1. ECOSTAT nutrient work : Brief intro

2. ECOSTAT nutrient work Work program 2016-2018
Aim: Consistent and comparable nutrient boundaries across Europe

3. ECOSTAT nutrient work What has been done so far ?
Work in aims of the meeting
Way forward

4. What has been done so far ?
ECOSTAT nutrient work
What has been done so far ?
Comparison of nutrient boundaries among MS

5. Comparison of nutrient boundaries among MS
Lakes
Rivers
Reasons:
Differences in background concentrations and sensitivities to eutrophication
Variety of methods used to set standards, coupled with non-scientific factors
Result: Nutrient targets that are unlikely to help the Member State achieve GES in many water bodies

6. What has been done so far ?
ECOSTAT nutrient work
What has been done so far ?
Comparison of nutrient boundaries among MS
Statistical approaches for nutrient boundary setting

7. Pressure-response relationships are used for nutrient boundary setting
Common view of ecological status through the intercalibration exercise
Robust view of GES that can be used as the starting point for the development of nutrient targets

8. Work 2016:
Further work proposed by the steering group for included the production of Best practice guidelines for setting, checking and adjusting nutrient boundaries

9. Work in 2016: Collection of information on the use of boundaries
Collection of IC data to derive nutrient ranges to support good ecological status
Establishing of drafting group and a nutrient task group
The first draft of the Best practice guide and reports

10. Steering group Jo-Anne Pitt (UK) Uli Claussen, Wera Leujak (DE)
Sandra Poikane, Fuensanta Salas (JRC)
Anne Lyche Solheim (NO, EEA)
Marcel van den Berg (NL)

11. Drafting group Geoff Phillips (UK) Martyn Kelly (UK)
Heliana Teixeira (PT)

12. Task group
A task group including nutrient experts from MS who have volunteered to assist in developing and testing the guidance: Mike Best (UK), Gabor Borics (HU), Nolwenn Bougon (FR), Andrew Dolman (DE), Karin Deutsch (AT), Jindrich Duras (CZ), Gary Free (IE), Franco Giovanardi (IT), Martin Halle (DE), Marko Järvinen (FI), Ilga Kokorite (LV), Luminita Lazar (RO), Aldo Marchetto (IT), Andreas Müller (DE), Ursula Riedmüller (DE), Gabor Varbiro (HU), Georg Wolfram (AT)

13. Way forward
Nutrient Best Practice Guide meeting – 9-10 November, Berlin;
Drafting of the ‘Best practice guide‘ v1 - until the end of 2016
Circulating to ECOSTAT nutrient experts for comments (end of January 2017)
Hands-on workshop of applying the ‘Best practice guide‘ - May 2017
Testing of approaches by Member States - by mid-2017
Collect and incorporate experiences of pan-European application - autumn 2017
Meeting of the Task Group - autumn 2017
Finalise the ‘Best practice guide‘- by the end of 2017.

14. Wedge and inverted wedge
Other factors mitigate the effect of nutrient enrichment: zooplankton, shade, hydrology
Pressures other than nutrients influence biological status

15. Interpreting scatter plots in context multiple stressors – Antagonistic relationship
“Inverted wedge” shape
In this example the role of N as a co-limiting nutrient for phytoplankton production.
High EQR and high TP where N is low. (TN:TP ratio low)
Fig 5-18 Phytoplankton EQR v TP for very shallow lakes in Central Baltic, Northern and Eastern Continental GIGs. Colours show TN:TP ratio

16. Interpeting scatter plots in context multiple stressors
When does a wedge become a line, with uncertainty ?
What to do with relationships such as for R-E3?
Perhaps a wedge if outliers are removed

17. How to set single stressor boundaries in multiple stressor environment ?
Wedge-shaped scatter require upper (wedge) or lower (inverted wedge) quantile
Do we need to have data on other stressors to establish statistical relationships?
Do we have adequate understanding of the interactions to do this ?

18. Questions to MARS
1) are multiple pressures the real issue, or are we simply using rather inadequate data ?
getting better data ?understanding the data we already have ? thinking about other pressures ?
2) if multiple pressures are important then where does this leave the boundary setting process ? Do we have to have more complex multiple pressure models ?
may be helpful but they are still not available

19. Questions to MARS Closer working link with MARS over these issues
Possibility to use MARS datasets ?

20. The issues to solve
High variability – esp. rivers, coastal and transitional waters, but also lowland hard-water lakes, partially caused by multiple stressors
How to set single stressor boundaries in multiple stressor environment ?
Wedge shaped scatter require upper (wedge) or lower (inverted wedge) quantile lines.
Do we need to have data on other stressors to establish statistical relationships.
Do we have adequate understanding of the interactions to do this
How to use these boundaries into ecological assessment and management ?
If we use simple pressure response relationships can we have boundary values set using different levels of precaution as implied by use of quantile regression methods
Would multi-pressure models be understandable by managers, do they seek to explain variation or establish more specific boundary values in the context of other pressures.
What is achievable in the next 12 months
CIS Guidance describes very clearly how to use boundaries
Problem : MS use in different ways
If biology=good, nutrients≠ good - what is the outcome ?
Nutrients for classification or for management actions
Clear numerical boundaries for management while we are in a mulitple stressor environment. ECOSTAT is working on methodological approaches to it.
Example?
Pressure target