Anjan Datta UNEP

1. Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from land based pollution, in support of Global Nutrient Cycle Anjan Datta UNEP

2. Recovering Systems Sewage Fertilizer N2-fixation Manure From: Dumont, et al. 2005 GBC

3. Increased N inputs are projected in response to increased global population Grand Challenge of the 21st century: How to feed 9 billion without N pollution? UNEP. 2009 UNEP, 2009

4. The five key threats of excess nutrients The WAGES of too much or too little of nutrients Water quality Air quality Greenhouse balance Ecosystems Soil quality Modified from the European Nitrogen Assessment (2011)

5. The Project is designed to Address the key Nutrient Challenges • Food security • Environmental sustainability

6. 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

7. Project Outcomes and Outputs • 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. • 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

8. 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. 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.

9. 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

10. 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 structure PSC - Rep from governments, industry, science community and UN agencies PCU – with the all component leaders MEU - UNEP and GEF rules and procedures Project Duration: April 2012 – March 2016 (4 Years)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Task Group: Policy development, policy advocacy and support policy reform/ development (Task Group Leader Prof. Mark Sutton) • Nutrient management SDG • Defining leverage points and entry strategy • Identification of barriers to change Development of toolbox to support policy choices and investment decisions (Task Group Leader Prof. Tom Sims) • 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) • Defining base line of nutrient use efficiency at global as well as regional level as appropriate • Defining nutrient performance indicators • Establish NUE target for major crops Strengthening of partnership (Task Group Leader Dr. Greg Crosby) • 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

16. Global “Tool Box” Deliverables • A BMP inventory • A synthesis of report of policies & practices • Toolkits designed for key audiences • Five in depth case studies • A strategy document/template for replication and up-scaling • An operational policy toolbox – integrated w/Component B • Training of at least 30 regional and national scientists and policy experts

17. Outputs • 334 best practices have been logged to date from 60 countries • Nineteen case studies, additional learning modules developed • Initial training module developed • Initial synthesis • Engage & grow collaborations • ASA article published • Co-finance secured

18. Best Practices by Geography 60 countries represented in NMBPD Oceania Australia New Zealand North America Canada United States of America Asia Cambodia China India Indonesia Malaysia Nepal Philippines Siberia Thailand Vietnam Latin America Brazil Argentina Colombia Mexico Europe Albania Austria Bosnia Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Italy Germany Herzegovina Hungary Africa Benin Burkina Faso Cote d’Ivoire DR Congo Ethiopia Ghana Kenya Madagascar Mali Mauritania Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Moldova Poland Romania Russia Serbia Slovenia Turkey Ukraine Mozambique Niger Nigeria Senegal Sudan Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe

19. Best Practices by Category

20. Best Practices Tools Scalability Survey • Scalability and Transferability Rating Model • Two simple surveys created to give best practices a score ranging from 0 to 10 representing the practice’s ability to be scaled up or replicated in another context. • Comparative Efficiency Analysis • Based on work in efficiencies modeling by UMD and EPA. • Next steps identified in the process of modeling the comparative efficiencies of nutrient management best practices. Transferability Survey

21. Key Next Steps • Finalizing synthesis • Evaluating BMP efficiencies • Continue to engage countries to collect policies • Developing additional cases • Designing integration approach and interface • Develop toolkits for use of the inventory • Hold training in the field

22. Indicatorsused in the Report Card • Chilika Lake Ecosystem Health will be defined as the progress of three water quality indicators (chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, and water clarity) and • three biotic indicators (aquatic grasses, phytoplankton community, and benthic community) toward scientifically derived ecological thresholds or goals. • The six indicators are combined into one overarching Bay Health Index, which is presented as the report card overall score. Indicators and Indices

23. Purpose of EcoCheck • The areas that EcoCheck focuses on are: • Increased understanding of how climatology affects fish recruitment • Incorporation of spatially explicit data into current management tools. • Effective use of ecosystem health indicators. • Prediction of fisheries variability with forecast models.

24. Data Requirement for the Planned Outputs • Water Quality Index: • Secchi Disc data (not available until now) • Dissolved Oxygen (available – must be made available continuously) • Chlorophyll a (data available but usually less frequently analyzed) • Biotic Index: • a) Phytoplankton (species level data) • b) Zooplankton (numbers were given as averages but numbers per m3 or some relevant unit is requested) • c) Benthic data to include meiobenthos and macrobenthos

25. Through this partnership project we would like to ensure Blue Oceans andGreen Field

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

27. Thank You All