWI/NIRAS report, where the remark is done, it is not
clear how data has been treated since the discovery. It seems that the concentrations have been corrected, but no
recalculation of reference loads has been carried out.
Has the Panel assessed whether the reference values have been updated since the finding that measurements were
underestimated?
C)
The Panel describes how G/M target values in open waters have been changed from intercalibrated values
in RBMP2 to values below the intercalibrated ones in RBMP3 (p. 14), and the Panel recommends using intercalibrated
values instead (p. 15).
When target values thus are changed in open waters, how could this affect target values in the adjacent more enclosed
waters that interchange water with the open waters? (Noting that the Panel (p. 12) does not expect that model changes
have impacted the G/M boundaries of the enclosed waters).
When using the intercalibrated G/M values in open waters, while maintaining the new RBMP3 reference values, this
entails a change of the EQR. Should or could this lead to a reassessment of EQR values in adjacent closed
waters/fjords? Are there scientific arguments for having different EQRs for G/M target values for the same quality
elements in open waters and adjacent closed waters / fjords?
Chapter 2: Marine models and their use in setting maximum allowable input
Supporting the questions and
remarks by SEGES we here add the following questions:
Page
2
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0003.png
A)
For the biogeochemical models, in particular the central parameters chl-a and Kd, performances are
assessed, by DHI/DCE, as “poor” for almost all models. Nevertheless, the Panel concludes that “it is reasonable to
expect that the response of the chl-a and Kd to changes in nutrient loading are relatively accurate” (p. 20).
Considering that “poor” performance is not very good, can the Panel be more specific on the term “relatively accurate"?
And does the assessment of “relatively accurate” apply also on a local scale, i.e. in a single fjord or coastal water?
B)
From RBMP2 to RBMP3, a number of river basins have experienced quite enormous changes in MAI.
Examples count Genner Bugt (from MAI of 45.0 to 18.8 tonnes N, a 58 pct. reduction), Lillestrand (from 26.1 to 6.6
tonnes N, a 74 pct. reduction) and Stege Nor (from 6.7 to 15.5 tonnes N, a 131 pct. increase), to mention a few.
In practice, the shift from RBMP2 to RBMP3 means that some areas go from no nitrogen reduction demand to very
high demands – and the other way round.
Uncertainty estimates are relatively similar in RBMP2 and 3. The assessment was rounded to 10 pct. in RBMP2, and
in RBMP3, confidence intervals are estimated to be less than +/-10 pct. in 94 out of 98 models with mechanistic
models
1
. This does not fit easily with the large changes we see from RBMP2 to RBMP3. And it gives rise to serious
concerns amongst stakeholders who, despite their best efforts, fail to understand how the nitrogen reduction demands
they meet can change so drastically, when the marine environment is essentially in an unaltered condition, and nutrient
leaching has been rather constant through recent years.
How does the Panel evaluate the uncertainty assessments of the MAIs in RBMP2 vs RBMP3, when both determine
confidence intervals / uncertainty at +/- 10%?
If changes in local MAIs from one RBMP to the next occur at the magnitudes that we see, how can stakeholders trust
the MAIs in RBMP3? What evidence do we have that not last time, but
this
time, the uncertainties are estimated
correctly? And if they are, would the Panel support a recommendation to authorities to concede that MAIs in RBMP2
were far off in a number of water bodies, in order to gain confidence from stakeholders who for good reasons fail to
understand that both RBMPs including uncertainty assessments can be accurate, despite major changes to MAIs?
Is it correctly understood that uncertainties at waterbody level may be higher than the uncertainty at model level?
C)
In the DAFC input to the Panel, we raised the question of pressure-impact response for the models. Especially
concerning Kd, the response is concerningly low in most areas, including many fjords (see p. 5 of input). Kd was
previously, in the international evaluation of RBMP2, pointed out as a less than ideal parameter. Reasons given
included that no strong dependence of Kd on nutrient loading could be found, as is the case now again, and the expert
panel then recommended “reviewing
the approach for this WFD indicator by starting from the basic observation that
not Kd, but survival and restoration of aquatic angiosperm vegetation is the real criterion”,
and it was recommended
to
“relatively downweigh the importance of Kd in the final calculations of reductions needed.”
2
Does the Panel agree with this assessment
of the 2017 International Evaluation, and if not, how does the Panel’s evaluation
differ? Does the Panel find that Kd responds better to changes in nitrogen level in the updated models?
Chapter 3: Status load, baseline, and effectiveness of measures
A) It is concluded by the Panel that “the methodology for calculating the status load has improved and is of high quality”
(p. 27). While it may have been improved, it is unfortunately still a fact that substantial errors are found on local
levels.
Application of the Danish EPA's Marine Model Complex and Development of a Method Applicable for the River Basin
Management Plans 2021-2027 Estimating Confidence Intervals for Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAIs), p. 8
1
International evaluation of the Danish marine models
Performed by the Panel of international experts
(2017). Quotes
from chapter 4, pages not numbered.
2
Page
3
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0004.png
Aarhus University has looked further into Nakskov Fjord
3
and Rødsand/Bredningen
4
, as local stakeholders wondered
how status loads could have increased as dramatically as numbers indicated, since no significant changes in land use
had occurred. In both cases it was concluded that the calculations contained errors of significance to the status load.
For Nakskov Fjord, correcting the error meant that status load decreased from 534 tons N to only 391 tons N, more
than halving the nitrogen reduction demand. For Rødsand/Bredningen the report describing the problems with
assessment of status load was finished after the hearing period of RBMP3, and hence, no correction has been made
here.
Has the Panel looked into the details of the methodology for calculations of status loads?
The authorities’ reply to the Nakskov Fjord report was that it was a special case and errors would not be expected
elsewhere. The Rødsand/Bredningen report demonstrates that this is not true.
B) On page 28 the Panel states that “a full decade was virtually lost for lowering nutrient loads to coastal water bodies.”,
with reference to the fact that Danish nitrogen load has been relatively unaltered during the last ten years.
Although assessing reduction measures is beyond the remit of the evaluation, the DAFC would like to express that
we fully agree with this statement. Despite repeated calls by the DAFC and other stakeholders, implementation of
permanent, efficient measures to reduce nitrogen loss to coastal waters is simply too slow.
During the last decades, measures have been and are still continuously taken in the field to reduce nitrogen loss from
plant production. This way, Danish agriculture has obtained a nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) amongst the very highest
in Europe. Further substantial reductions in nitrogen leaching are thus best obtained through permanent and efficient
measures such as e.g. wetlands and rewetting of peatlands which also deliver on biodiversity and climate gas emission
goals.
Chapter 4: Burden distribution
A)
On p. 31, the Panel states that burden distribution is only a discussion relevant for water bodies with
significant inputs from other Member states, and that “These are the open coastal waters.” It is true that only open
coastal waters, and Flensborg Fjord, are shared with other Member states. But the question may not be limited to
them.
Along with RBMP2, DHI prepared both a map (Figure 1) and a table describing the share of chla and Kd, respectively,
that could be explained by Danish nitrogen loads
5
. It demonstrates that many water bodies including a number of
fjords are heavily affected by non-Danish loads, why the discussion on burden distribution also seems relevant here.
Thodsen & Tornbjerg (2022): Årsager til år til år forskelle i de beregnede tilførsler af vand og næringsstoffer til havet
imellem forskellige NOVANA-opgørelser.
https://dce.au.dk/fileadmin/dce.au.dk/Udgivelser/Notater_2022/N2022_72.pdf
3
Thodsen & Tornbjerg (2023): Udredning af næringsstoftilførslen til Vandplankystvandet Rødsand og Bredningen
imellem forskellige NOVANA-opgørelser. https://dce.au.dk/fileadmin/dce.au.dk/Udgivelser/Notater_2023/N2023_19.pdf
4
DHI (2015): Modeller for Danske Fjorde og Kystnære Havområder – del 2: Mekanistiske modeller og metode til
bestemmelse af indsatsbehov. https://edit.mst.dk/media/lspfqzss/312-modeller-fordanske-fjorde-og-kystnaere-
havomraader-del-2.pdf
5
Page
4
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0005.png
Figure 1 (translated from text in report) Share of the phytoplankton indicator, for the 45 areas covered by mechanistic models,
that can be explained by nitrogen load from Danish land. The color scale is in percent.
Has the Panel been presented with such data regarding RBMP3? This data has not been published in the current
RBMP3 reports and it would be useful to include this in the present report to get an understanding of where and to
what extent international collaboration is needed in order to obtain good ecological status.
B)
The Panel finds that a discussion in the report by Suykens & van Calster, provided as input by the DAFC,
is “irrelevant” as it addresses a planned amendment to the WFD (p. 33). In a reply to this, Suykens & van Calster note
that obviously they do not suggest that proposed legislation, which has not yet been finally adopted, is binding.
However, they do find that the draft gives a good indication of the approach the Commission will take regarding the
mediation / escalation provision included in Article 12 of the WFD.
Does the Panel agree that the planned amendment can be viewed as an indication that the Commission wants to
strengthen the use of Article 12? And could Article 12 be of relevance to the challenges Denmark meets in terms of
burden distribution?
Chapter 5: Seasonality
Supporting the questions and remarks by SEGES we here add the following questions:
Overflow of sewage systems is notoriously underreported in Denmark; both the number of physical overflow-points as well
as the frequency and amount of both water and concentrations of nutrients and pollutants. Whereas we do not question
that diffuse sources are dominant in volume, as also stated by the Panel, we support the Panel’s view that overflows have
received almost no attention despite actual increases, in volume and number of incidents.
Does the Panel agree that mapping and monitoring of stormwater overflows should be improved to ensure an overview of
the stressor? It should be noted that overflows are not a challenge limited to coastal waters. Most likely, lakes are affected
to a higher degree.
Chapter 6: Phosphorus efforts
Supporting the questions and remarks by SEGES we here add the following questions:
Page
5
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0006.png
Concerning possible phosphorus limitation in spring, the Panel concludes that nitrogen and phosphorus will become “co-
limiting” in spring, when nitrogen-load is reduced sufficiently. SEGES has looked into this in more detail and argues that
data suggests that even with very reduced nitrogen load, phosphorus will still be the limiting nutrient during spring months.
With a focus on reducing algal growth as much as possible and as soon as possible, we encourage the Panel to look into
SEGES’ arguments and describe whether implementation of phosphorus measures could mean reaching good ecological
status faster than through nitrogen reductions alone?
Chapter 7: Pressures and stressors other than nitrogen
A)
The Panel concludes that in addition to nutrient load, other stressors will have to be considered, to reach
good ecological status. This leads to the overarching question: Should these stressors not be addressed at the same
time as nutrient load? If the goal is to reach good ecological status, there seems to be little point in holding back
measures.
B)
Internal load can be significant especially in the most eutrophicated areas. Reducing the internal load
directly can, thus, improve the environmental status at a much faster rate than by using land-based measures
exclusively. Does the Panel find that restauration of the marine environment through for instance sand capping and
mussel production could reduce the expected time delay to reach good ecological status, when combined with
sufficient measures to reduce nutrient load from land?
C)
Throughout the 20th century, removal of stones (“stone fishing”) reduced the number of stone reeves in
Danish coastal waters with up to 90 percent. Adding to this disaster was the eelgrass disease, which killed vast areas
of eelgrass meadows during the 1930’s. Even though both stressors have been brought to a stop, and therefore they
are not included in the work by Petersen (2021)
6
, the effects are still evident in the marine environment.
Losing eelgrass meadows and stone reeves and getting mud instead of sand at the bottom of most fjords have
changed the ecosystem. The Panel does not endorse substituting nitrogen reductions for marine restauration efforts,
but what is the Panel’s view on combining efforts? Is it possible that with no restauration of the physical environment,
some coastal waters may not be able to reach good ecological status, through nitrogen reductions alone, within a
reasonable time frame?
Chapter 8: Possibilities for further use of exemptions
We thank the Panel for a comprehensive illumination of the possibilities and reasons for using exemptions wisely as a
part of a strategy to achieve the environmental goals in an orderly and socially acceptable way.
6
J.K. Petersen. 2021.
Andre presfaktorer end næringsstoffer og klimaforandringer
–
sammenfatning.
DTU Aqua-rapport nr. 381-
2021
Page
6
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2. Comments from The Danish society for Nature Conservation
(Danmarks Naturfredningsforening)
The Danish Society for Nature Conservations/Danmarks Naturfredningsforenings (DNs) comments to
Draft version of International evaluation of the scientific and legal basis for nitrogen reductions in the
3
rd
Danish river basin management plan (version 21. Sept. 2023)
General remarks
DN endorse “The
Panel assessed whether the modelling and analysis was fit for purpose, i.e. formed a
sufficiently robust basis for concrete implementation of measures and significant steps forward on the way
to achieving the goals of the WFD. Also, in recommendations on future work, the Panel emphasized gaps in
knowledge for these future steps, rather than successive refinements of modelling tools that had already
proven their value as a sufficient basis for action.”
Chapter 1
–
Reference conditions, G/M boundary target, and intercalibration
Chapter 1
–
Comments
DN take note
that the RBMP3 approach rely on waterbody specific modelling of reference conditions and reduction
needs rather than the former typology bound approach
-
that nutrient loading can be used for ensuring consistency between nutrients and biological quality
elements rather than nutrients concentrations which may vary significantly in time and codependency
of other factors
-
that the Panel disagrees with the view that transparency and confidence are not increased by using
different approaches for calculating MAI and reference values or by alternative methods that increase
uncertainty.
-
That reference conditions set by the water body specific method in RBMP3 gives more stringent results
for open waters and less for most enclosed waters but that the effect on HG and G/M boundaries need
to be checked for being in accordance with EU Commission-approved intercalibration results as well as
CIS Guidance Document No. 30.
-
that if offshore concentrations are above the G/M target values, there is no way to reach the Good
Environmental Status by changing Danish land-based inputs into the coastal water body.
DN comment: That it is crucial to the success of the WFD goal of good ecological coastal status that all
countries reach their goals for nutrient reduction in their coastal waters and thereby reduce their
contribution to the offshore concentrations influencing not only into their own coastal waters but also
neighboring countries coastal waters. Also this is a prerequisite for achieving the goals in the MSFD for
the open waters.
DN endorse the Panels overall conclusions and recommendations
-
Chapter 2
–
Marine models and their use in setting maximum allowable input
Chapter 2
–
Comments
DN take note
-
that the current approach to estimate and distribute the effort required to reach Good Environmental
Status in coastal waters is now quite mature and provides decision support on a level of detail and
quality that, to our knowledge, is not available in any other country.
That models show examples that GES cannot be reached even with zero nutrient input from land
–
either due to inflow from adjacent waters or the coastal water being eutrophicated to an extend
-
Page
7
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
where neither N or P is ever limiting for the production (due to excess input from land based sources,
internal historic load) or combinations thereof. Setting relevant MAIs may therefore be impossible now
but must be done in an iterative process following huge limiting efforts.
-
That stakeholders have addressed concern that placing the N-MAI on the G/M boundary as a median
target will result in GES only half the time and MES the other half, but that the Panel have addressed
the issue only by stating: “If for some reason, a higher degree of certainty to reach Good
Environmental Status would be required, it is straightforward to perform N-MAI calculation requiring
indicators to reach to mid-point
between Good and High status.”
DN endorse the Panels conclusions and recommendations as a whole.
Chapter 3
–
Status load, Baseline effects, and effectiveness of measures
Chapter 3
–
Comments
DN take note
That “Compared to the models linking N-load
to the coastal waters to the Biological Quality Elements,
the models linking measures in the field to N-loading of the coastal waters have a smaller underlying
data base and less empirical foundation. It is to be expected that, when more measures are taken or
taken at larger scale, this empirical basis for modelling the effectiveness of measures will improve. The
Panel is of the opinion that this constitutes one of the priority knowledge gaps in the program as a
whole.”
-
that during the last decade, little or no reduction of N-load to coastal waters has taken place. And that
the Panel concludes that it is not due to inherent ineffectiveness of the measures, but to political
changes in the 2010s that have led to delay in implementation.
DN cannot share the Panels optimism for the RBMP3 but agree that the problem is not lack of technical
measures, but lack of political will and stamina having resulted in a lost decade.
-
DN also find that it must be taken into consideration, that the models have a small underlying data base,
that dos not and cannot reflect field management in practice, where there will be a bigger loss of nutrient.
It is also DN's opinion that the model used to calculate the marginal leaching should be questioned.
Reference is made to the fact that in connection with the Food and Agriculture Package of 2015, there was
a drastic and unjustified minimization of marginal leaching from around 30 per cent. to around 20 per cent.
Chapter 4
–Burden
distribution
Chapter 4
–
Comments
DN take note
that the Panel identifies consistency between MSFD and WFD targets as a point of concern and a
subject for further international action in the coming years.
-
That “With respect to international diplomatic action, Denmark has weakened its position by lowering
unilaterally the G/M boundary values that had previously been agreed upon in intercalibration
exercises. If Danish waters cannot reach a target value that lies significantly below the concentrations
of inflowing open sea water, chances are high that this will be considered by other countries as a self-
inflicted problem.”
-
That the Panel emphasizes that only in the open coastal waters, e.g. around Bornholm, transboundary
pollution constitutes a decisive influence that prevents the achievement of the WFD objectives.
DN endorse the Panels conclusions and recommendations
-
Page
8
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
Chapter 5
–
Seasonality
Chapter 5
–
Comments
DN take note
That “Only in three out of 18 investigated
water bodies, the diffuse loading is less than 70 per cent of
the total summer loading (table 6-2 in Erichsen et al. 2021). Addressing point sources may therefore
only make sense in a few well-selected
water bodies.”
-
That it is highly unlikely to find significant alternatives to a strategy of decreasing diffuse loading and
that “The Panel is convinced that maximal effectivity of these local initiatives can be obtained if they
can concentrate on the planning and execution of concrete measures within clearly defined, and well
monitored objectives to be reached in fixed time periods.”
DN endorse the Panels conclusions and recommendations.
-
Chapter 6
–
Phosphorus efforts
Chapter 6
–
Comments
DN endorse the Panels conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 7
–
Pressures and stressors other than nitrogen
Chapter 7
–
Comments
DN take note
That “The pressures from sand extraction, dumping, dredging, physical structures and hazardous
substances on the biological quality elements (Chl-a and eelgrass) can be modelled to a relatively high
degree with existing tools. It is found that the impacts of these pressures are mostly limited in mass,
space and time and that their impacts are therefore of smaller scale than the impacts of N-and P-load
as long as the impacts are within the orders of magnitude that have been experienced until now.
-
That the pressures fishery, ship traffic, plastic and invasive species was “…evaluated based on expert
judgement. The most important of the pressures was physical disturbance from fishery. Nevertheless,
the pressure from fishery is secondary compared to nutrient load, although fishery cannot be modelled
to the degree of validity of the N-and P-models. Furthermore, fishery has mainly a local impact,
especially on eelgrass.”
-
That the Panel agrees with COWI and NIRAS that no evidence has been found or brought forward
showing that the need for nutrient reduction is dependent on the level of other stressors. Therefore,
no change in the priority scheme is required.
DN endorse the Panels conclusions and recommendations.
-
Chapter 8
–
Possibilities for further use of exemptions
Chapter 8
–
Comments
DN take note
-
-
Of the significant effort and analysis from the Panel to explore the possible use of exemptions in the
Danish RBMP3
That the Panel is not in agreement with COWI and NIRAS in their judgement on room for maneuvering
for exemptions,
BUT DN also want to add that legal interpretation of the WFD is not an exact discipline
and must await clarifying rulings from ECJ. And it still remains to be seen how stringent the EU
Commissions standpoint are:
Page
9
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
”
After 2027, the possibilities for exemptions are reduced, as time extensions under Article 4(4) can only
be authorized in cases where all the measures have been put in place but the natural conditions are
such that the objectives cannot be achieved by 2027.”
(2019 EU Commission fitness check).
-
That the Panel refer to extensive uses of exemptions in Sweden and Germany for open coastal waters
but have no reflections on whether that can be justified nor accepted by the EU Commission under the
general preconditions for the WFD that the precautionary principle must be upheld, and no
deterioration allowed.
-
That the Panel emphasize that exemptions as well as the justifications for using them should be used
for single waterbodies
-
That use of the exemption does not entitle Denmark to manage a water body merely to maintain the
status quo.
DN wish to point to the fact that the overall trend for the state of coastal waters has moved
from moderate towards bad during the last RBMP period.
DN endorse the Panels conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 9
–
General conclusions
Chapter 9
–
Comments
DN notice that the Panel recommends taken advantage of the local/regional efforts in Kystvandrådene to
streamline the use of implementation options the Panel stresses that the local knowledge should be
incorporated within firm, nationally consistent, constraints and reduction targets to be effective. DN see this
recommendation as a warning not to continue relying on voluntary means and no time frames to reach the
goal.
DN also notice that even though during the 2010s almost a decade has been lost, in which no N-load
reduction has been realized, effective measures are available and only need firm political will to be decided
and implemented during the VMP3 period.
The panel points out that there is little or no evidence that reducing other stressors, rather than reducing
nutrients, can achieve good ecological status. DN's agree that there is no such evidence and calls on the
panel to emphasize this point in its final reporting.
As DN has also emphasized above, it is important that the sub-model regarding the marginal washout in the
N model is analyzed in more detail and updated. DN has therefore also taken note of the panel's call for an
update of the N model and suggests to the panel that it underlines the importance of speeding up this work.
It is obvious for the Panel (as it has also been for a long time for most stakeholders in Denmark) that
achieving Good Environmental Status in all Danish waters by 2027 will not be possible and that exemptions
at least for the time line (Art.4.4) will be necessary due to natural causes, but that it can In no way lead to
the abandonment of well-defined plans to significantly improve the water quality in Danish waters, with a
clear time path to achieving these goals as demanded by the WFD and its guidelines. Use of exemptions for
less stringent objectives (Art. 4.5) seems to DN more dubious and with little potential taking into account
that the knowledge base (as developed during RBMP1 and RBMP2) so far indicate that more time for
improvement is justified for natural causes (especially for lakes and coastal waters) but not for setting less
stringent targets than GES. In DNs view arguments concerning cost-effectiveness of measures and socio-
economic acceptance still needs clarification and justification as basis for use of exemptions in each single
waterbody.
The Panel finally state, that it sees room for maneuvering in the use of exemptions, which offer more
flexibility than previously estimated. DN encourages the panel to elaborate on what kind of flexibility it
deems possible considering a negative trend of the ecological state of the coastal waters during the last
Page
10
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
RBMP period and taking into the account the precautionary principle and the no deterioration demand in
the Water Framework Directive as well as other directive obligations.
October 2. 2023
Page
11
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
3. Comments from Landsforeningen Bæredygtigt Landbrug
Remarks from Bæredygtigt Landbrug to the International draft evaluation report
General Remarks:
Bæredygtigt Landbrug received the international evolution report of the 2nd Opinion on
September 21, 2023, as a confidential document. Here are our comments on the report.
While we agree with the conclusions on several points, there are key areas where we
disagree.
We have noticed an inconsistency between the Panel's comments and the final conclusions in
many chapters. For example, in Chapter 2.4.4 regarding MAI levels near or below background
levels (p. 23), important remarks about unattainable MAI levels are not reflected in the
chapter's conclusions.
Chapter 1
–
Reference Conditions, G/M Boundary Target, and Intercalibration:
The year 1900:
The year 1900 was a praised and recognized reference tool in the international research
evaluation
–
and it must therefore still be evaluated with expert opinions. Because the only
characteristic of natural streams is that they have low N discharges, i.e., amplifies the thesis
that nitrogen emissions from agriculture must be reduced. It is obviously nonsensical because
there are also natural streams that discharge a lot of nitrogen. The watercourses are selected
for the purpose and therefore not scientifically. It is strongly criticizable. That way you get a
good reference for eelgrass but a reference for chlorophyll that has never existed.
We know with certainty from Aarhus University what the level of nitrogen was in the year
1900. A standstill which has been in force for several decades before the year 1900. It is
therefore totally unscientific not to use the same starting point. For reference. If we were
talking about delays in the system's effect, we are really talking about delays of up to 50 years,
which is not true. The reason is rather that the water bodies in 1900 were probably P limited
for most of the year, as the P supply was very small, among other things there were no
discharges of P-rich wastewater.
Eelgrass:
It is a well-known fact that the distribution of eelgrass has been significantly reduced
throughout the northern hemisphere, from the USA over Europe to (other species in) Asia due
to human impact on the aquatic environment (Frederick T. Short, ... Christine
Page
12
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
Pergent- Martini, in Global Seagrass Research Methods, 2001). Replanting has been described
for over 20 years and was proposed by Bæredygtigt Landbrug 10 years ago, as there are
positive results from both east and west. However, the replanting of eelgrass is not mentioned
in the report as a means of achieving a good ecological condition.
It is strongly criticized because the eelgrass (everywhere in the world eelgrass grow) died of
eelgrass disease in the 1930s. In Denmark, 92% of all eelgrass disappeared, and since the
1930s it has been at very low levels. In relation to the monitoring, it has slightly decreased for
the past 20-30 years. However, the remaining few percent of the eelgrass has been strongly
challenged by wastewater, flapping, bottom scraping, which since the 1930s has exploded in
scope and intensity - in addition to the rising sea temperatures, which lead to increased
biological activity and more algae formation.
The overall problems in fjords and coastal waters are that the ecosystem was destroyed with
the eelgrass disease in the 30s - and since then the pressure factors have grown massively due
to wastewater, flapping, bottom scraping, etc.
In Denmark, we have chosen the 'Eelgrass depth limit' as one of the indicators for the
ecological state of the coastal areas. A distinction is made between the depth limit for the main
distribution of eelgrass, here defined as the greatest depth where eelgrass covers 10% of the
seabed, and the maximum depth limit of eelgrass, which is the depth where the deepest-
growing shoots grow.
Chapter 5
–
Seasonality:
We suggest that, instead of solely focusing on the total nitrogen amounts, the report should
consider a broader perspective, including the timing of nitrogen and phosphate discharge and
the effectiveness of nitrogen-regulating agents. Seasonal variations in nitrogen emissions
from diffuse sources should be taken into account.
The figures underlying the NOVANA reports show that emitted nitrogen from diffuse sources
is relatively low and stable in summer and is therefore technically difficult to measure,
whereas emissions are higher in winter and spring, where larger fluctuations are driven by
the amount of precipitation. The figures below are regulated for precipitation. The present
targeted regulation on agricultural areas seems to have increased nitrogen discharge in Feb.
–
Mar. and Apr.
Page
13
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0014.png
We believe that targeted regulation should consider the periods when nitrogen discharge has
the most significant impact, especially during algae growth periods. For more details, please
refer to the attached report titled 'Optimization of Nitrogen Loadings to Karrebæk Fjord -
Seasonal Effects from Nitrogen Reductions.'
The Panel concludes with respect to managing point sources rather than diffuse sources, that
this only seems to make sense in those few water bodies where point sources make up a
significant part of the total summer load.
Questions to the Panel: Have You received information about the individual fjords and tried to
evaluate the natural diffuse nutrient contents in the rivers and the point sources including
sewage by-passes?
Chapter 6
–
Phosphorus Efforts:
While Danish wastewater treatment has improved since the 1990s, it's essential to
acknowledge that phosphorus and sludge have accumulated in sediment in fjords and coastal
areas over the past 100 years. Therefore, it's crucial to distinguish between particle-bound
phosphorus and water-soluble orthophosphate, as the latter is more biologically available.
Restrictions on phosphorus are essential for achieving a good ecological condition, as
phosphorus limitation occurs in the spring and nitrogen limitation in the summer. It's
inaccurate to claim that nitrogen emissions from Danish agriculture are the sole factor
contributing to environmental problems in coastal waters; water-soluble orthophosphate is a
primary factor. The impact of water-soluble phosphate from point sources should be
evaluated relative to complex-bound phosphate from erosion.
Page
14
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
Figure 6.1-6.3 shows that Chl-a for the years 2010-2020 in Skive Fjord where DIN
concentrations only in June are low enough to cause nitrogen limitation. However, DIP in the
summer seems to be a limiting factor as DIN in Skive/Karup Å is evaluated as being close to a
background level. How do You evaluate the effect of water-soluble phosphate from point
sources compared to complex bound phosphate from brink erosion?
Chapter 7
–
Pressures and stressors other than nitrogen
Quote by Prof. Karen Timmermann, at DTU Aqua, on April 28, 2015, to “Naturstyrelsen”:
"However, as a general rule, it is the phosphorus input that controls the chlorophyll
concentration in the spring period, but since this period is not included in the intercalibrated
chlorophyll indicator, it is the nitrogen input that is most often selected as the explanatory
variable for chlorophyll concentration."
Chapter 8
–
Possibilities for Further Use of Exemptions:
We have stressed the need for an economic impact assessment, which is currently not covered
in the report. While voluntary measures are an option, politicians must be aware of the
potential costs associated with these measures to make informed decisions. The 2nd Opinion
report also emphasizes the importance of using economic impact analysis when considering
exceptions.
We wish to emphasize that conducting an economic assessment is not feasible, as the
necessary measures to attain the desired reduction effect in coastal waters are not within
reach.
Page
15
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
4. Comments from Green Transition Denmark
(Rådet for Grøn Omstilling)
General remarks
General remarks
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling finds that the Expert Panel’s report is thorough and to the point. We welcome the conclusion
that the Danish marine models are state of the art and provide unparalleled political decision support, even though minor
adjustments to the model can be made.
Unfortunately, both a scientific and legal discussion addressing the issue of setting the Good / Moderate boundary as a
target for Good Ecological Status (GES) is absent. In our opinion it is necessary to assess thoroughly, since we currently
aim for Good Ecological Status in only 50 pct. of our fjords and coastal waters.
In our opinion, and along the conclusion of the Panel that “a full decade was virtually lost” due to political inaction, there
has not been and there is no reason not to act on the reduction targets produced by the models. We therefore find it
unfortunate, that much needed action has been delayed, due to continuous questioning of the models’ capabilities by
organizations serving the interests of the agricultural sector.
We endorse that some individual water body target loads might be adjusted, which can help resolve some of the issues
stemming from transboundary pollution, but it should not remove focus from the fact, that the models are, and has been,
capable.
Furthermore, we agree with the Panel’s conclusion that some adjustment proposals are not worth carrying out, since it
will unnecessarily delay action as well as require disproportionate resources resulting in insignificant changes to the final
reduction targets and even further delayed action.
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling will in conclusion like to underline, that we now have a Second Opinion which confirms that
profound measures directed at the agricultural sector which has well-documented effectivity needs to be taken swiftly.
Lastly, we would like to point to a concrete way forward for decision-makers.
The authorities should implement the New Model for Targeted Regulation (Ny Reguleringsmodel) as fast as possible with
the current N-retention map. When the updated N-retention map is ready, it can then be implemented in the model.
This would provide the possibility of issuing nitrogen quotas based on each water bodies maximum allowable input of
nitrogen (N-MAI).
Doing this could swiftly reduce nitrogen loads in a cost-effective manner.
Page
16
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
Chapter 2 – Marine models and their use in setting maximum allowable input
Chapter 2 – Comments
Assessment of Good/Moderate target in the chosen Scenario 2e
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling is concerned, that despite numerous mentions of the need to discuss and assess the decision
to set the water body status target at the boundary between Good Ecological Status (GES) and Moderate Ecological
Status, resulting in a 50 pct. chance of actually reaching Good Ecological Status, is almost absent in the report. It is
briefly addressed by the panel, that the decided target will statistically result in only half of the water bodies actually
reaching Good Ecological Status, but no discussion of possible legal implications with the Water Framework Directive
(WFD) or a wider scientifical discussion on the consequences of doing so is provided. COWI and NIRAS concluded in
their Phase I report
7
that the current target set on the Good/Moderate boundary is not aligned with the objectives in the
Water Framework Directive.
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling urges the Panel to include such a discussion, since we urgently need to stabilize all our marine
ecosystems – not only 50 pct. of them. Also, we need the legal assessment for decision-makers to operate within the
legal boundaries of the Water Framework Directive.
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling would in general like to point to the fact, that the aim of the WFD is to
actually
achieve GES in
the fjords and in our coastal waters, and not solely achieving a theoretical GES, which may or may not meet the
minimum scientific and legal requirements stated in the WFD.
Chapter 4 –Burden distribution
Chapter 4 – Comments
Transboundary pollution
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling welcomes that the Panel stresses the need to also address nutrient pollution through
strengthening international collaboration via e.g. HELCOM and OSPAR, in order to bring down transboundary pollution
and eliminate the need to use exemptions for water bodies for which burden distribution is an issue.
Denmark should, in our opinion, exercise political will to decrease national nitrogen and phosphorous loads significantly,
thus setting an example and at the same time increasingly facilitate dialogue and implementation of measures with
neighboring countries to jointly decrease transboundary pollution.
Chapter 6 – Phosphorus efforts
Chapter 6 – Comments
Phosphorous reductions
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling endorses the Panel’s conclusions on phosphorous-nitrogen relation and would like to add the
following for further – and much needed – discussions.
While the discussions on phosphorous here concerns exchanging nitrogen reductions with phosphorus reductions, there
should in general be a larger focus on reducing phosphorous inputs to agricultural soils and increasing recycling of
phosphorous simultaneously with reducing nitrogen loss. This should be done, not only to reduce loss of phosphorous to
water bodies, but due to a range of reasons set out below.
1.
We have a very high soil content of phosphorous in western Denmark
8
and we lose around 1300 tons annually
from diffuse sources
9
.
Phosphorous is a scarce resource in contrary to nitrogen, which means that circular usage is essential. Despite
many – often technical – efforts to recycle phosphorous, we still lose large quantities to waterways, lakes and
the marine environment.
We import large quantities of phosphorous from especially animal feed and mineral fertilizer which causes an
overload of phosphorous that end up on agricultural soil in especially the Western part of Denmark. This
overload increases the risk of phosphorous leaching to water bodies.
2.
3.
Page
17
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0018.png
4.
Our dependency on imports poses risks concerning security of supply. 85% of the world’s mineral phosphorous
is located in Marocco, Russia, China and USA
10
, and the global supply chain was severely impacted after the
Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Continuous and large loss of phosphorus causes severe impact to lake ecology, and Danish lakes are very
impacted by this. Phosphorous has built up in lake sediment and when released it can be carried further to our
fjords and coastal waters.
A high phosphorous content in soils can negatively impact important fungi-plant symbiosis (mykhorizza), which
also impacts yields
11
.
We have pooled enough phosphorous on some agricultural soils, that soils can keep producing crops without
further phosphorous inputs, thus slowly bringing down the phosphorous soil content, for 60-180 years
12
.
5.
6.
7.
Chapter 7 – Pressures and stressors other than nitrogen
Chapter 7 – Comments
Eelgrass
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling endorses the conclusion of the Panel, that nutrient pollution is the primary pressure to be
tackled regarding reaching Good Ecological Status.
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling will also like to point out, that the faster and the more we lower our nutrient loads, the faster
Good Ecological Status is reached which entails conditions under which eelgrass may again thrive. Eelgrass recovery is
important in the light of the climate crisis since eelgrass in Danish waters can help store up to 47 mio. tons of CO2
13
.
It is furthermore essential, that we stop bottom trawling in areas where eelgrass must recover. Eelgrass recovery is in
some areas a Sisyphean task, if we continue bottom trawling, since this fishing technique simply destroys the ocean
bottom, including eelgrass.
The Panel points out that chemicals, including pesticides, could inhibit eelgrass growth. Rådet for Grøn Omstilling agrees
with the Panel that this issue calls for a wider political discussion regarding better wastewater treatment and limiting the
use of pesticides in agriculture and/or prohibiting use of pesticides within a thoroughly risk-assessed proximity of
waterbodies connected to coastal waters.
Chapter 8 – Possibilities for further use of exemptions
Chapter 8 – Comments
Use of exemptions
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling endorses the Panel’s conclusion, that the WFD clearly states, that before a less stringent
target is used as an exemption for a water body a profound set of measures must have been implemented and evaluated
and that the target of achieving good ecological status remains, even if a less stringent target is set for a RBMP-period.
In general, Rådet for Grøn Omstilling endorses the view, that profound and effective measures must be implemented
before exemptions are even considered. Considering the lack of effectivity of the voluntary schemes (kollektive
virkemidler) - i.e. wetting of land and afforestation – introduced in recent Danish RBMP, these schemes can in our
opinion not be deemed sufficient. We urgently need especially rewetting of peatland and afforestation and we cannot
wait for a voluntary take up of the measures.
10
11
https://www.sdu.dk/da/nyheder/alle_artikler/2021/kampen-om-fosfor
Edlinger et al. 2022. Agricultural management and pesticide use reduce the functioning of beneficial plant
symbionts. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01799-8
Page
18
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0019.png
Rådet for Grøn Omstilling would like to underline that the objective of the Water Framework Directive is to achieve Good
Ecological Status in 2015, with the possibility of extending until 2027. 23 years have passed since the adoption of the
Water Framework Directive and 2027 is approaching fast. Past measures and regulation have clearly not been sufficient.
Along the same statement as put forward by the Panel, we urge decision-makers to use exemptions wisely and with
great consideration for the Danish legacy of ineffective measures.
Exemptions simply must not be used to further delay effective measures.
12
Rådet for Grøn omstilling, 2021. Fremtidens Landbrug 2.0: Fosforscenariet. Link:
http://fremtidenslandbrug.dk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/210305-RGO-P-scenarie-rapport.pdf
13
Tænketanken HAV, 2022. Blue carbon: Potentialet for CO2-fangst og lagring i marin biomasse i Danmark.
