Analysis: Cost of the Tripartite Agreement¶
This is not a model run but a derived analysis comparing Baseline_NP and No_tripartite. It answers the central policy question about the 2021 Tripartite Agreement.
The question¶
How much does the Tripartite Agreement cost Denmark per year, in terms of additional water quality expenditure above the cost-effectiveness optimum?
The calculation¶
Can be decomposed by constraint:
Cost of LRl floor = Cost(Baseline_NP) − Cost(Baseline_NP without Lavbund_eq)
Cost of SA floor = Cost(Baseline_NP) − Cost(Baseline_NP without SA_eq)
Cost of FO floor = ...
etc.
Template for results¶
| Component | Baseline_NP | No_tripartite | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total cost (mDKK/yr) | |||
| N measures cost | |||
| P measures cost | |||
| MW cost | |||
| WWT cost | |||
| LRl area (ha) | |||
| SA area (ha) | |||
| FO area (ha) | |||
| WL area (ha) | |||
| LRh area (ha) |
Measure mix shift¶
Which measures does the tripartite agreement force into the solution that wouldn't otherwise be there?
| Measure | With tripartite | Without tripartite | Delta (ha or units) |
|---|---|---|---|
| LRl | |||
| SA | |||
| FO | |||
| WL | |||
| LRh | |||
| MW |
Policy framing¶
The cost of the Tripartite Agreement can be framed as: - An annual payment for biodiversity/landscape goals (carbon storage, nature area, landscape variety) - A cost per ha of each type of land use change delivered - A DKK/ton N or DKK/kg P "shadow price" for the additional co-benefits
These framings allow comparison with other nature policy instruments and help justify (or challenge) the agreement.
Notes¶
- This analysis only captures the water quality cost of the tripartite floors. The agreement also delivers climate benefits (FO, WL), biodiversity (WL, BZ), and landscape values — these are not captured in
y. - When B and C modules are active in the model, the "cost" of tripartite floors relative to the multi-target optimum may shrink.