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
Fertilizer
N2-fixation
From: Dumont, et al. 2005 GBC
Manure
Sewage
Atmospheric
Deposition

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
ECOSYSTEMS
AND
BIODIVERSITY
Water quality
Air quality
Greenhouse balance
Ecosystems
Soil quality
Modified from the European Nitrogen Assessment

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
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

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, upscaling 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)
o Nutrient management SDG
o Defining leverage points and entry strategy
o 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

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
17

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

19. Best Practices by Category

20. Best Practices Tools
• Scalability and Transferability
Scalability Survey
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. o Chilika Lake Ecosystem Health will be defined as the progress of
three water quality indicators (chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, and
water clarity) and
o three biotic indicators (aquatic grasses, phytoplankton community,
and benthic community) toward scientifically derived ecological
thresholds or goals.
o The six indicators are combined into one overarching Bay Health
Index, which is presented as the report card overall score.

23. • 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 and Green Field

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

27. Thank You All