Tilbage i maj 2017 nedsatte Miljø- og Fødevareministeren et panel af internationale forskere, der skulle vurdere den faglige baggrund for den danske indsats i lyset af Vandrammedirektivet og dets krav om 'god økologisk tilstand i vandløb og kystnæreområder'. Hvorfor at den danske kvælstofindsats skulle vurderes af udenlandske forskere, når der almindeligvis hersker meget stor respekt om den danske viden på området - ja i de forskerkredse jeg har spurgt, regnes Danmark som førende på området for kvælstof-model-beregninger - finder man måske svar på hos Landbrug&Fødevarer, som dengang skrev:
"I Vandområdeplanerne stilles der krav om at reducere landbrugets kvælstofudledning med 13.000 tons kvælstof. De modeller, der leder frem til det store reduktionskrav, er imidlertid stærkt problematiske, på visse områder direkte fejlagtige. Landbrug & Fødevarer har derfor presset hårdt på for at få en uafhængig evaluering af modellerne, noget der blev sat midler af til i Fødevare- og Landbrugspakken. Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet har nu offentliggjort det ekspertpanel, der skal stå for evalueringen, som er fastsat til at finde sted i september måned." (lf.dk 24/5/2017)
Landbrug&Fødevarer har fulgt op på denne indstilling til kvælstofudledningen henover sommeren, med en serie de kaldte 'De syv synder', som udfoldede deres kritik af den danske indsats.Nu er rapporten så på trapperne. Ja - selvom den ikke er offentliggjort endnu har Landbrug&Fødevarer allerede taget konklusionen til indtægt. I Lørdagens eletroniske udgave af Landbrugsavisen kan man under overskriften: International evaluering støtter landbrugets kritik af vandplaner, læse:
"En international rapport om det faglige grundlag for miljømålene i de danske vandplaner giver på lange stræk Landbrug & Fødevarer ret (...) I rapporten skriver de udenlandske forskere direkte, at »når alt tages i betragtning, vurderer panelet ikke, at miljømålene i de forskellige vandområder er tilstrækkeligt pålidelige til at kunne anvendes som beslutningsgrundlag og til planlægning af miljøindsatser. Det bygger eksperterne på forskellige mulige fejlkilder i de danske myndigheders fastsættelse af miljømålene.(...) Selvom rapporten og de internationale eksperter således giver både Landbrug & Fødevarer og Bæredygtigt Landbrug ret på en lang række vigtige punkter, er L&F foreløbig tilbageholdende med at kommentere rapporten, da den endnu ikke er endelig og offentliggjort." (link)
Hvilket får en læser til at skrive: "Der er mange, og især Rasmus Jarlov (konservative) som har udsigt til en dårlig smag i munden når dette bliver offentligtgjort."
Hvilket så får en KU-forsker til at svare med et uddrag af konklusionen, som lyder sådan her:
"In comparison with many other European countries, Denmark has excellent databases, models and scientific expertise as a basis for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. The Panel was delighted to see that these resources have been mobilised to achieve a leading position at the European scale. The Panel was impressed by the openness and transparency of the interaction between government, researchers and stakeholders as well as by the high intellectual level of the discussions. This open exchange of ideas and opinions is a perfect basis for a further improvement of the scientific basis for the WFD implementation.
The Panel has reviewed the choice of indicators and procedures, in the context of the WFD requirements and specifications, and found that the indicators, the methods to determine reference conditions and the methods to determine required actions were WFD compliant. The Danish implementation is based on either direct historical observation or model determination of reference conditions. Little or no uncontrollable “expert judgement” is involved. In that respect, the Danish models are attaining the highest possible standard of WFD implementation."
Hvilket har fået flere læsere til at efterspørge hele den endnu ikke offentliggjorte eller færdigredigerede tekst, som der refereres fra. Dette har Landbrugsavisen så efter lidt tøven gjort. Og her kan man læse:
Task description by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
In agreement with the EU Water Framework Directive, Denmark has produced the River Basin Management Plans devising a strategy for improving and securing that coastal waters, lakes, streams and ground waters fulfil the demand for Good Ecological Status as stated in the directive. For Danish coastal waters, it has been estimated that reductions in N runoff from land are the primary concern if goals of Good Ecological Status in coastal waters are to be fulfilled. On this background, mitigation measures have been implemented in the 2015-2021 River Basin Management Plans to additionally reduce the N runoff to coastal waters, corresponding to roughly half the total estimated reduction needs.
The task of the evaluation panel is to perform a thorough evaluation of the marine modelling tools that form the basis for the mitigation demands for land-based nitrogen (N) runoff in the Danish River Basin Management Plans with regards to the importance of N as well as other relevant pressures such as phosphorous, fisheries etc. In particular, the evaluation panel has to:
En del af panelets opgave var altså ikke alene at vurdere den faglige indsats, men også at svare på landbrugets kritik. Det kaster lys over hvordan resultaterne i rapporten formuleres.
Ovenstående citat i Landbrugsavisen er fra konklusionen, som fortsætter i samme tråd, dog med forskellige forslag til forbedrede input til modellerne, der svarer til mange af landbrugets kritikpunkter.
"In view of the large efforts in the past to remove P load from point sources, the Panel endorses the emphasis placed in the Scientific Documentation Report on reducing N loads from diffuse sources. However, at least in principle, there could be an additional role for P load reduction and for seasonal regulation of the N load. The Panel is of the opinion that these options merit further scientific exploration, especially in watersheds where high efforts for N load reduction are required.
