Danish Ports
Member login

Audible response

Danish Ports' response to the consultation on the review of the water area plans

Danske Havne acknowledges the opportunity to submit comments on the consultation regarding the review of the water area plans. The maritime infrastructure of commercial ports is located in coastal waters, and this consultation therefore has the potential to have a significant impact on the economy of commercial ports and the socially critical tasks that commercial ports perform.

When reviewing the extensive material, Danske Havne found that the ports' practice of relocating dredged sediment from navigation channels to other locations in the sea is only mentioned in one place. In the background material for the re-visit by the water area planners, dumping is mentioned in one case as "other pressure factors" that may have local significance for the condition of the central part of the Limfjord. There are no changes in how the water area plans view the impacts of the relocation of seabed materials, which are thus still considered a completely subordinate activity in relation to the overall quality of coastal waters.

Instead, emphasis is rightly placed on the major sources of pollution in coastal waters, which are the discharge of toxins and nutrients from agriculture and inadequate treatment by wastewater treatment plants.
Commercial ports throughout the country are critical to society, and they must continue to be operated and developed efficiently and provide the greatest possible social value in the coastal areas and coastal waters where they are located. At the same time, nature restoration is taking place.

The Ministry of the Environment has informed Danske Havne that the draft quality criteria for water and sediment in the consultation have no immediate connection with the action levels (guideline limit values) that determine whether a commercial port can dispose of dredged material at sea, which is an integral part of operations in most ports.

However, Danske Havne's expert advisor believes that the new proposals for criteria and substances in the appendices to this consultation will inevitably have a negative impact on the possibilities for relocating sediment in the sea in the future. Therefore, the consultation response emphasizes an environmental analysis and conclusion regarding this element.

Key observations

  • It is very important for commercial ports that the consultation's proposals for new substances and values in water and sediment are adjusted and implemented in the final material in such a way as to avoid any negative impact on port operations.
  • As the proposal currently stands, it is inevitable that tightening environmental quality requirements and introducing new requirements and more substances will have economic, practical, and time-related consequences in connection with applications for the relocation of seabed materials, as this will likely involve additional analyses of environmentally hazardous contaminated substances and even more expensive assessments of additional parameters and substances. Commercial ports in Denmark are very different and have very different opportunities to meet the increased financial burden associated with approvals for remediation.
  • For a number of substances mentioned in the consultation, the environmental quality requirements in water or sediment are set so low that they are lower than the background concentration in virtually the whole of Denmark. This must mean that good ecological or good chemical status can never be achieved for water areas in Denmark. Danske Havne assumes that the particularly low values must be an error. That the concentration values mentioned should be added to the natural background concentration in coastal waters. Danske Havne would like written confirmation that this is how it should be understood.
  • The consultation material adds 37 new national environmental quality standards for water and 45 for sediment and/or biota, and adjustments are made in relation to a number of existing environmental quality standards. These are significant tightening measures, and the appendices with quality criteria should be subject to separate consultation with explanations and impact assessments. This material is not included in the consultation. Particular focus should be placed on the nationally determined substances and criteria, i.e. those not based on external requirements from, for example, the EU, and the reasons for them. The national requirements can be changed politically and must be adopted politically, including compensatory measures for the affected industries.
  • In order to continue to ensure proportionality in the environmental regulation of Danish coastal waters, there should be opportunities for exemptions and flexibility in relation to the requirements for the relocation of seabed sediments at sea when specific considerations so dictate and where such permission does not hinder long-term restoration.

Detailed environmental comments

The changes in the consultation draft that may have the greatest impact on the relocation of seabed materials are summarized below. Regarding the proposal for changes to the material on nationally established environmental quality requirements for water and sediment, in particular Tables 3 and 4 of the consultation.

Table 3 adds national environmental quality standards for water for 37 substances, and 13 existing environmental quality standards are updated based on new knowledge. Table 4 adds national environmental quality standards for sediment and/or biota for 45 new substances or substance groups, and for 7 substances, existing standards are adjusted in line with new knowledge.