Link: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/bo7el0jo/production/9c7031d48a8fac59718a6fe3d5055adb9509180b.pdf
Page
19
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0020.png
5. Comments from SEGES Innovation
General remarks
SEGES acknowledges the substantial work undertaken by the international panel and that it can have been difficult for
the Panel to uncover all important details in the many water bodies in a relative short time. Nevertheless, SEGES finds
that the panel draw some problematic conclusions which we will discuss below. The panel makes an overall assessment
of the work, with which SEGES only partly can agree due to the fact that many details, which locally can create major
difficulties but also often more meaningful solutions, are not included. SEGES agrees with the panel that improvements
have been made to the models, but there are still many problems which are not sufficiently illuminated or understood by
the panel. It is our assessment that if the recommendations from the panel, in their current form, are followed, it will lead
to a significant increase in conflict locally, depending on the problems and there will be a reduced willingness to enter
into voluntary agreements, which is currently the basis of taking out land for wetlands, extensification, etc. Therefore,
reviewing models together with stakeholders and making improvements is a key task for building ownership to the
nutrient reduction targets among stakeholders. At present, there is a very low trust to the existing predominantly
“topdown” made RBMPs (all 3 RBMPs) and N-reductions targets - particularly among farming community - and the
Panel’s report in the present form, will in no sense change that perspective. The panel recommends not to waste time on
more model reviews but use the time to find potential measures in the catchment. It its SEGESs hope that the comments
below will add to the understanding, that even though improvements have been made, there are still many issues that
will have a big impact locally and give raise to conflicts if not solved. Therefore, a process for locally based water plans
could be one of the recommendations if there is a general agreement of this approach locally. In the last few years we
have seen locally based partnerships between agriculture, green organisations, local authorities, water companies etc.
several places in Denmark with the purpose of achieving good ecological status in coastal waters and the experience
shows that it is possible to find solutions together based on trust and ownership but this also includes fundamental
discussions concerning coastal waters including status and measures as well as solutions and measures in the
catchment. Further remarks on this in Chapter 9 – General conclusions.
Chapter 1 – Reference conditions, G/M boundary target, and intercalibration
1.4.3 Change of reference conditions with respect to RBMP2: Panel writes: “However,
it also shows that by taking into
account the specific hydrographical conditions of the water bodies, reference values for many enclosed waters are now
higher than they used to be. This trend is also confirmed in a map of differences in reference conditions, prepared by the
Ministries”.
This is an example of generalization from the Panel and there are examples of the opposite – one example is
Nissum Fjord lagoon with a sluice connection to the North Sea consisting of 3 small interconnected basins (Waterbody ID
129,130,131). In RBMP2 the chlorophyll reference value and border between good/moderate were respectively 4,8 µg/l
and 8 µg/l (same in all basins). Also same values as in the lagoon (Ringkøbing Fjord, ID 132) just south of Nissum Fjord.
In RBMP3 this has changed for Ringkøbing Fjord where the values went up as generally described by the panel to
respectively 5,4 µg/l (ref) and 8,4 µg/l (good/mod) but in Nissum Fjord the values went down in the 3 basins to 1,6 µg/l /
1,6 µg/l / 3,0 µg/l for ref. values and for the 3 basins the values for good/moderate border are 2,5 µg/l / 2,4 µg/l / 4,7 mg/l.
It is very difficult to understand and explain why the basin in direct connection with the North Sea and less directly
impacted by loads from the catchment has higher values (2,5) than the middle basin (2,4) with no direct connection to the
North Sea and closer to the high loads from the catchment. Looking at current conditions the best conditions are in the
basin with direct contact to the North Sea. Further, it is even more difficult to explain why both ref. values and
good/moderate border values are significant lower in Nissum Fjord than in the water just outside in the North Sea. The
values along the shore on the west coast of Jutland (both Norh and south, ID 119 and 133) are 3,0 µg/l (ref value) and
6,8 µg/l (good/mod border). Nissum Fjord have a catchment of 1615 km
2
and the lagoon an area of 65 km
2
giving a
catchment to fjord ratio of 24:1 and reflecting a significant freshwater load so it is difficult to understand why the
chlorophyll references should be significantly lower in the lagoon compared to North Sea water and also significantly
lower compared to Ringkøbing Fjord.
Concerning eelgrass depth limit. In areas with no historical eelgrass data, a model has been used to set the reference
value. In many areas the depth limit reference value and also the border between good/moderate is larger than the
actual water depth in the area. According to AU, the explanation is that the depth limit is calculated to a Kd not
depending on water depth. In SEGESs view this is difficult to understand, and it is even more difficult to explain to
stakeholders. From our experience with stakeholders this results in serious distrust to RBMP3. From a legal perspective
SEGES is questioning whether it is legally correct according to WFD to use supporting quality elements (Kd) and exclude
biological quality elements (eelgrass) just because the water depth in an area is not large enough to get in line with a
model calculated depth limit. The problem has been raised to AU and national authorities several times over the last
years. Most recently a stakeholder raised the question in the consultation process to RBMP3 and the answer from The
Danish Environmental Protection Agency in the official consultation report was (page 507,
Vandområdeplanerne 2021-
Page
20
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0021.png
2027 Høringsnotat, Juni 2023:
“
In some water areas, typically shallow areas, the real depth of a water area will be lower than the
theoretically calculated environmental target for depth limit of eelgrass. If in these cases one simply accepted that r ooted benthic plants
should grow to the greatest depth in the water area, this would mean that one risked accepting a water quality e.g. a clarity in the water
that was worse than it should be, to be in GES. In cases where eelgrass grows to the greatest depths in the water area, but where the
environmental target for depth limit for eelgrass is deeper than the real depth in the water area, the depth distribution for eelgrass cannot
be used to determine the environmental condition. Here, instead, data is used for the clarity of the water, measured as light penetration
in the water. It therefore appears from the “Retningslinjer for vurdering af overvågningsresultater og klassificering af tilstand i kystvande
(Danish
Guideline)
that if there is a main distribution of flowering plants to the bottom of all investigated transects in a water area, the
state of flowering plants is determined as an unknown state because it is not known how deep the eelgrass could have grown if there
had been greater bottom depths in the water area. Instead, supporting quality elements must be used to the extent that data is
available
” (Translated to English by SEGES). To SEGES’s knowledge there are 11 waterbodies that have depth limits
(kd) for good/moderate larger than the water depth and 17 have reference depth limit (kd) larger than the actual depth.
Eelgrass abundance: Concerning the remark made by the Panel: “Some
stakeholders also criticize that the report does
not reflect on whether there is an issue with “angiosperms” being measured by “eelgrass depth limit” in a Danish context
and thereby ignoring “abundance” (“eelgrass cover”), as described in the WFD”
– It would be good to have the Panels
view on this question in the report from the Panel.
Section 1.4.4 Validity of the new reference conditions: It is not taken into consideration that the effect of reduced P-loads
to the Baltic Sea (BS) have approx. 50 years’ time lack for improvements of environment in the BS. In the models the
current environment status in BS is used when making burden distribution calculations. The consequence is that Danish
Famers in the current model-setup are paying in N-reduction for that time gap. This important choice in the calculations is
not made clear. Whether the farmers should make N-reduction for compensating for the time lack is probably a more
political question but nevertheless it should be pointed out.
1.4.5 Consistency between the new reference conditions and the Intercalibration: SEGES is in line with the Panel opinion
concerning RBMP3 and the problem when RBMP3 G/M boundary values are significantly below the HELCOM targets
and values are not in line with WFD intercalibrated values.
1.4.6 The year 1900 discussion and consistency between reference conditions: It is surprising to read: “it
appeared from
interviews by the Panel that this estimate
(N-load 1900)
is not supported by all scientists active in the area.”
The most
recent report concerning N-load 1900 involves a range of the most important institutes in DK.
SEGES are in line with the Panel opinion when the Panel finds that the update on 1900 N-load raises a problem of
consistency concerning “reference
values for Chl a (situated well before 1900) and for Kd/eelgrass depth limit, derived
from observations around 1900”.
But SEGES finds it highly surprising that the panel concludes that consistency is no
problem due to a delayed response in eelgrass meadows. This delay would then span a period of many hundreds of
years. The N-load input to chlorophyll references is based on very small nature catchments. Denmark has not had a
landuse like that in maybe 1000 years or more. An earlier study for SEGES in 2021 by Geert van Calster, Professor of
Law, KU Leuven, Belgium concludes: “
The study concludes that the legal detail for reference conditions under the Directive leaves
much to be desired. Yet that under the core statutory obligation of ‘consistency’, the historical method for reference conditions is inferior.
It also concludes that the reference conditions as set out for Danish coastal waters are legally problematic as likely not meeting with the
requirement of consistency.”
And
“It
rules out proper implementation efforts for the surface water body type concerned.
” In the same
study Professor Joao G. Ferreira writes: “
Timmermann (2020) refers that “The apparent discrepancy between the historical
eelgrass observations and the preliminary results from the 1900 project, which indicate extensive human impact, may be due to the time
delays in the manifestation of the effects. It takes time (several years) before increased nutrient inputs fully impact light conditions.” This
is certainly a possibility, but the nutrient loads remain roughly constant until 1920, and there is no decline reported in ee lgrass
distribution until the wasting disease of the 1930s. As an alternative, the same author proposes a “reference input is based on
concentrations in smaller watercourses, which drain catchment areas with a very small level of cultivation multiplied by a pr esent-day
waterflow.” This methodology aims to arrive at a lower nitrogen loading than that determined for the year 1900, although no quantitative
data are presented, but it is impossible to understand how the link between the ecosystem conditions in 1900 and the loading calculated
from ‘smaller watercourses’ is established.”.
Further in the same study Professor One Onema writes “
Evidently, choosing a
baseline year, where the environment was ’unaffected or only slightly affected by human activity’ largely depends on the defi nition of
’unaffected or only slightly affected by human activity’. Depending on the definition, one may argue that the baseline or RCs should be
defined before the first agricultural revolution, i.e., for Denmark some 4000 years ago, or before the 2nd agricultural revolution, i.e.
before the 18th century, or before the 3rd agricultural revolution and especially before the advent of synthetic N fertilisers, i.e. around
1900
.”
It is SEGES’s view that setting the reference conditions is a difficult task and the above inputs from respected scientists
add to this view. Nevertheless, the reference values have significant importance and one of the basic ideas in the WFD
was to make similar approaches to achieve GES across EU. Therefore, a huge effort was made, and still is, to make
intercalibration but it seems that concerning setting references there is no good instructions in the WFD (Calster 2021).
In several countries around DK the year 1900 is used to set reference conditions. It is SEGES’s suggestion that the
Page
21
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0022.png
panel more clearly justify why they think it is appropriate using N-loads that are equal to a landscape more than 1000
years ago or more, when other countries use reference conditions approx. from the year 1900. This incoherence
between Denmark and neighboring countries clearly has a political perspective. Further, SEGES will point out that there
was a second method for setting the reference for chlorophyll but that was abandoned by the authorities in favor of the
N-load method. That second method does not have the same consistency issues. In the light of the discussions on
consistency, which was not on the table when the decision was made more than 10 years ago using the N-load method,
SEGES would like to see the Panels comments on the other method. (page 111-112,
Carletti A, Heiskanen A, editors.
Water Framework Directive Intercalibration Technical Report - Part 3: Coastal and Transitional Waters. EUR 23838
EN/3. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): OPOCE; 2009. JRC51341)
Chapter 2 – Marine models and their use in setting maximum allowable input
2.4.2 The models reliability and quality: SEGES agrees with the panel that it is an improvement that the MECH models
are more widely used. But SEGES strongly disagrees with the panel that all the MECH models are well calibrated.
Maybe they are in general, but we have looked closer at the model calibration in 4 locations and find 2 of the MECH
models to be not usable in the current calibration (Hjarbæk and Mariager), 1 partly well calibrated but used wrong
(Ringkøbing) and 1 well calibrated (Skive). Maybe they are the only locations where that is the case but nevertheless at
these 3 locations the models have significant flaws.
1)
Skive Fjord (ID 157, model validation on station: VIB3727-00001,
see validation here:
https://rbmp2021-2027.dhigroup.com/)
in general the model can simulate stratification, oxygen
depletion, internal load. In a year, like 2014, when the model is not simulating oxygen depletion correct the internal
loading goes wrong. In general, the model seems capable to simulate the important processes most years and SEGES
finds it suitable for further work.
2)
Hjarbæk Fjord (ID 158, model validation on station: VIB3729-00001, see validation
here:
https://rbmp2021-2027.dhigroup.com/)
the model at Hjarbæk Fjord does not simulate the oxygen depletion at any
of the modelled years hence the model does not simulate the massive internal load – hence the chlorophyll-a is
simulated by the wrong reasons (or at least partly) in the model. SEGES does not find that the model correctly simulates
the processes controlling the summer chlorophyll. The importance of the internal loading is underlined by the STAT
model made by AU – in this model AU includes a salinity and Brunt-Väisälä buoyancy frequency factor and gets a
R
2
=0,74. This is probably the best STAT model fit of all AU´s STAT models for Chlorophyll, but only when the above
factors are included. SEGES has demonstrated that with only N-load to chlorophyll relation the R
2
does not exceeds
0,16. (SEGES could handover documentation).
3)
Mariager Fjord (ID 159, model validation on station: NOR5503, see
validation here:
https://rbmp2021-2027.dhigroup.com/).
The model does not simulate DIN correct in summer. The model
simulates DIN limitation in summer period but monitoring data gives values in summer well above limitation levels
(approx. 28 µg/l) in almost all samples all years. It can be a bit difficult to see using the provided link because it’s not
possible to zoom in on details anymore – in an earlier version it was possible, and the details can be seen in these
documents which SEGES has sent to the panel. Ref22.
Gertz F, 2023. DIN calibration - Mariager Fjord - MECH model.
Technical note from SEGES Innovation.
Based on data analysis by SEGES and a small study done by University of
Southern Denmark (SDU), including a workshop, it is SEGES’s and also SDU’s advice to mainly focus on P reductions to
achieve GES in Mariager Fjord. AU stat model for Kd point out a relation to P-limitation, but this seems not to be included
in the “surrogate model” and therefore not either in RBMP3.
4)
Ringkøbing Fjord (ID 132, model validation on station:
RKB1, see validation here:
https://rbmp2021-2027.dhigroup.com/)
The model simulates the overall seasonally variation
in salinity, but the model includes too much dynamic. This could be due to the fact that the model is not calibrated with
the actual sluice operations, but with permanently open gates up to a specific water level difference between North Sea
and Ringkøbing Fjord. This introduces much more flow through the sluice and therefore more dynamic in salinity. DIN
and DIP variations are well simulated, but the Chlorophyll simulation have systematic problems. In general, is the model
concerning chlorophyll too dynamic in the summer and underestimate chlorophyll in winter. The main problem here is
besides the calibration the way the model is used. Ringkøbing Fjord is clearly a very top-down controlled system due to
filtration from Mya arenaria – this is well known and published (Petersen J K, et al. REGIME SHIFT IN A COASTAL
MARINE ECOSYSTEM. Ecological Applications Vol. 18, No. 2 (Mar, 2008), pp. 497-510 (14 pages)
https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0752.1).
There is no statistical relation between N-loads and Chlorophyll (STAT model AU and
also tested by SEGES, documentation can be distributed to the panel) due to filtration, instead the eutrophication is
expressed in amounts of Ulva, epiphytes etc. This introduces a problem because there is no solid monitoring on Ulva
and epiphytes and these algae’s are not an official quality element. Nevertheless, the management in RBMP3 is based
on a relation between N-load and Chlorophyll (MECH model) and N-load to Kd relation (STAT model). It is simply
scientifically flawed to correlate N-load to Chlorophyl and to Kd due to the filtration - Kd is highly depending on
Chlorophyl and resuspension (wind). The above 3 out of 4 examples SEGES has investigated clearly demonstrates that
not all models are fit for purpose in the current state. SEGES agrees with the panel that DHI´s modelsystem is superior
to the simpler STAT models, but ONLY if the models arrive at the results in the right way – are calibrated well on all
parameters and in general can describe the functionality of the systems. In the calibration reports from DHI statistics on
summer DIN and DIP is missing – only winter and yearly statistics are available, and it is clearly problematic to review
whether the models are well calibrated on DIN/DIP summer limitations. Examples like the ones above gives no reason to
Page
22
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0023.png
trust the reduction targets from the RBMP3 and therefore this trust must be rebuilt. It is SEGES ‘s assessment that this
trust is not established just because the panel states that all models are fit for purpose in this current state.
2.4.3 Methodology to calculate N: The MECH and STAT models are simplified into a simple response curve (called
surrogate model by the Panel). The Panel writes: “The
documentation and justification of this model is rather poor.
Compared to the huge effort invested in developing the STAT and MECH models, refining typology, and setting
reference conditions, it is surprising how little attention has been paid to this important submodel”.
And further: “However,
we cannot help to reflect that it would have been comforting to confirm the final N MAI results by investigating the
resulting eutrophication state from a simulation with the MECH model forced by N MAI and other loads as in the chosen
management scenario”.
Nevertheless, the Panel concludes that the method using surrogate models is fit for purpose.
This is surprising for SEGES because it removes important information from complex ecosystems and with that a high
risk of not including important processes. For example, this method will exclude proper use of seasonality.
(Ref25 page 22 is not correctly cited, and link does not work)
Chapter 3 – Status load, Baseline effects, and effectiveness of measures
SEGES agrees that it is reasonable to use a 3-year average from 2016-18 to set the status load because these years
show a rather constant N transport. But the methodology would not be optimal for all years. E.g. for the period for
20192021 the N-load varies a lot, and for these years it will not be relevant to base the status load on a 3 year average.
SEGES also agrees with the panel, that the data from N-load 2010-2020 cannot be used to conclude that the measures
to reduce N-load have been ineffective. SEGES encourages that the panel suggest that the effect of different measures
should be better monitored in the future.
Chapter 4 –Burden distribution
It is not taken into consideration that the effect of reduced P-loads to the Baltic Sea (BS) have approx. 30-50 years’ time
lack for improvements of environment in BS. In the models the current environment status in BS is used when making
burden distribution calculations. The consequence is that Danish Famers in the current model-setup are paying in
Nreduction for that time gap. This important choice in the calculations is not made clear. Whether farmers should make
Nreductions to compensate for the time lack is probably a more political question but nevertheless it should be pointed
out.
Chapter 5 – Seasonality
Seasonality is not relevant in all coastal waters. It is SEGES’s view that it is mainly relevant in the eastern part of the
country, but the potential should be investigated for each location.
- Including seasonality in the management practice is first about making measures with an actual impact in the specific
downstream estuary.
The report concerning this topic from 2017
(Karrebæk Fjord) and already part of the Panel
evaluation in 2017 demonstrated that reducing nitrate loads in winter months to Karrebæk Fjord had almost no
impact.
- The argument ‘that because it is difficult to reduce nitrate in summer, then it’s better to continue using yearly loads’ is
a mistake for two reasons. 1) If reducing nitrate in summer is not possible why reduce nitrate in winter if it does not
have any effect or a minor effect? - as demonstrated by DHI in 2017 in Karrebæk Fjord – this is a potential theme for
farmers legal action against the state 2) The model setup in RBMP3 – as far as SEGES is aware - includes
Nreductions in summer in all models. In the STAT models N-loads January-September is related to summer
Chlorophyll May-September (page 10
AU report 2021 on Chlorophyll models).
The MECH models run in timesteps of
1 day or less and reductions in the scenarios are equally distributed all year round. Meaning that a 30% reduction
scenario actually includes 30% reduction of nitrate loads each day. Using Karrebæk Fjord as an example – if only a
30% reduction scenario (year around) was made no one would know if the effect on chlorophyll was coming from
summer reductions or winter reductions. We now know because of the 2017 report the effect is coming from the
reduction in summer period and reductions in winter are more or less pointless when it comes to improvements in
Karrebæk Fjord (SEGES made unpublished statistical analyses supporting this statement – documentation can be
distributed to the panel). If SEGES is right about the method of using year around reduction in the STAT models, it
introduces major flaws between chlorophyll decrease and pressures - in some areas the decrease in the modelled
summer chlorophyll would be due to reduction in summer and not in winter and at the same time most measures for
agriculture diffuse nitrate are targeting winter loads – clearly a mismatch between model output (summer reduction
effect) but targeting winter loads (catch crops etc.). As stated above this is a potential theme for farmers legal action
against the state.
- To include phosphorus in this otherwise nitrate seasonality discussion is highly relevant because of P-limitation in all
Danish estuaries in the spring (ref
SEGES report on limitation).
P-limitation starts as early as February or Marts and
in April, May or June the limitation shifts to N-limitation depending on location. This is important because the effect of
Page
23
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0024.png
-
-
-
-
reducing N-loads from the catchment is postponed from early spring with approx. 2-4 month depending on location.
There is no valid documentation that it will ever be possible to reduce N-loads to a level where DIN will make
colimitation with P as suggested by the Panel in Chapter 6. More on this in Chapter 6.
Concerning where seasonality could be relevant. 1) There must be a relatively fast water exchange days or weeks
and probably not more than 1-2 months. Most Danish estuaries fulfills this criterion. See
report
(The physical
oceanographic conditions in a range of fjords and coastal areas in Denmark) and
appendix.
2) Short travel time for
nitrate from field to coastal water. This excludes the western part of Denmark with sandy soils and long travel time for
nitrate, while in the eastern drained parts of Eastern Jutland, Funen and Zealand incl. surrounding islands there is a
fast track due to draining from fields to streams to coastal waters – time scale of days. Based on this, it is SEGES’s
opinion that seasonality is relevant in most coastal waters in the eastern part of Denmark. This includes the local pilot
Kystvandråd Odense Fjord where seasonality will be included due to fast nitrate transport in the catchment (drainage)
and low residence time in the fjord.
As mentioned above seasonality will probably have a low potential in the western part of Denmark due to sandy soils
and long nitrate travel time. In local Kystvandråd for Vadehavet (watten sea) the possibility of optimising on
seasonality by placing wetlands to maximize N-reductions in the summer period has been discussed. The nature of
the Vadehav is a low residence time due to significant impacts from tide. The hypothesis is that placing wetlands
more downstream in the catchments will introduce more ground water (with nitrate) into the wetlands in the summer
period than when placing wetlands in the upper part of streams.
Further, in some locations it might be relevant to include measure on organic nitrogen. While dissolved inorganic
nitrogen in winter will have same residence as water in the estuaries (if not incorporated in algae’s) org. N will as
phosphorus to a higher degree accumulate in the estuary due to sedimentation during autumn and winter and in
summer converted to dissolved inorganic nitrogen and being part of the internal load. The accumulative effect of orgN
in estuaries has, in SEGES’s opinion, not been sufficiently investigated.
Measures to reduce N-loads. Preliminary analysis, carried out by SEGES Innovation, shows that it is difficult to
reduce N-loads in summer from drained fields – this is in line with reported result by AU and others. But there is a
difference between different in-field measures’ effect on the nitrogen loads. Analysis based on suction cell
measurements year-round in field trials with different nitrogen measures shows for example that reduced N
application has a greater effect in autumn and a smaller effect in winter and spring compared to catch crops that are
terminated in early spring. In general, drainage water measures have a high N removal rate in spring and summer.
Effectivity of measures in spring and summer is highly depending on water runoff in spring and summer and therefore
likely to be more effective in the western part of drained areas (eastern Jutland) than areas with less precipitation and
dryer in summer, Zealand.
Chapter 6 – Phosphorus efforts
The Panel writes: “
When nitrogen inputs are curbed and winter DIN concentrations are reduced, N and P will become co-limiting in
spring, and specific phosphorus reductions will have less and less controlling effect on the spring productivity and consequently on the
indicators.
SEGES is surprised by this conclusion. Changes in DIN concentrations in estuaries over the last decades
suggest that DIN will never become limiting factor in the first months in spring in estuaries (Open waters are different).
Viewing the DIN figure 6.1, Panel report – Skive Fjord, DIN concentrations are way above the potential for limitation (28
µg/l) in all months February to May – this includes a time scale from the 1980ies until today including 50 % reduction
from land in that period. From a SEGES point of view it’s difficult to see how DIN can ever become limiting in spring in
most estuaries. In our view a dual strategy for reducing both N and P is obvious to cover limitation in both summer and
spring and SEGES needs documentation from the Panel on how it would be possible to reduce N-loads to a level where
DIN can become limiting in spring. The dual N and P reduction strategy – Denmark have done in the 1980ies and 90ies -
have been highly regarded by scientist like Professor Hans W. Paerl and Professor Patricia Glibert on the conference
“Danish Coastal Waters - Conference on significant factors controlling eutrophication in Danish coastal waters”
in 2013.
There is no evidence in data that this strategy is no longer superior to an “only N strategy” and as explained above there
is no signs in data that N in general can ever become co-limiting with P in spring as suggested by the Panel. Concerning
Skive Fjord, specifically the main river to the Fjord is “Karup Å” and the nitrate concentrations in that river are relatively
low due to high retention in ground water and the concentrations varies between 2,5 mg/l DIN in winter and 1,5 mg/l DIN
in summer.
Minimizing growth of plankton algae, Ulva, epiphytes in spring is therefore a matter of reducing P-loads and this could be
an important factor for the ecosystem due to the fact that eelgrass in some locations is struggling with epiphytes already
in the spring – epiphytes on eelgrass is an issue that the models do not describe. It’s obvious by viewing data that DIN is
the primary limiting factor over the summer in most estuaries and when WFD are defining the quality element chlorophyll
from May-September it does not include the eutrophication problematic with epiphytes on eelgrass.
Page
24
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0025.png
Chapter 9 – General conclusions
Trust is a cornerstone of Danish culture,
and according to political science professor Gert Tinggaard Svendsen
up to a
quarter of Denmark's wealth can be attributed to the high level of trust in Danish society.
