WG ECOSTAT Nutrient task: Progress report and way forward

1. WGECOSTAT Nutrient task:Progress report and way forward Sandra Poikane (JRC), Jo-Anne Pitt, Geoff Phillips (UK), Uli Claussen, Wera Leujak (DE)

2. WG ECOSTAT – main tasks 2016-2018 • WFD CIS work program endorsed WD meeting 25 Nov 2015 • Intercalibration of Good Ecological Status; • Work on intercalibration of Good Ecological Potential; • Continuation of Hydromorphological work; • Continuation of the work on nutrients, establishment of consistent and comparable boundaries

3. WG ECOSTAT – Nutrient taskOutline • Background • What has been done so far ? • What are the main conclusions so far ? • What is the aim ? • What will be done next? Timetable • ECOSTAT / MS involvement

4. Nutrient work : Background • Concerns have been raised about an apparently wide range of nutrient boundary values established by MS • Inappropriate nutrient boundaries may hamper the ability of MS to achieve good ecological status • Therefore it is important to set nutrient boundaries which are adequately supporting good ecological status • Activity led by JRC, UK and DE

5. WG ECOSTAT – Nutrient taskOutline • Background • What has been done so far ? • What are the main conclusions so far ? • What is the aim ? • What will be done next? Timetable • ECOSTAT / MS involvement

6. Nutrient work : What has been done so far ? • Information collection on MS nutrient boundaries • Comparison of freshwater and saline water boundaries (freshwater report and saline water reports) • A report proposing several approaches for how to define nutrient boundaries supporting “good” ecological status • European nutrient meeting 18-19 November, Berlin

7. Comparison of freshwater boundariesLakes

8. Comparison of freshwater boundariesMain conclusions ? Lakes Rivers

9. Comparison of freshwater boundariesDifferences ? Reason 1: types Lakes Rivers

10. Comparison of freshwater boundariesDifferences ? Reason 2: Approach to boundary setting Low (more strict) boundaries – modelling, relationships High (more relaxed) boundaries – expert judgement, no information, all water bodies

11. Comparison of saline water boundariesMain conclusions ?

12. Comparison of saline water boundariesMain conclusions ? • Large heterogeneity in: • Parameters used (TN, TP, DIN, DIP) • Assessment time (summer, winter, all-year round) • Statistics used (mean, median, maximum, 90th percentile) • Difficult to provide a more comprehensive comparative analysis • Workshop discussion • often ecologically justified or due to methodological constraints; • but participants saw the possibility of using a common approach within a region

13. Comparison of saline water boundariesCoastal TP – Baltic Sea

14. Comparison of saline water boundariesReasons for differences ? • Comparisons within broad types: • EU-wide conclusions on broad types are extremely difficult given heterogeneity in nutrient parameters (dissolved or total nutrients, different seasons, different statistics) • Comparison possible only for some types NEA and Baltic GIG (TP and TN) • Boundaries set by the MS show a wide range and methodologies used to derive these differ (e.g. different historic years used to derive reference conditions)

15. Comparison of saline water boundariesApproaches for RC and GM - different • Often use of historic nutrient inputs or historic nutrient concentrations (and interpolation along salinity gradients into the sea); particularly used in the Baltic Sea and NE Atlantic • Very different historic years used to base reference conditions upon (e.g. 1880, 1900, 1930, 1950s, 1960s) • G/M boundaries were derived by adding an acceptable deviation to the reference conditions (mostly 50% but sometimes more) • Mediterranean Sea: pressure-response relationships were used to set boundaries

16. Nutrient work : What has been done so far ? • Information collection on MS nutrient boundaries • Comparison of freshwater and saline water boundaries (freshwater report and saline water reports) • A report proposing several approaches for how to define nutrient boundaries supporting “good” ecological status • European nutrient meeting 18-19 November, Berlin

17. Report • The use of pressure response relationships between nutrients and biological quality elements as a method for establishing nutrient supporting element boundary values for the Water Framework Directive

18. Report on pressure – response relationships • Methods how to determine ranges of potential nutrient (N & P) boundary concentrations • at the intercalibrated boundaries for high/good and good/moderate biological status.