Although the maintenance of two parallel modelling lines (statistical and mechanistic) may seem redundant at first sight, the Panel strongly endorses maintaining these lines. Given the wealth of data available, it provides unique possibilities for evidence-based checking of mechanistic model results. The Panel assesses the mechanistic model as a state-of-the-art, very comprehensive tool, but emphasises that independent checking on data as well as uncertainty analysis remain necessary and can be performed by the statistical approach. This coherence can be optimised by improving the approach and methods of the statistical modelling. The Panel endorses the general logic of the methodology to derive reference and target values from the models and to calculate the required N load reduction to reach the targets."
I lyset af den generelle sanktionering af de danske modeller, indsatser og metodologi kan man undre sig over rapportens allersidste sætninger:
Der findes en lang forhistorie til denne sidste anbefaling og man kan frygte at det sætningen kunne komme til at fortolkes i retning af, i modsætning til rapportens overordnede evaluering, er at den danske indsats skal 'kallibreres med nabolandene' og da vi videnskabeligt er et godt stykke foran - har en en hel anden type sammenhæng mellem næringsstofudledning og vandstrømme, skal vi gøre os selv dårligere til at håndtere indsatsen end vi kan....
In agreement with the EU Water Framework Directive, Denmark has produced the River Basin Management Plans devising a strategy for improving and securing that coastal waters, lakes, streams and ground waters fulfil the demand for Good Ecological Status as stated in the directive. For Danish coastal waters, it has been estimated that reductions in N runoff from land are the primary concern if goals of Good Ecological Status in coastal waters are to be fulfilled. On this background, mitigation measures have been implemented in the 2015-2021 River Basin Management Plans to additionally reduce the N runoff to coastal waters, corresponding to roughly half the total estimated reduction needs.
The task of the evaluation panel is to perform a thorough evaluation of the marine modelling tools that form the basis for the mitigation demands for land-based nitrogen (N) runoff in the Danish River Basin Management Plans with regards to the importance of N as well as other relevant pressures such as phosphorous, fisheries etc. In particular, the evaluation panel has to:
-
Evaluate the use of models for determination of type-specific reference values
(according to the Water Framework Directive, Annex 2) for the water quality
element phytoplankton (chlorophyll).
-
Evaluate the use of models to determine environmental targets (Maximum
Allowable Inputs (MAI) of nitrogen)) and mitigation needs to achieve good
environmental status and evaluate differences and similarities between the use
of different methods and model types for coastal waters with different typology.
-
Evaluate the estimated nitrogen target loads and mitigation needs in the Danish
River Basin Management Plans and evaluate the method for determining the
Danish proportion of total mitigation needs. How is the current environmental
status in Danish coastal waters determined by N runoff from Danish land areas
in relation to other pressures such as N released from sediments and N loads
from catchments in neighbouring countries and airborne N deposition (the
Danish share of the total mitigation needs related N)?
En del af panelets opgave var altså ikke alene at vurdere den faglige indsats, men også at svare på landbrugets kritik. Det kaster lys over hvordan resultaterne i rapporten formuleres.
Ovenstående citat i Landbrugsavisen er fra konklusionen, som fortsætter i samme tråd, dog med forskellige forslag til forbedrede input til modellerne, der svarer til mange af landbrugets kritikpunkter.
"In view of the large efforts in the past to remove P load from point sources, the Panel endorses the emphasis placed in the Scientific Documentation Report on reducing N loads from diffuse sources. However, at least in principle, there could be an additional role for P load reduction and for seasonal regulation of the N load. The Panel is of the opinion that these options merit further scientific exploration, especially in watersheds where high efforts for N load reduction are required.
Although the maintenance of two parallel modelling lines (statistical and mechanistic) may seem redundant at first sight, the Panel strongly endorses maintaining these lines. Given the wealth of data available, it provides unique possibilities for evidence-based checking of mechanistic model results. The Panel assesses the mechanistic model as a state-of-the-art, very comprehensive tool, but emphasises that independent checking on data as well as uncertainty analysis remain necessary and can be performed by the statistical approach. This coherence can be optimised by improving the approach and methods of the statistical modelling. The Panel endorses the general logic of the methodology to derive reference and target values from the models and to calculate the required N load reduction to reach the targets."
I lyset af den generelle sanktionering af de danske modeller, indsatser og metodologi kan man undre sig over rapportens allersidste sætninger:
"International approach: The technical WFD implementation guidelines force similar
approaches in all member states. As a consequence, requirements, modelling and
challenges are similar in different countries. Further, the WFD asks for an intercalibration
and harmonisation of targets with neighbouring countries. Therefore, the Panel
recommends a co-ordinated joint scientific approach, especially between Denmark,
Germany and Sweden."
Der findes en lang forhistorie til denne sidste anbefaling og man kan frygte at det sætningen kunne komme til at fortolkes i retning af, i modsætning til rapportens overordnede evaluering, er at den danske indsats skal 'kallibreres med nabolandene' og da vi videnskabeligt er et godt stykke foran - har en en hel anden type sammenhæng mellem næringsstofudledning og vandstrømme, skal vi gøre os selv dårligere til at håndtere indsatsen end vi kan....
Under alle omstændigheder, som det fremgår af de to divergerende læserbreve i Landbrugsavisen, kan vi se frem til en hed kamp om fortolkningerne af hvad de internationale forskere egentligt mener... men hvis man kaster et blik på Finanslovsudspillet, ser det ud til at Regeringen allerede har fortaget deres...
"På regeringens forslag til finanslov er der afsat penge til at forbedre det faglige grundlag for vandplanperiode 3. I perioden 2018 til 2021 er der afsat 33,3 mio. kr.(...) En del af pengene skal bruges til at regne på de erhvervsøkonomiske konsekvenser af vandmiljøindsatsen – altså hvad miljøindsatsen koster landbruget og andre erhverv. Endelig skal der udvikles en ny hydrologisk model for grundvand og der afsættes midler til at videreudvikle de marine kvælstofmodeller." (link)
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar