Skip to content

Scenario: Baseline_NP

Policy question

What is the minimum cost of simultaneously meeting all VP3 nitrogen and phosphorus targets, subject to the Tripartite Agreement area floors? This is the central policy scenario — the one that corresponds most directly to the full Danish VP3 obligation.

Parameters (relative to model defaults)

All scalars and constraints at default settings: 

var_N = 1   // N targets active
var_P = 1   // P targets active
var_B = 0   // biodiversity off
var_C = 0   // climate off
// Tripartite constraints: ALL ACTIVE
//   Lavbund_eq:      >= 51,000 ha LRl
//   Afforestation_eq: >= 28,000 ha FO
//   Wetland_eq:      >= 7,500 ha WL
//   MW_eq:           >= 40,000 ha MW equivalent
//   LRH_eq:          >= 17,700 ha LRh
//   SA_eq:           >= 84,000 ha SA
No measure upper bounds set (all x.UP at default 1).

Key results

Indicator Value
Total cost (mDKK/yr)
N reduction achieved (tons N/yr)
P reduction achieved (kg P/yr)
Catchments with unmet N targets
Lake catchments with unmet P targets
Dominant N measure (area)
Dominant P measure (area)
Tripartite floors: all met?

Measure mix

To be filled after run.

Output files

To be filled after run.

Notes & caveats

  • This is the reference scenario — all other scenarios should be compared against it.
  • The tripartite floors significantly constrain the optimizer, especially the SA floor (84,000 ha). Expect total cost to be substantially higher than No_tripartite.
  • If any N targets cannot be met (exceed(k) > 0), document which catchments and why — this signals a genuine feasibility issue, not a cost issue.
  • No_tripartite — same targets, without the area floors → reveals cost of Tripartite Agreement
  • N_only — N targets only → reveals how much P adds to the bill
  • P_only — P targets only