1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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