Mismatches between nutrients and BQEs: what does it tell us? Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA with support from Kari Austnes, NIVA Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Outline Context and objective Options for setting nutrient standards related to mismatches Dataset and approaches used to assess current mismatches in MSs Results at EU level and at MS level Legitimate vs non-compliant reasons for mismatches Conclusions and Implications Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Context and objective Minimizing mismatches between the status class for nutrients and for nutrient sensitive BQEs is listed as one of several approaches in the Nutrient Guidance What is the current level of mismatches reported to WISE with the 2nd RBMPs? How to interpret existing mismatches? Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Options for setting nutrient standards by considering mismatches Green: biology Good, but phosphorus Moderate or worse Yellow: biology Moderate or worse, but phosphorus Good Fig 2 in Best Practice Guide: Balanced approach Relaxed approach Precautionary approach EQR for BQE EQR for BQE EQR for BQE GM for BQE GM for BQE GM for BQE Total P Total P Total P Low probability of BQE restoration, Is this compliant? High probability of BQE restoration, likely to be climate-proof Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Dataset and approaches used to assess the current level of mismatches reported by MSs to WISE with the 2nd RBMPs WISE database from July (data from 22 countries available): Water bodies with Status class for both Nutrients and BQEs: Nutrient data are reported as status class for phosphorus conditions and nitrogen conditions, and can be any P and any N parameter The BQEs most frequently reported were selected for analysis: Rivers: Phytobenthos vs. P-conditions (19 MSs) and N-conditions (17 MSs) Lakes: Phytoplankton vs. P-conditions (15 MSs), Trans & Coastal: Phytoplankton vs. N-conditions (16 MSs) Data extracting and analyses done (Kari Austnes, NIVA /ETC-ICM) EU level and MS level Class distribution for nutrients and for sensitive BQEs Proportion of classified water bodies with and without mismatches Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Results MSs: level of reporting Proportion of ecoclassified WBs with status class reported for both nutrients and nutrient sensitive BQEs Water category and BQE & QE combination > 60% 30-60% <30% Rivers Phytobenthos & P-conditions CY, CZ, HU, LU, PL, RO, UK BE, BG, EE, ES, FR, IT, PL, PT FI, HR, SE, SK Lakes Phytoplankton & P-conditions BE, BG, CZ, FI, FR, HU, IT, LU, NL, UK ES, RO DE, SE, SI Transitional &Coastal Phytoplankton & N-conditions BG, EE, FI, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, UK DE, ES, FR, HR, IT BE Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Results EU level: Rivers phytobenthos & P Numbers in parenthesis are number of WBs with both QEs classified and % of all WBs classified for overall ecological status Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Results EU level: Rivers phytobenthos & N Numbers in parenthesis are number of WBs with both QEs classified and % of all WBs classified for overall ecological status Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Results EU level: Lakes phytoplankton & P Numbers in parenthesis are number of WBs with both QEs classified and % of all WBs classified for overall ecological status Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Results EU level: Trans&Coastal phytoplankton & N Numbers in parenthesis are number of WBs with both QEs classified and % of all WBs classified for overall ecological status Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

EU level key messages Class distribution fairly similar for BQE and nutrients 60-70% of WBs are in good or better status for nutrients and sensitive BQEs Rivers and lakes: Slightly more WBs < G for the BQE than for the nutrient, Results quite uncertain, as comparable data only for 30-40% of WBs Transitional and coastal waters: Slightly more WBs < G for the nutrient than for the BQE Results more certain, as comparable data for 70% of WBs Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Results MSs: Actual mismatches rivers Majority of WBs have no mismatches in all MSs (bluegreen colours) BQE < G, P = HG mostly in CZ, DE, FR, HU, NL (>20% mismatch) BQE = HG, P < G mostly in BG, HR, LU, but also some in many other MSs Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Results MSs: Actual mismatches lakes Majority of WBs have no mismatches in most MSs (bluegreen colours), except BE, SI BQE < G, P = HG found mostly in BG, HU, NL, SI (>20% mismatch) BQE = HG, P < G mainly in BE, IT, RO, UK Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Results MSs: Actual mismatches TC waters Majority of WBs have no mismatches in most MSs, (bluegreen colours) except BE, BG, NL, RO BQE < G, N = HG mostly in BG (50% mismatch) BQE = HG, N < G in many MSs (esp. BE, NL, RO) Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Legitimate vs non-compliant reasons for mismatches (BQE < G, nutrients HG) Legitimate reasons: Delayed responses of BQE to mitigation measures for nutrients Other pressures cause BQE to fail Good status (should not be used as an excuse to set relaxed standards) Natural variability, especially for water bodies close to the GM boundary Non-compliant reasons: Nutrient standards not supporting good ecol status Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Reasons for mismatches: BQE = HG, nutrients < G Shading or deep mixing causing light limitation Strong top-down control (e.g. zebra mussel or fish kill, so lots of large zooplankton) if not natural, should this allow more nutrient pollution?? Ethical issue, biodiversity issue Delayed response to increased nutrients (e.g. macrophytes) Natural variability, especially for water bodies close to the GM boundary Nutrient standards too stringent for the type (e.g. glacial lakes, clayish rivers, browning) Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Conclusions and implications Comparison of mismatches for rives and lakes are uncertain due to limited reporting of nutrient status It is unclear why some MSs do not report nutrient status or report this for very few WBs Few MSs have mismatches that may suggest non-compliant nutrient standards, although there are also legitimate reasons why mismatches may occur MSs with many mismatches could benefit from using the Best Practice Guide to validate and adjust their GM boundaries, aiming to minimize mismatches Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017

Ideas for next steps Have nutrient standards changed since they were reported to ECOSTAT, and if yes, in what direction? Compare the nutrient standards reported after the testing of the tool kit with those reported to Ecostat in 2014 What are the current nutrient standards reported to WISE-WFD? Are these the same as those predicted with the tool-kit? If not, why? How to set nutrient standards for turbid (clayish), lowland rivers and glacial lakes? Anne Lyche Solheim 27. september 2017