A major problem with the
Danish Government system concerning water environment, coastal waters and regulation of the agriculture is a general
lack of trust between stakeholders and between stakeholders and the national authorities. Over the WFD period the lack
of trust seems to have increased specially concerning the reduction targets of nutrients. SEGES has presented the new
map of mandatory catch crops for 2024 which is based on the new model used in RBMP3 for nearly all advisors in plant
production in Denmark. Advisers are really surprised that some catchments go from a mandatory demand for 32 percent
catch crops to 0 percent while other catchments go from 0 to a demand for 44 percent. It is hard to explain why, and
there is no explanation why such large changes are seen from one WFD cycle to another. Only explanation given for
each cycle is that now the models are good and better than the ones before. There is no trust to the targets from a broad
agricultural perspective and the panels advice that they are ‘fit for purpose’ will not change that perspective. It is
SEGES’s opinion that if the trust is to be rebuilt the governance structure must be changed to a more local based
perspective. Trust is not necessary for mandatory measures – the procedure used in Denmark for the last decades. But
the last 10 years stagnation in N-load reduction has demonstrated that the potential for using mandatory measures is
very limited today. The main road forward to reduce N significant is in SEGES opinion a change of landuse, including
wetlands, forests etc. and with that perspective trust will definitely be important. Involvement is a pillow in the WFD and a
change to more involvement from the very top-down regulation we have experienced in Denmark the last decades would
be very much in line with article 14 in WFD: “Member
States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested
parties in the implementation of this Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of the river basin
management plans”.
Page
25
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
6. Comments from Limfjordsrådet
The Limfjord Council representing the Danish municipalities acknowledges that the review of the scientific
and legal aspects of the Danish river basin managements plans is both comprehensive and thorough.
We note that the expert panel have concluded that the Danish marine models are trustworthy and are
excellent tools to set MAI targets. This gives us confidence that the river basin plans, and the associated
nutrient targets are based on a solid scientific foundation. We acknowledge that for some waterbodies,
both N and P reduction can will benefit the waterbodies, and notes that this includes parts of the Limfjord.
We also acknowledge the panels statement, that while the reduction of stressors other than nutrient input
can be beneficial to the marine environment, such reductions cannot replace reductions in nutrient
loading, which remain the predominant measure to achieve good ecological status
The panel approves of the methodology used to establish the baseline 2027. While we agree that the
methodology is sound, we are, however, concerned that the effects of previous baselines have not been
detectable in the nutrient loadings. There is a need to evaluate the baseline 2021 and baseline 2027 after
2027.
In general, we agree with the panel that the Danish river basin managements is based on a strong scientific
foundation. Therefore, we also support the expert panels conclusion that the focus should now be on
implementing the proposed nutrient reductions. The task is very challenging indeed, in particular in parts of
the Limfjord catchments, where very substantial reductions in nitrogen loads must be achieved. However,
as lead in one of four pilots of locally based community management plans, we experience an
understanding from all stakeholders of the size of the effort needed. In the pilot we have focussed on
analysing the local opportunities to implement the national river basin management plans achieving the
targets set while at the same time retaining as much agricultural production as possible. This will require
both new nutrient reduction measures, a transformation of the remaining agriculture to low nutrient
emission rotations and a catchment planning effort that involve local stakeholders and require that
substantial funding is allocated to pursue these activities.
The Limfjord Council is looking forward executing a broad range of measures to achieve the set goals in the
RBMP for The Limfjord.
Page
26
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
7. Comments from Ocean Institute
(Tænketanken Hav)
General remarks
Ocean Institute has no comments on this section.
Chapter 1 – Reference conditions, G/M boundary target, and intercalibration
Chapter 1 – Comments
Ocean Institute notes that the panel find the new approach in RBMP3 to calculate water body specific, rather than type
specific, refence conditions fit for purpose. Ocean Institute agrees with this, and notes that this new approach is in
accordance with an overall approach for achieving good ecological status in coastal waters based on local
hydrographical and other conditions and with the involvement of local stakeholders. Furthermore, Ocean Institute agrees
with the panel that further elaborations of the ecological models will not be worthwhile, and that this also goes for the
suggestion to base the modelling and subsequent actions on nitrogen concentrations rather than nitrogen loadings.
Chapter 2 – Marine models and their use in setting maximum allowable input
Chapter 2 – Comments
As above, Ocean Institute agrees with the panel that no further model development is warranted and that current model
tools are fit for use. Ocean Institute has no further comments on this section.
Chapter 3 – Status load, Baseline effects, and effectiveness of measures
Chapter 3 – Comments
Ocean Institute notes that the panel finds the methodology to establish the status load and 2027 baseline to be inherently
sound and fit for purpose. Ocean Institute agrees with this assessment. Ocean Institute also notes – with thanks – the
very precise and to the point notion by the panel that at least a full decade has been lost when it comes to implementing
measures to reduce the nutrient loading to the Danish coastal waters.
Ocean Institute agrees agrees that the focus going forward should be on implementing measures rather than refining the
methodology. The measures so far have not been sufficiently effective, partly because of the voluntary approach.
Chapter 4 –Burden distribution
Chapter 4 – Comments
Ocean Institute notes – and agrees with - several points, made by the panel. Among these especially that improving the
water quality of the Baltic and North Seas is a long-term effort, but that this fact and any question on burden distribution
does not change the fact that Denmark has the obligation to achieve Good Ecological Status in its waters.
Chapter 5 – Seasonality
Chapter 5 – Comments
Ocean Institute agrees with the point made by the panel that nutrients may be retained in the sediment nutrient pools and
therefore have a longer residence time in the water bodies than the water itself. Because of that, the question of
seasonality is much more complex than just considering the water bodies to be flushed for nutrients during the winter
before the growth season of phytoplankton starts. Seasonality should not, therefore, just be used as an argument for
releasing more nutrients during the autumn and winter.
Ocean Institute also agrees with the statement that local initiatives – the “Kystvandråd” should not duplicate the entire
RBMP process. Ocean institute does, however, see Kystvandråd or similar initiative as an interested road forward, that
should be further investigated, tested and implemented.
Chapter 6 – Phosphorus efforts
Chapter 6 – Comments
Ocean Institute has no comments on this chapter.
Chapter 7 – Pressures and stressors other than nitrogen
Chapter 7 – Comments
Ocean Institute strongly agrees that other stressors should be addressed in addition to – and definitively not instead of –
nutrients (nitrogen) as a stressor. However, Ocean Institute sees the approach made by the panel as highly formalistic
Page
27
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0028.png
and not adequate: Just because a stressor is also treated under other directives, such as the MSFD, it does not mean
that this stressor is irrelevant for the ecological status of the water body in question under the WFD. The coastal waters
are affected by several different stressors, and the fact that we describe and address these in different contexts does not
change this fact. The question of the effects of multiple stressors must be handled in the future to achieve good
ecological status in Danish waters, and thus the scope of measures under the WFD should be broadened.
Several stressors impact the status of the Danish coastal waters. For example, it is clearly described in the WFD, annex
V that pollution by priority substances and other substances identified as being discharged in significant quantities must
be used as quality elements for the classification of ecological status of coastal waters and not just as a part of chemical
status.
Furthermore, stressors such as dredging, extraction of sand and gravel, land reclamation and offshore structures also
have significant impact on the status of some of the Danish coastal waters. In this regard, we refer to the article by
Andersen et. al. from August 2023:
Are European Blue Economy ambitions in conflict with European environmental visions?
Jesper H. Andersen , Zyad Al-Hamdani, Jacob Carstensen, Karen Edelvang, Josefine Egekvist, Berit C. Kaae, Kathrine
J. Hammer, Eva Therese Harvey, Jørgen O. Leth, Will McClintock, Ciara´n Murray, Anton S. Olafsson, Jeppe Olsen,
Signe Sveegaard, Jakob Tougaard. Ambio.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373452735_Are_European_Blue_Economy_ambitions_in_conflict_with_Europe
an_environmental_visions
Chapter 8 – Possibilities for further use of exemptions
Chapter 8 – Comments
Ocean Institute notes that Denmark has 104 of the 109 coastal water bodies that are subject to the use of exemptions in
relation to reach GES. No further water bodies than the 5 already in GES are expected to reach GES in 2027. Ocean
Institute finds it relevant to investigate whether this is in accordance with the overall objective with the WFD and
questions whether a more widespread use of exemptions is possible at all.
Chapter 9 – General conclusions
Chapter 9 – Comments
Ocean Institute commends the panel for making a number of very clear and to the point statements, that should be able
to serve as a good and solid foundation for the future Danish efforts to reduce nutrient emissions. Again, Ocean Institute
stresses that reducing other impacts of the Danish coastal waters will also be necessary in order to achieve a good
ecological status.
Page
28
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
8. Comments from Danish Sports Fishing Association
(Danmarks Sportsfiskerforbund)
Second opinion phase II
Denmark's Sports Fishing Associations comments to the draft of the international evaluation report
General remarks
The Danish Sports Fishermen's Association considers these statements/recommendations to be very
significant in the report:
1.
Between RBMP2 and RBMP3, considerable effort has been devoted to improving the quality and the spatial
resolution of the modelling underlying the plans. The Panel estimates that the current state of the models has
resulted in tools for estimating MAI that are not only fit for purpose, but that are exemplary in the way they
reflect the specificities of the different water bodies while maintaining coherence and consistency across the
landscape.
For that reason, the Panel is of the opinion that, overall, a robust basis for estimating required reductions of
nutrient inputs into the different water bodies has been realized and no further improvement of these models is
needed.
The Panel observes with concern, that during the 2010s almost a decade has been lost, in which little N load
reduction has been realized. However, the Panel remains convinced that the types of measures proposed have
an inherent potential to lead to reduced N input into coastal systems. The Panel expresses the hope that during
the coming years of the RBMP3 period, a steadfast and sustained political environment will implement the
necessary measures to realize the ambitious goals of the WFD.
2.
Chapter 1 – Reference conditions, G/M boundary target, and intercalibration
Chapter 1 – Comments
In phase two of Second opinion, the main task for the panel of experts was to evaluate the Danish
management approach from both a scientific and legal perspective and to evaluate, whether there are
other potential approaches within the scientific and legal boundaries of the Water Framework Directive.
The Danish Sports Fishermen's Association finds that the Panel finds the Danish approach adequate and at
a high scientific level - the following are statements and recommendations from the report:
In terms of regulation of nutrients, the panel endorses the focus on annual N loads as a basis for calculation of MAI and
thus as a foundation of the management. Efforts to also develop boundary values for nutrient concentrations should not
replace the currently applied methodology for MAI estimation.
Do not further elaborate models and approaches on reference conditions, both for Chl a (model based) and eelgrass
(observation based), as the two sets can be considered to be sufficiently consistent for application.
Chapter 2 – Marine models and their use in setting maximum allowable input.
Chapter 2 – Comments
The panel gives a lot of praise for the scientific work that forms the basis of the Danish modeling
work and the calculated MAIs:
The Panel is impressed by the progress made in developing the modelling scheme that produced a country wide.
distribution of water body specific need for reduction of nitrogen (NFR) that represents the minimal effort required.
to achieve Good Environmental Status across Danish coastal waters. The evolution from the previous management
cycle is remarkable. The extrapolation across water bodies in RBMP2 using a coarse typology caused inconsistencies in
nutrient reduction demand for especially fjords and enclose d water bodies, and we can now see that the huge
investment in time and effort to make the N MAI calculation framework water body specific has paid off in RBMP3.
Resulting demands with respect to need for reduction (NFR) of nitrogen appears to be qualitatively and quantitatively
Page
29
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
consistent with the spatial distributions of both eutrophication problems as well as catchments with high proportion of
anthropogenic nutrient inputs.
In summary, the current approach to estimate and distribute the effort required to reach Good Environmental Status
in coastal waters is now quite mature and provides decision support on a level of detail and quality that, to our
knowledge, is not available in any other country.
Recommendations that praise the Danish approach and there is no room for maneuvering from a
scientific perspective:
Substantial improvements have been made to all components of the N MAI calculations since RBMP 2 and the quality of
the results has improved. The N MAIs computed by the models are of sufficient quality to be used within RBMP 3 without
further improvements.
There is no room for maneuvering in the sense of increased N MAIs, since the most optimistic scenario is chosen
concerning water quality improvement due to other countries’ efforts in reducing nutrient inputs.
There are no indications that further model development or improvements would lead to N MAIs at a significantly
different level than the ones derived. It would be interesting to investigate a predictive simulation with the MECH model
with respect to how close the final set of N MAIs will get the water bodies in relation to Good Environmental Status
Chapter 3 – Status load, Baseline effects, and effectiveness of measures
Chapter 3 – Comments
The Danish Sports Fishermen's Association agrees that the poor condition and the lack of effort is due to
political uncertainty or even a lack of political courage. The real vulnerability lies in the political options to
implement and sustain these measures.
We read the following sections of the report as examples of this:
‘It
is clear that measures in agriculture and wastewater treatment taken during the 1980s, 1990s and into the first decade
of the 20 Th Century caused major reductions in nutrient loads, and subsequent considerable improvement in the coastal
ecosystems. However, no or very minor reductions in nutrient loads have been observed during the past decade.
This gives rise to concerns regarding the prospects of achieving improved environmental status in the coastal water
bodies. As this concern has also been raised by some stakeholders, the issue on the so far adopted measures and their
effectiveness is shortly discussed in this chapter.
Overall, then, it appears to the Panel that political uncertainty about the way forward and the measures to take, has
slowed down the effective and consistent implementation of nutrient load reducing measures in the 2010’s, explaining
that a full decade was virtually lost for lowering nutrient loads to coastal water bodies. This has raised the impression
with stakeholders that many efforts have been discussed and sometimes also (briefly) applied, without much effect. The
Panel sees no reason, however, to doubt that measures can be found that have the potential to be effective, if applied at
scale, and therefore does not express doubt as to the technical possibility of achieving the RBMP3 goals with appropriate
measures. It can be deplored that valuable time has been lost in the 2010s, but this is balanced by the observation that
the past experiences have been built into the more ambitious plans for measures in RBMP3. The real vulnerability is in
the political possibility to implement and sustain these measures. The Panel expresses hope that sufficient political
support for a sustained and coherent implementation of measures will be provided within RBMP3. Many measures take
time to be effective, and there is no room for changing policy too often.
In view of the late implementation of measures, including more wetlands and catch crops, experience from the field on
the effectiveness of these measures under different conditions remains limited. The Panel advises to closely monitor the
realized projects and quickly expand the empirical basis for further development of nitrogen reduction strategies and
measures.
Effectiveness of measures: The Panel expresses concern that during the last decade, little or no reduction of N load to
coastal waters has taken place. In analyzing different possible causes for this halting of progress, the Panel concludes
that it is not due to inherent ineffectiveness of the measures, but to political changes in the 2010s that have led to delay
in implementation. Therefore, there is still hope for further N load reduction in RBMP2 and RBMP3, but this will require
steadfast and ambitious policy decisions and sustained implementation. The Panel advises to closely monitor the
measures that are currently being implemented, in order to further enhance the empirical basis needed for further
development of reduction programs.
Page
30
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
Chapter 4 –Burden distribution
Chapter 4 – Comments
Denmark's Sports Fishermen's Association agrees with the panel that Denmark has weakened its position by not
complying with previous agreements. The way forward is to enter wholeheartedly into the international work to ensure
that the effects of transboundary pollution are minimized as quickly as possible together with the other states cooperating
in the Regional Sea Conventions OSPAR and HELCOM.
Statements and recommendations from the report:
With respect to international diplomatic action, Denmark has weakened its position by lowering unilaterally the G/M
boundary values that had previously been agreed upon in intercalibration exercises. If Danish waters cannot reach
a target value that lies significantly below the concentrations of inflowing open sea water, chances are high that.
this will be considered by other countries as a self-inflicted problem. It is highly unlikely that other countries would
engage in achieving a water quality better than their own intercalibrated quality goals, just because Denmark has
later revised its calculation and deviated from the intercalibrated (i.e. internationally agreed) goals.
The Panel concludes that Denmark has to fulfil its WFD obligations for the achievement of Good Environmental
Status in coastal waters. There is no legal evidence for arguing that the influence of transboundary pollution on
achieving the Good Environmental Status results in decreased obligations under WFD. On the other hand, the
Panel also concludes that the influence of transboundary pollution on the achievement of Good Environmental
Status is an essential element in the decision-making process on the utilization of exemptions.
Denmark should use the existing legal framework to minimize the effects of transboundary pollution as quickly as
possible together with the other states cooperating in the Regional Sea Conventions OSPAR and HELCOM.
Denmark should invite the other Member States to intensify cooperation in the preparation of the programs of
measures under MSFD, and aim at achieving as much consistency as possible between the WFD and MSFD
targets.
It is recommended to update the identification of reductions in nutrient inputs from other Member States based on
their RBMP3 in the further course of the Danish RBMP3. This will ensure that the current efforts of the other Member
States are determined.
Chapter 5 – Seasonality
Chapter 5 – Comments
The Danish Sports Fishing Association agrees with the Panel that no more valuable time should be lost in
prolonged investigations and discussions about Seasonality.
We have knowledge but lack action and political courage.
Statements and recommendations from the report:
The Panel noted a certain ambiguity with respect to the aims of the local initiatives. Where they focus on analyzing the
causes and possible remediations of eutrophication, this seems to be a duplication of the entire RBMP process and an
unattainable goal within the given time frame. One should not lose more valuable time in prolonged studies and
discussions, especially because it is highly unlikely to find significant alternatives to a strategy of decreasing diffuse
loading. It would also be very counterproductive if every region could modify the aims of the river basin management
plans. The Panel is convinced that maximal effectivity of these local initiatives can be obtained if they can concentrate on
the planning and execution of concrete measures within clearly defined, and well monitored objectives to be reached in
fixed time periods.
In order to obtain a coherent and convincing national strategy to address the WFD challenges in a reasonably short time
span, the Panel is convinced that it is necessary to establish year-round MAIs for every water body. Only within such an
overall strategy, would it be possible to open options for an adjusted local/regional strategy. Such a strategy should
primarily aim at incorporating valuable local knowledge in the design and implementation of locally adapted measures.
Page
31
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
Chapter 6 – Phosphorus efforts
Chapter 6 – Comments
Denmark's Sports Fishermen's Association does not believe there is a basis for proceeding in this direction
when the panel recommends:
Modelling results can provide the basis for converting P reductions in equivalent N reductions, thus opening
possibilities for combined N P load reductions in planning and implementing measures in the current RMBP.
Since there is agreement that the model results show that this can only be a profitable strategy in a limited
set of water bodies and will not replace most of the necessary N reduction.
Chapter 7 – Pressures and stressors other than nitrogen
Chapter 7 – Comments
There is an important thing to address as described in the Panel's recommendation:
No convincing evidence shows that alleviating other pressures can be considered instead of nutrient load
reductions. The nutrient load reductions calculated by the models and reflected i n the MAIs have been
calculated without taking account of other stressors. The Panel agrees with COWI and NIRAS that
consideration of other stressors does not change the top priority attached to reducing N loads.
The Danish Sports Fishing Association strongly agrees with the conclusion from COWI and NIRAS and the
Panel that concluded “it is expected that measures towards other press factors will not lead to changes in
MAI. This does not mean that other pressures are not relevant. For instance, it could be considered to have
a more systematic approach regarding other pressures to support achieving Good Environmental Status.
Other import statements/recommendations from the report where we agree:
Very few impacts of other pressures on phytoplankton Chl a have been documented by the DTU Aqua
studies, the COWI and NIRAS report, or the stakeholders. This BQE seems relatively insensitive to other
pressures than eutrophication.
In general, it can be stated that good nutrient conditions do not guarantee the realization of Good
Environmental Status, if other stressors would be such that they inhibit the realization of the ecological
potential. For example, recovery of eelgrass is not possible in areas that are intensively dredged for mussels,
even if nutrient conditions would allow for eelgrass development. In as far as beam trawling takes place
within the eelgrass habitat, this may also be limiting. These examples show that reaching Good
Environmental Status cannot solely depend on improving eutrophication in the different water bodies. As
eutrophication problems come under control, more attention will be needed for other stressors. However,
although locally strong effects by other stressors have been documented, no evidence is presented that
these effects are equally strong everywhere. Also, the stressors mentioned and studied can, in principle, be
kept under control or be alleviated.
Fisheries, affecting directly or indirectly the depth limit of eelgrass, stands out as potentially the most
important other stressor. Invasive species are insufficiently documented but could also be important in some
cases.
Page
32
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
Relatively little attention has been paid to chemical stressors, in particular herbicides and organotin
compounds, that have been documented to have detrimental effects on the development of eelgrass at
relatively low concentrations. Especially in catchments that are under strong agricultural pressure, good
control for herbicides and their potential effect on reaching Good Environmental Status is important.
In addition, we draw attention to the effects of aquaculture. Fish cages are important sources of organic
matter and nutrients, that have become relatively important in coastal waters. Other forms of aquaculture,
e.g. mussel culture, constitute a net sink for nutrients, but may enhance the transfer of organic matter to
the sediment in the form of faecal pellets, leading to longer residence times of nutrients in the enclosed
water bodies.
Chapter 8 – Possibilities for further use of exemptions
Chapter 8 – Comments
The Danish Sports Fishing Association finds this section confusing and can give rise to many discussions and political
interpretations. However, one of the recommendations is very specific and important, when the Panel writes:
For the utilization of exemptions, the introduction of effective measures to achieve WFD´s ecological objectives are
mandatory. The use of the exemption does not entitle Denmark to manage a water body merely to maintain the status
quo. WFD´s objectives are to enhance the status of the water bodies and the measures required to achieve this continue
to apply, only with modified temporal or qualitative requirements.
We consider that the Danish need for a deadline extension - and for deviations from the applicable environmental
requirements for "good condition" - must be seen in the light of the fact that the efforts during the first two water planning
periods (RBMP and RBMP2) have been neither ambitious nor successful.
We believe this section is essential as a guideline for the Danish efforts:
It is obvious and repeatedly stated in the CIS Guidance Documents that utilizing time extensions do not allow to fall short
on Denmark´s obligations to start implementation of necessary measures for achieving the Good Environmental Status
by 2027 or later. An approach that aims to implement insufficient measures assuming that an applied time extension
results in a lower ecological objective is not compliant with WFD. However, it´s the panel´s interpretation that Denmark is
allowed to enact further measures in the course of RBMP3 and during future RBMP if an evaluation shows that the
measures implemented initially will not lead to a Good Environmental Status in a water body.
The time required to consider the use of exemptions shall not result in the non-implementation of measures necessary to
achieve an improvement in water body status. The effectiveness of these measures must be regularly reviewed with the
aim of assessing whether they enable the achievement of the objectives applicable to the water body. Even if WFD
requires a water body approach, this does not mean that measures must be implemented based on such as a scale. A
cost-effective measure can be removing an activity and restore the area in one place and implement mitigation measures
in another.
Chapter 9 – General conclusions
Chapter 9 – Comments
The Danish Sports Fishing Association finds all recommendations really important and good. We have applied several of
the recommendations in our comments to the other chapters. We wish to commend the Panel for a thorough and well-
executed job.
Page
33
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
9. Comments from Fair Spildevand
Rural districts are imposed burdens for at least 20 years without legal authority
Consultation response to International evaluation report DRBM Plan from “Fair Spildevand”
(Wastewater)
This reply is not wrapped up in normal diplomatic terms, as we find that we get to the bottom of the
problems more quickly with blunter language and also sensed at the meeting on 11 September at
Sauntehus that the chairman Peter Herman had the same attitude.
Follow-up to the meeting on 11 September at Sauntehus Slotshotel
We have scrutinized the chairman's, Peter Herman's, positions on restrictions on nitrogen and phosphorus,
respectively, in order to keep algae growth to a minimum.
It is exactly the same discussion we have had with our own professor Karen Timmermann. This discussion
concluded that the optimum N/P ratio of 7:1 (weight basis) should be avoided as much as possible, as algae
thrive best at this nutrient ratio.
According to Redfield, the ocean will always strive for a balance of exactly 7:1. Therefore, it is our opinion
that Karen Timmermann and Peter Herman are from the same school. Namely the school that will
constantly be in conflict with the laws of nature.
The diagnosis is made
We argued that it was concentrations that were the best indicator to act on when assessing the
environmental condition of our marine environment. That position was rejected by Peter Herman on the
basis of the claim that concentrations in isolation had little informational value and that one should instead
relate to total amounts in order to get the true picture of the environmental impact. With that, we agree
on what we disagree on. The diagnosis is made.
But first a little about the role of nitrogen in the marine environment
The hypothesis that has never been scientifically verified/falsified
We know that:
•
•
•
•
Photosynthesis in the water phase creates oxygen that corresponds to the oxygen consumption
during the decay of excess plant parts and algae
When oxygen depletion is observed, nitrate nitrogen is barely measurable in the water phase
Without nitrogen, no photosynthesis (no binding of CO2) and the carbon cycle stops
Without nitrogen, neither nourishment for healthy algae for the ocean's food chain nor basis for
eelgrass.
With the right ratio of N/P 7:1, it is the basis for healthy algae that can be absorbed into the food chain. At
a N/P ratio of 4:1 or below, there is a basis for "skid algae" (toxic blue-green algae and algae with a low
protein content).
In 1981, increased oxygen depletion and fish deaths were observed in inland Danish waters. Decades
before, our waste water was collected in central treatment plants and, after a rough cleaning, discharged
into current-filled waters.
Page
34
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0035.png
Øresund alone was discharged approx. 1 million tons of sludge every year.