  • A wide range of substances are assessed under metals and PAHs, where the environmental quality requirement for sediment depends on TOC (total organic carbon). Many port and fairway sediments have a very low TOC content. This results in very low environmental quality requirements – in some cases below the detection limit. Danske Havne urges that the criteria be set differently in this case.
  • For a number of metals, including arsenic, boron, and vanadium, background concentrations exceed environmental quality standards in most of Denmark. This means that it will be difficult to comply with environmental quality standards for these substances. Furthermore, it will mean that the assessment of the water area's status will remain in ecologically poor condition for the nationally specific substances and in poor chemical condition for EU priority substances.
  • Overall, it must be expected that the adoption of the draft review of the water area plans for the third planning period, with accompanying announcements, guidelines, environmental reports, and data, may lead to significant changes in the scope of analyses and assessments to be carried out in connection with applications for the relocation of seabed sediments.

Review of the consultation documents with an environmental focus on their significance for the future operation of commercial ports

  • It will be significant that changes have been made to/ possible changes in which EU priority substances are to be/will be included in the assessment of the chemical status of coastal waters and territorial waters, as well as the addition of a large number of nationally specific substances included in the lists in the Danish Environmental Protection Agency's assessment of the ecological status of coastal waters.
  • It is unclear whether the addition of Nissum Fjord, outer, Nissum Fjord, middle, Nissum Fjord, Felsted Kog, and Ringkøbing Fjord in Table 5.14 will have any significance for the assessment of whether permission can be granted for relocation in these water areas. However, there have been no changes to the draft executive order on monitoring the condition of surface water, groundwater, and protected areas, and on nature monitoring of international nature conservation areas. It is therefore assessed that this will not affect future applications in these areas.
  • It should be noted that Danske Havne (Danish Ports) is not mentioned as a member of the monitoring groups.
  • No changes are seen in the appendices to the water area plans except in Appendix 4 on Analysis Methods and Environmental Quality Requirements. The changes in Annex 4 are a reproduction of the Analysis Order in a non-applicable version and an update of the environmental quality requirements for water and biota that are not EU priority substances. The changes to the environmental quality standards may affect future applications for the relocation of seabed material and should therefore be justified and impact assessed.

Draft Executive Order on the establishment of environmental targets for watercourses, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater

  • The text of the executive order itself contains no changes that affect the relocation of marine sediment.

Nationally established environmental quality requirements for water

  • Table 3 in Annex 2, Part B, Section 1 of the Executive Order adds national environmental quality standards for water for 37 substances and updates 13 existing environmental quality standards based on new knowledge. At first glance, none of the added substances originate from traditional port activities. The 37 substances added belong to substance groups originating from medicine, agriculture, and industry. However, it cannot be ruled out that ports located near sources or where wastewater is discharged through the port may be asked to analyze for some of the substances mentioned in the future. For the added substances, a limit value has been set for four substances that corresponds to that proposed in the European Commission's proposal for an amending directive to the Water Framework Directive, the Groundwater Directive, and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive. For two substances, a lower value than that proposed by the European Commission has been proposed.
  • With regard to the 13 substances with updated environmental quality standards: When the environmental quality standard has fallen by a factor of 10 for linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS), there is a likelihood that the substance will receive greater focus in the future. Ports that receive wastewater discharges, whether treated or untreated, may be required to conduct analyses for LAS in the future.
  • It can be very expensive to achieve a detection limit of 0.0005 μg/l for benz(a)anthracene, and it should be investigated whether standard laboratories in Denmark can perform such accurate analyses.
  • Boron is not traditionally measured in seabed sediments, and therefore its release into water is not calculated either. The fact that the new executive order does not specify a quality requirement where the general quality requirement for the substance is added to the natural background concentration may have an impact on future applications, especially when only 4% of the analyses comply with the general quality requirement and 6% with the maximum concentration.
  • A tenfold tightening of the limit for vanadium, while not including the background concentration, means that it cannot be ruled out that the revised general quality requirements for vanadium will have an impact on applications for permits for the relocation of seabed material.
  • It can be difficult to assess whether the tin content in sediment or water could be the reason for failure to meet the target – the very low general quality requirement cannot be ruled out as a factor in connection with applications for permits for the relocation of seabed material.
  • In the long term, the fact that the general quality requirement for chromium IV has not been added to the background concentration may have an impact on applications for the relocation of seabed sediments.
  • It is proposed that the sum sign for xylenes be retained in the executive order so that there is no doubt that it is the sum and not the individual substances that have the specified environmental quality criterion.
  • No changes are seen in the appendices to the water area plans except in Appendix 4 on Analysis Methods and Environmental Quality Requirements. The changes in Appendix 4 are a reproduction of the Analysis Order in a non-applicable version and an update of the environmental quality requirements for water and biota that are not EU priority substances. The changes to the environmental quality standards may influence future applications for the relocation of seabed material.