19. Examplehigh alkalinity shallow lakes L-CB1 • Linear models • Univariate and multivariate (N + P) • Uncertainty (25th -75th quantiles of residuals) used to estimate possible range of boundary values. Box plots, average upper and lower adjacent quartiles

20. Example: high alkalinity shallow lakes L-CB1Ranges of nutrient boundaries Most likely range (black broken line), possible range (blue solid line)

21. Nutrient work : Conclusions so far ? • There is considerable variability between MS nutrient boundaries, even within common types, • one of the main factors behind these differences is different approaches to boundary setting used by MS. • There is a need to establish harmonised scientifically sound approaches to boundary setting, including a consideration of uncertainty

22. Nutrient work : Conclusions so far ? • Pressure-response relationships may provide an objective method for determining nutrient boundary values. • Differences in progress on fresh and saline waters (work on pressure-response relationships done mainly for freshwaters) • Pressure response relationships are likely to be relatively weak for some water categories and /or types (e.g. transitional, coastal and marine waters)

23. WG ECOSTAT – Nutrient taskOutline • Background • What has been done so far ? • What are the main conclusions so far ? • What is the aim ? • What will be done next? Timetable • ECOSTAT / MS involvement

24. Nutrient work : What is the aim ? Consistent and comparable boundaries • Capable of supporting Good ecological status (within nutrient-sensitive BQEs); • Produced using a justifiable methodology that • Can be clearly related to ecological status and • With values that fall within a range of uncertainty that might be expected for different common water body types • With consistent boundary values within a river basin from the source to the receiving transboundary, coastal and marine waters

25. Nutrient work : What will be done next? • CIS WP included “Technical report on the harmonisation of nutrient standards” • This deliverable has been reformulated as: • Best practice guide • will cover technical aspects of setting, using and checking nutrient boundaries used within Member States

26. Nutrient work : Best practice guide • Should be applicable to different ecoregions, water body categories and types; • Should be ready to use by MS experts (user-friendly and broadly applicable); • Include recommended methods for boundary setting and worked examples; • Include recommendations on appropriate analytical parameters and statistics – especially important for coastal waters;

27. Nutrient work : Best practice guide • Present ranges of “reasonable” boundaries for broad European types (allowing MS to quickly check their current boundaries); • Linking the boundary values within a river basin from the source to the receiving transboundary, coastal and marine waters • Linking the boundary values to the use of boundaries in ecological assessment and management

28. Nutrient work : Best practice guide • Road map to guide users through selection of methods - 1st step is checking current boundary (if this exists) to see if this is typical for that broad type (and check that broad type allocation is realistic!) • Feasibility check (rules whether we can use these relationships / datasets, what are the options) • User-friendly instructions how to set boundaries (which approach/BQE? to use) • Statistical tool-kit that could lead users through the process of determining a valid boundary, including guidelines on treatment of outliers (if appropriate – e.g. if using Type 2 regression)

29. Nutrient work : Best practice guide • List of alternative methods for validating boundaries as well as / instead of regression approaches (paleoecology etc) - emphasizing that boundaries can be based on approaches not described in the Best practice guide; • Guidance on interpretation (how precautionary (or not) are proposed values if set by different approaches?) • (Conceptual) link to the use of the nutrient boundaries in ecological assessment and management • Recommended common approach on analytical parameters and statistics (in the case of coastal waters in accordance with the Regional Sea Conventions etc); • Recommendations on aligning nutrient boundaries for freshwater and saline waters for a consistent management approach.

30. Nutrient work : What is the timetable for this work? • The task group for drafting the Best Practice Guide – spring 2016 • Drafting of the Best Practice Guide v1 – to the end of 2016; • Hands-on workshop of applying the Best Practice Guide - early 2017; • Testing of approaches by Member States – by mid-2017; • Collect and incorporate experiences of pan-European application – autumn 2017; • Finalise the Best Practice Guide – by the end of 2017.

31. ECOSTAT involvement : Best practice guide • Do you support this idea / plan ? • Are you ready to participate in this work ?

32. ECOSTAT involvement :1use of nutrient boundaries • It has become evident that MS use nutrient boundaries in different ways. • Important consequences for classification and management • Therefore, we need to include also this issue • Targeted information collection (spring – summer 2016); • Emails to nutrient experts : to understand how nutrient boundaries are used in practice

33. ECOSTAT involvement :2use of MS / GIG data • to establish range of “reasonable” boundaries for broad European types • allowing MS to quickly check their current boundaries • We need datasets (both GIG and MS level) in order to test approaches and to derive nutrient ranges for broad types • Agree that IC data should be made available for this purpose

34. ECOSTAT involvement :3Ask for examples linking FW-TRW-CW-MW • Linking the boundary values within a river basin from the source to the receiving transboundary, coastal and marine waters • How to deal with this issue • asking MS for examples for linking the boundary values within a river basin from the source to the receiving transboundary, coastal and marine waters • few MS have taken this into account. Only Denmark stated that they have an approach

35. ECOSTAT involvement :4task group • How Best practice guide will be drafted ? • Drafting group: 3 experts (freshwaters, coastal-transitional waters) - testing approaches, drafting the Best practice guide • We need incorporate MS views and experiences • A Task Group will be formed to address this topic (we already have experts from IE, IT, FR, LV) • to establish efficient communication via emails and / or Skype conferences