Anjan DattaAnjan DattaUNEPUNEP

Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from land based pollution, in support of Global Nutrient

Cycle

  

From: Dumont, et al. 2005 GBC

Fertilizer

Manure

AtmosphericDeposit ion

Sewage

N2-fixation

Fertilizer

Manure

N2-fixation

Sewage

Recovering Systems

UNEP. 2009

UNEP, 2009

Grand Challenge of the 21st century:

How to feed 9 billion without N pollution?

Increased N inputs are projected in response to increased global population

Modified from the European Nitrogen Assessment (2011)

ECOSYSTEMSAND

BIODIVERSITY

The five key threats of excess nutrients

The WAGES of too much or too little of nutrients

Water qualityAir qualityGreenhouse balanceEcosystems Soil quality

The Project is designed toThe Project is designed to

Address the key Nutrient ChallengesAddress the key Nutrient Challenges-Food securityFood security-Environmental sustainabilityEnvironmental sustainability

Project Objective

To provide the foundations (including partnerships, information, tools and policy mechanisms) for governments and other stakeholders to initiate comprehensive, effective and sustained programs addressing nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion from land based pollution of coastal waters

Project Outcomes and Outputs

a.Development and application of quantitative modeling approaches to estimate and map sources and contributions of different nutrient sources to coastal nutrient loading and their effects; to indicate when nutrient over-enrichment problem areas are likely to occur; and to estimate the magnitude of expected effects of further nutrient loading on coastal systems under a range of scenarios.

b.Development of a “Policy Toolbox”, through which the decision-makers will have informed and interactive access, to cost effective, replicable tools and approaches to develop and implement nutrient reduction strategies

c. Execution of pilot projects in the Manila Bay watershed, Philippines and the Chilka Lake in India for the development and implementation of stakeholders owned, cost-effective and policy relevant nutrient reduction strategies, which can be subsequently mainstreamed into broader planning

d.d. A strong and vibrant global partnership on nutrient management to provide a necessary stimulus and framework for the effective development, replication, up-scaling and sharing of these key outcomes.

Project Partners

Governments: The Philippines, India, The Netherlands, USA

Science Community: International Nitrogen Initiative (INI), Institute of Oceans Management, India, National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, India, Environmental Research Laboratory of the Netherlands, The Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, University of the Utrecht, Netherlands, Washington State University, University of the Philippines, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK, International Fertilizer Development Centre, USA and the Indian Nitrogen Group

Industry: International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA)/ International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI)

NGOs/CSOs: Global Environment and Technology Foundation, USA, Society for Conservation of Nature, India, World Resources Institute, USA

UN Agencies: FAO, UN-Habitat, UNDP, IOC/UNESCO, UNEP

Regional Projects: BOBLME, PEMSEA

Regional IGOs: SACEP, PEMSEA Resource Facility; CAR/RCU

Project Budget and funding sources

Total Budget US$ 4,116,347

Contribution of the GEF US$ 1,718,182

Contribution by the Partners US$ 2,398,165

Project Governance/institutional structureProject Governance/institutional structure

PSC - Rep from governments, industry, PSC - Rep from governments, industry, science community and UN agenciesscience community and UN agencies

PCU – with the all component leadersPCU – with the all component leadersMEU - UNEP and GEF rules and proceduresMEU - UNEP and GEF rules and procedures

Project Duration: April 2012 – March 2016 (4 YearsProject Duration: April 2012 – March 2016 (4 Years))

GPNM: a multi stakeholders global partnership

- Governments- Industry- Science community- NGOs- International organisations- Regional Projects

GPNM - an One UN initiative

Guided by a Steering Committee

UNEP is the Secretariat

Role of GPNM

Strategic advocacy and co-operation at the global and regional levels to build consensus in promoting NUE

Enhancing the capacities of various stakeholders to design and implement effective management policies

Work with stakeholders to develop guidance, strategies or policies on sustainable use of nutrients

A knowledge platform to support science policy interaction and translating science for policy making

Positioning of nutrient issues as part of international sustainable development agenda

Innovation and knowledge generation to reduce nutrient losses and improve overall NUE

GPNM Activities - to date

GPNM and CSD process

Participation in various global, regional and national meetings to raise awareness and mobilize actions

Facilitation of GPNM regional platforms

Knowledge generation e.g., Foundation document, Our Nutrient World, Fact sheet

On the ground intervention – GEF supported GNC project

Outreach, advocacy, consensus building and agenda setting

Task Group: Policy development, policy advocacy and support policy reform/ development (Task Group Leader Prof. Mark Sutton)

o Nutrient management SDGo Defining leverage points and entry strategyo Identification of barriers to change

Development of toolbox to support policy choices and investment decisions (Task Group Leader Prof. Tom Sims)

o Development of policy toolbox and extension methodology including application of mobile tools

Defining nutrient performance indicator and nutrient use efficiency (Task Group Leader Dr. Amit Roy)

o Defining base line of nutrient use efficiency at global as well as regional level as appropriate

o Defining nutrient performance indicators o Establish NUE target for major crops

Strengthening of partnership (Task Group Leader Dr. Greg Crosby)

o Secure engagement of: Business councils; Consumer groups; Retail marketing chains; International meat and poultry producers; NGOs and CSOs e.g., WWF, TNC, Oxfam etc. and Professional bodies working in the field of Food Security, Biodiversity and Climate Change

• A A BMP inventory BMP inventory • A synthesis of report of policies & practices A synthesis of report of policies & practices • Toolkits designed for key audiences Toolkits designed for key audiences • Five in depth case studies Five in depth case studies • A strategy document/template for replication and up-A strategy document/template for replication and up-

scaling scaling • An operational policy toolbox – integrated w/Component BAn operational policy toolbox – integrated w/Component B• Training of at least 30 regional and national scientists and Training of at least 30 regional and national scientists and

policy experts policy experts   

Global “Tool Box” Deliverables

• 334 best practices have been 334 best practices have been logged to date from 60 countries logged to date from 60 countries

• Nineteen case studies, additional Nineteen case studies, additional learning modules developedlearning modules developed

• Initial training module developedInitial training module developed• Initial synthesisInitial synthesis• Engage & grow collaborationsEngage & grow collaborations• ASA article publishedASA article published• Co-finance securedCo-finance secured

1717

Outputs

MozambiqueNigerNigeriaSenegalSudanTanzaniaTogoUgandaZambiaZimbabwe

AfricaBeninBurkina FasoCote d’IvoireDR CongoEthiopiaGhanaKenyaMadagascarMaliMauritania

OceaniaAustralia

New Zealand

North AmericaCanada

United States of America

LatviaLithuaniaMacedoniaMoldovaPolandRomaniaRussiaSerbiaSloveniaTurkeyUkraine

NepalPhilippinesSiberiaThailandVietnam

AsiaCambodiaChinaIndiaIndonesiaMalaysia

Latin America

BrazilArgentinaColombiaMexicoEurope

AlbaniaAustriaBosniaBulgariaCroatiaCzech RepublicEstoniaItalyGermanyHerzegovinaHungary

60 countries represented in NMBPD

Best Practices by Geography

Best Practices by Category

• Scalability and Transferability Scalability and Transferability Rating ModelRating Model– Two simple surveys created to give Two simple surveys created to give

best practices a score ranging from best practices a score ranging from 0 to 10 representing the practice’s 0 to 10 representing the practice’s ability to be scaled up or replicated ability to be scaled up or replicated in another context.in another context.

• Comparative Efficiency AnalysisComparative Efficiency Analysis– Based on work in efficiencies Based on work in efficiencies

modeling by UMD and EPA.modeling by UMD and EPA.– Next steps identified in the process Next steps identified in the process

of modeling the comparative of modeling the comparative efficiencies of nutrient efficiencies of nutrient management best practices.management best practices.

Scalability Survey

Transferability Survey

Best Practices Tools

Key Next StepsKey Next Steps• Finalizing synthesisFinalizing synthesis

• Evaluating BMP efficienciesEvaluating BMP efficiencies

• Continue to engage countries to collect Continue to engage countries to collect policiespolicies

• Developing additional casesDeveloping additional cases

• Designing integration approach and interfaceDesigning integration approach and interface

• Develop toolkits for use of the inventoryDevelop toolkits for use of the inventory

• Hold training in the field Hold training in the field

o Chilika Lake Ecosystem Health will be defined as the Chilika Lake Ecosystem Health will be defined as the progress of three water quality indicators (chlorophyll a, progress of three water quality indicators (chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, and water clarity) and dissolved oxygen, and water clarity) and

o three biotic indicators (aquatic grasses, phytoplankton three biotic indicators (aquatic grasses, phytoplankton community, and benthic community) toward scientifically community, and benthic community) toward scientifically derived ecological thresholds or goals. derived ecological thresholds or goals.

o The six indicators are combined into one overarching Bay The six indicators are combined into one overarching Bay Health Index, which is presented as the report card Health Index, which is presented as the report card overall score.overall score.

• The areas that EcoCheck The areas that EcoCheck focuses on are:focuses on are:– Increased understanding Increased understanding

of how climatology affects of how climatology affects fish recruitmentfish recruitment

– Incorporation of spatially Incorporation of spatially explicit data into current explicit data into current management tools.management tools.

– Effective use of ecosystem Effective use of ecosystem health indicators.health indicators.

– Prediction of fisheries Prediction of fisheries variability with forecast variability with forecast models.models.

Data Requirement for the Planned Outputs

• Water Quality Index:Water Quality Index:– Secchi Disc data (not available until now)Secchi Disc data (not available until now)– Dissolved Oxygen (available – must be made Dissolved Oxygen (available – must be made

available continuously)available continuously)– Chlorophyll Chlorophyll aa (data available but usually less (data available but usually less

frequently analyzed)frequently analyzed)

• Biotic Index: Biotic Index: – a) Phytoplankton (species level data)a) Phytoplankton (species level data)– b) Zooplankton (numbers were given as averages but b) Zooplankton (numbers were given as averages but

numbers per mnumbers per m33 or some relevant unit is requested) or some relevant unit is requested)– c) Benthic data to include meiobenthos and c) Benthic data to include meiobenthos and

macrobenthosmacrobenthos

Through this partnership project we would like to ensure

Blue Oceans and Green Field

PerspectivePerspective

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nolsLLSpXegv=nolsLLSpXeg

Thank You All