Draft Executive Order on the establishment of environmental objectives for watercourses, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater:

  • The text of the executive order itself contains no changes that affect the relocation of marine sediment.

EU-set environmental quality standards (EU priority substances)

  • There are no changes to the list of EU priority substances. The current environmental quality requirements in the executive order on the establishment of environmental objectives for watercourses, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater comply with the legislation adopted by the EU on September 13, 2013.
  • If Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, and Directive 2008/105/EC on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy (European Commission, 2022) is adopted, it will have an impact on applications for relocation as the list of substances will become longer. EU-set environmental quality standards (EU priority substances)

Guidance on the Executive Order on Action Programs for Water District Areas

  • It is assessed that none of the changes to the guidelines will have any impact on applications for the relocation of seabed sediments.

Executive Order on Monitoring the Condition of Surface Water, Groundwater, and Protected Areas and on Nature Monitoring of International Nature Conservation Areas

  • The change from "Visibility depth" to "Light conditions" under physical-chemical quality elements is not expected to have any impact on applications for the relocation of seabed materials. There are no other changes to the executive order that will affect applications for permits for the relocation of seabed materials.

Announcement on action programs for water district areas

  • It is assessed that none of the amendments to the executive order will have any impact on applications for the relocation of seabed sediments.

Executive order on environmental objectives for surface water areas and groundwater bodies

  • It is assessed that none of the changes in the executive order will have any impact on applications for the relocation of seabed sediments.

Executive Order on Water Districts and Main Water Catchment Areas

  • No changes that affect the application for the relocation of seabed materials.

New initiatives under the water area plans

Danish ports note that in the European Commission's recent overview of the state of coastal waters in EU member states as a whole, Denmark stands out (European Commission, February 2025). In Denmark, most coastal waters are "red," while this is only true for a small proportion at EU level. See the figure below, which shows the EU distribution of the state of the waters in the three planning periods. The top bar is the current planning period 2022-27 for surface waters.

The fact that Denmark's coastal waters are completely red indicates that Denmark apparently has a relatively poorer coastal water quality than the EU average. Is this because less measurement is carried out in other countries? Because they include fewer substances, or because other member states have higher nationally set values? If it is because they are better at preventing discharges into coastal waters, then there may be important lessons to be learned for Denmark.

Once the pollution is in the seawater and sediment, it becomes part of a dynamic environment with significant natural material flows. In Denmark, coastal waters experience large natural material movements. DTU AQUA has estimated that dumping contributes a maximum of 0.1% of the material that is otherwise naturally moved by currents, etc. in the area. (Source: DTU AQUA, Report 361-2020).

Danske Havne supports the restoration of the environmental quality and biodiversity of coastal waters and recognizes the challenge this presents when the business community in these areas must also be ensured favorable conditions. We therefore support innovative pilot projects on sediment management as part of the action program.

Another option that could be explored is for the state to pay for the necessary sediment analyses in the navigation channels and at the dumping sites of commercial ports, and for these to then be included as part of the state's environmental data and monitoring program in coastal waters.

The environmental input and conclusions of the consultation response are elaborated in a technical review memorandum, which Danske Havne has asked COWI to prepare.

COWI's memorandum "Technical consultation memorandum. Review of the 2021-27 water area plans," June 2025, is attached as supplementary environmental input and forms part of Danish Ports' overall consultation response.

In addition, a technical appendix in table form is attached, referring to Tables 3 and 4 of the consultation appendices, where color coding is used to highlight changes in the appendices to the consultation environmental report in relation to current quality values and where new substances appear on the lists.