But almost simultaneously appeared a
biologist with the hypothesis
14
, that agriculture's increasing
consumption of commercial fertilizers did not benefit the crops, but flowed directly into the sea via the
drainage pipes, resulting in a sharp increase in algae growth, which later used up much of the oxygen in the
water phase when the excess algae later rotted on the seabed.
The biologist's hypothesis has never been verified/falsified by recognized scientific methods, which must be
said to be a mortal sin. What this failure has cost both financially, in terms of resources and in terms of
people, history will probably not look lightly on at some point.
In any case, after 4-5 decades we are today faced with both questionable conditions in our water
environment and a resource-intensive waste water management.
From 1996 to 2014, according to statistikbanken.dk/FISK2, 650,000 tonnes to 230,000 tonnes of fish have
been landed. So a reduction of 420,000 tonnes or 65 per cent. fewer fish from the sea around Denmark,
excl. North Sea. In the same period, 85,000 and 55,000 tonnes of nitrogen were emitted respectively. A
reduction of 35 per cent.
Emission of nitrogen compared to landed fish/year
According to Aarhus University: Emission of nitrogen in thousand ton
Fish landed in one thousand ton, excluding the North Sea …..
A drop of 85 per cent. over 18 years with landed fish combined
with a reduction of one third (35 %) of emitted nitrogen
from https://www.statistikbanken.dk/FISK2
Today, no one would probably conclude that we should simply discharge some more nitrogen into the sea
so that we could land a few more fish without further analysis. Except maybe if it was a view some of the
national media supported media wanted to promote.
Cand. agro. Poul Vejby-Sørensen explains here:
Understand the meaning of nitrogen in ten minutes
15
, how
important it is to do away with Justus von Liebig's minimum law, which only applies in controlled laboratory
experiments, but does not belong in the open sea environment. Here it is Redfield's balance theory that is
relevant.
It is substantiated in the most elegant way.
Academic deroute or perhaps signs of insanity
1996 2014
85
650
55
230
14
https://www.fairspildevand.dk/wp-content/uploads/Marin-eutrofiering-Gunni-Aertebjerg-fra-1960-til-2018-EN.pdf
15 https://www.fairspildevand.dk/wp-content/uploads/Understand-the-importance-of-nitrogen-in-ten-
minutes.pdf
Page
35
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
There are serious signs of a deroute in Western academia and large parts of the media-supported press,
unfortunately.
For a human age, nitrogen has been singled out as the main cause of poor ecological condition in surface
water.
A lighter paraphrasing of Einstein's description of insanity probably sums it up very well: Designating
nitrogen as a problem over and over and expecting a different result.
There is more evidence that too little rather than too much nitrogen is discharged into streams and coastal
waters in relation to the amount of phosphorus present. Or that it is primarily phosphorus and waste water
that we must focus on, where the ecological condition of surface water is unsatisfactory.
The open land has been burdened for at least 20 years without legal authority
We expect that everyone will first and foremost respect the legislation
Back to Sauntehus on 11 September
Total quantities make no sense if you do not know the volume that will receive the quantity. There is a
difference between whether a given quantity is discharged into a bathtub or a swimming pool! Therefore, it
also does not make sense to relate to total quantities discharged into the waters around Denmark, as it is
an undefinable volume together with strong incoming and outgoing sea currents.
Total amounts, concentrations and the role of nitrogen in nature's cycle probably cannot be broadly agreed
upon in this circle.
But we expect that everyone is prepared to comply with the applicable law. Therefore, we would once
again draw attention to what is actually stated in the Water Framework Directive and Nitrates
Directive.
The Water Framework Directive has nothing to do with nitrogen, but sets requirements for nutrient
conditions, see Annex V.
Where nitrate is mentioned, reference is made to the Nitrates Directive and here only requirements are set
for concentrations and never total quantities.
Therefore, total quantities must henceforth be relegated to the world of models and current legislation
based on measurable concentrations exactly as prescribed in the Water Framework and Nitrates Directive.
In the evaluation report under chapter 8, reference is made several times to article 4.1. where it says
several times: "in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V".
The fact that the misinterpretation has taken place for at least 20 years since the directive's
implementation in Danish law does not justify continuing with the mistake. In the same way that a patient
should not continue with the same medication when a completely new diagnosis has been made.
With the realization that it is concentrations that are the basis and applicable law for future water planning,
our comments to the COWI report hopefully make more sense. Therefore, reference is again made to the
following:
Page
36
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0037.png
•
•
•
Comments on the COWI report
16
Questions from
“Fair Spildevand”
for the experts regarding
”Second
opinion”, March 2023
17
and to ours
speaking paper for the meeting on 11 September
18
with some extra text.
Danish authorities have spoiled the task solution
We also find it relevant to explain to the panel our experiences throughout the process up to today.
Right from the start of this second opinion process, we tried to get through with the good news by sending
the note
The happy news
19
to COWI before they started preparing the report. But the impression of this
COWI report was a long list of the water plan policy that has been carried out in Denmark over the last 3
decades.
In addition, there is also sloppiness with the translation, consciously/unconsciously, it is not known.
The text marked in red has been added to the task the panel has been given.
A second opinion will include an assessment of the scientific basis for the calculated
need for reduction
of
nitrogen with a focus on exploring whether assumptions, preconditions or choices have been made that
could lead to adjustments of the estimated
need for reduction
of the nitrogen load on coastal waters within
the legal and scientific framework of the Water Framework
Directive."
Yes, or maybe nitrogen need an increase.
Danish water plans rest on the virtual model world
We (Brønserud) have presented and documented with reference to Aarhus University that measurements
of Nitrate-N in Danish streams have been 2 to 4 times cleaner than the requirement for drinking water. And
Fair Wastewater cannot, despite a month-old access to documents, be given figures for measured N
concentrations and water volumes for the 109 water catchments. We must therefore conclude that they
simply do not exist. In other words, Danish water plans are not based on data from the real world, but are
left to the virtual model world.
More of a "second confirmation" than a "second opinion"
16 https://www.fairspildevand.dk/wp-content/uploads/Comments-on-the-COWI-report-Second-opinion-
fra-Fair-S pildevand.pdf
17 https://www.fairspildevand.dk/wp-content/uploads/Second-opinion-fase-II-2-questions-to-the-expert-
from-Fair -Spildevand.pdf
18 https://www.fairspildevand.dk/wp-content/uploads/Input-to-second-opinion-expert-panel-on-11-
September-20 23-fra-Fair-Spildevand.pdf
19 https://www.fairspildevand.dk/wp-content/uploads/Happy-news-about-nitrogen-to-second-opinion-
GB-DK.pdf
Page
37
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
The COWI report and thus the framework for the panel has been created under the strict guidance of
responsible Danish authorities with narrow frameworks for new thinking, so the concept of "second
opinion" is strongly invalidated.
For example, it has led to a completely banal and redundant legal discussion about Articles 4.4 and
4.5, which the panel had to spend time on. Pure waste of time in our opinion.
We would go so far as to say that the authorities have done their part so that the end result will not be a
"second opinion" but a "second confirmation" that the water plans must continue to be administered on
the basis of models and total amounts of nutrients.
In the second opinion report from 2017, the settlement was not taken either. Is that why three people on
the panel have been re-selected since then, one might provocatively ask?
Kudos to the panel
Due to language difficulties, it is possible that we have done the panel, including Peter Herman, wrong, and
it may also be that we have overlooked good points in the preliminary report. We haven't had time to go
into much detail.
We would, however, unconditionally praise the remark in the last paragraph:
"That includes making use of
socio-economic information to prevent that the applied measures lead to 'disproportionate cost".
The real "second opinion" and optimistic message
The real second opinion, which at the same time does not conflict with the Water Framework Directive,
“Fair Spildevand” has in all modesty been the biggest contributor to including decriminalizing nitrogen.
A big help for rural areas and the marine environment
In conclusion, we would therefore strongly urge the panel to put an end to at least 20 years of
misinterpretation of the Water Framework Directive and Nitrates Directive and point out that
measurements of physical-chemical quality elements are the basic data that must be available before other
management tools are put into use.
Those who live in the open country both in Denmark and indirectly the rest of the EU, including agriculture
in the Netherlands, are guaranteed to be very pleased with this.
A lovely planet
After all, it is a lovely planet we live on, especially if we humans recognize that we will never be able to
uncover all of nature's secrets and instead simply conform to its laws and whims.
Fair Spildevand 2. oktober 2023
Page
38
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
2772017_0039.png
10. Comments from University of Aarhus - Danish Centre For Environment
And Energy (DCE - Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi)
General remarks
DCE acknowledge the huge and solid effort of the panel in analyzing and describing the scientific
background which the river basin management plans are based on and have read the report and suggestions
from the panel with great interest.
We have a few remarks concerning the catchments science part of the report, whereas the comments
regarding the marine science part are send as a common briefing from DHI, DTU and AU in a separate
document.
Chapter 3 – Status load, Baseline effects, and effectiveness of measures
Section 3.4.2: The 2027 baseline
The Panel in this section refers to a N-model
“The
N-model has been developed to translate measures in the field
into rates of nitrogen loading of the coastal waters. The N-model represents the important processes taking place
between the moment of application of fertilizer or manure in the field, and the moment N leaches to the coastal waters.
This includes leaching in soils and N-retention in the landscape and reflects local conditions and catchment
characteristics. Some complicated aspects of this modelling could be better explained and communicated. These include:
the changes in the catchment boundaries; further adjustments for measures that may be necessary; long-time
lags”.
We are not sure about what kind of N-model
there is referred to in the Panel’s report that has been used for
establishing the 2027 baseline. However, it would be an important issue that might be considered by the
Panel to add to the baseline chapter, that there seems to be older lacking responses for implemented nitrogen
measures in agriculture that has not fully appeared in surface waters due to the long-time lags that is already
referred to by the Panel in their report.
Section 3.4.3: The effectiveness of measures
The apparent lack of significant reduction of nitrogen concentrations and loads in rivers within the
agricultural landscapes during the past decade has been noted with worry by the Panel.
DCE agrees with the panel, that in the coming years, it is important to focus on measures and the
effectiveness of measures, but also finds that the changes in temperature and seasonal precipitation (climate)
during the last 15 years, together with problems with analysis of total nitrogen at laboratories (now been
bias-corrected for the period 2009-2015), as well as new evidence with a bias introduced in flow because of
changes in flow measurement instruments in rivers are important factors to investigate further. These factors
might have a ‘shading’ effect on trends in nitrogen concentrations and loads during the last 15 years.
In the coming years DCE finds, that the following topics would also be relevant to investigate further:
1.
2.
3.
The long-term lag effects of implemented nitrogen measures on agricultural fields in coastal
catchments.
The effects of climate change (even for the last two decades) for nitrogen leaching losses
–
looking
more into effects of seasonal changes.
The need for including into the annual reporting of trends in nitrogen loadings an in-depth analysis
of the expected effects of the implemented mitigation measures being it targeted or collective
measures. The expected effects of the implemented targeted and collective measures should then be
compared with the trends in normalized nitrogen concentrations and loads. Such an analysis should
be conducted coastal water catchment by coastal water catchment
–
meaning more regional
reporting.
Page
39
of
40
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 79: Evalueringsrapporten af Second Opinion fase II
11. Comments from Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), Technical University of
Denmark (DTU), and University of Aarhus (AU)
(Coastal modelling group)
Karen Timmermann (DTU), Anders Erichsen (DHI), Jesper Christensen (DCE/AU), Jacob Carstensen
(DCE/AU)
Chapter 1 – Reference conditions, G/M boundary target, and intercalibration
Chapter 1 – Comments
Page 7, second paragraph: It should also be mentioned that reference conditions can be based on historical
observations according to CIS guidance document #5
Chapter 9 – General conclusions
Chapter 9 – Comments
Page 63, paragraph 4: The panel acknowledges that the revised Reference Conditions are based on an
improved scientific basis but that the revised G/M boundary values has led to inconsistencies with G/M
boundary values intercalibrated with Sweden and suggest to use a refitting procedure described in
Guidance #30.
As we are convinced that the revised reference conditions are more scientifically sound and realistic
compared to the reference conditions used in the intercalibration process, we propose to initiate a
dialogue with Sweden on revising the Reference Conditions for Chla as part of a re-intercalibration process.
It is worth noting that the revised reference conditions and targets appear to be in better agreement with
recent developed targets from Germany and OSPAR as well as those obtained with the BALTSEM model for
the TARGREV project, whereas the Swedish Reference Conditions for Chla have been based on log-log
relationships between Chla and Secchi depth, developed almost two decades ago, a method that was
abandoned by Denmark a decade ago due to the poor relationships between Chla and Secchi depth.
It might be possible to develop a consistent re-fitting procedure aligning the revised G/M boundaries with
the intercalibrated G/M boundaries, however, we don’t consider the procedure described in guidance #30
as being scientifically valid and suitable for refitting.
Page
40
of
40