Post a comment on the text below

Significant pressures causing less than high or good ecological status

Water bodies in moderate, poor or bad ecological status require action in terms of mitigation and restoration measures to achieve the WFD good status objective. To plan the measures, the pressures causing water bodies to fail good ecological status must be identified.

These include pressures from point sources of pollution, diffuse sources of pollution, hydrological and morphological alterations, and a number of other pressures. Similarly, impacts include nutrient, organic and chemical pollution, altered habitats, and acidification.

Better understanding and knowledge of ecological status

During the first RBMP cycle (2009-2015), Member States have introduced a vast network of monitoring sites and assessed the ecological status of their water bodies. From 2008 to 2017, the number of intercalibrated ecological assessments methods increased from around 100 to nearly 400 methods. Overall, this has reduced the proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status from 16 % to 3 %, and the confidence in the classification has improved from one third of water bodies with high or medium confidence in the first RBMPs to more than half of the water bodies in the second RBMPs.

In the second RBMPs more than two-thirds of all water bodies are classified based on at least one biological quality element (Figure 2.1). For most of the remaining water bodies, status has been assessed based on supporting physico-chemical and/or hydromorphological quality elements.

Figure 2.1. Percentage of classified water bodies using different quality elements.

Notes: * at least one physico-chemical quality element and one hydromorphological quality element, but no biological quality elements. Number in parenthesis is number of water bodies.

Source: Preliminary results based on WISE-SoW database including data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).

Overall, these improvements mean that the results of the ecological status classification are now a better indication of the general health of the water environment. However, the improved status assessment in the second RBMPs makes the comparison between the status in the first and second RBMPs difficult. Caution is advised when drawing detailed conclusions regarding changes observed between the two RBMPs and when comparing results between Member States.

Further and detailed information on improvements in ecological status assessment is available in WISE

·         Monitoring of ecological status (see chapter 1)

·         Change in proportion unknowns: unknown ecological status

·         Confidence in: ecological status assessment Table and Graph*;

·         Proportion of water bodies assessed by using biological quality elements, and supporting physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements (see Figure 2.1 – dashboard to be produced)

* draft dashboards;

Previous comments

  • The Netherlands (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 12 Feb 2018 13:16:38

    “In the second RBMPs more than two-thirds of all water bodies are classified based on at least one biological quality element (Figure 2.1). For most of the remaining water bodies, status has been assessed based on supporting physico-chemical and/or hydromorphological quality elements.” Ecological status assessed even without biological assessment contradicts with “requires that all biological elements and supporting quality elements achieve at least good status”. Furthermore, there is no direct relation with Intercalibration. We believe it is not in line with WFD to produce an ecological status in this case – please confirm or refute this explicitely. The results shown are therefore too positive and no stimulus to improve the monitoring program. These results should be indicated as “unknown” or invalid. How is “unknown” defined in the report? We could not find graphs to illustrate nr substances assessed for the chemical status; please add them.

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 26 Feb 2018 11:28:08

    BE-FLA (RV): p. 22, §2 Pressures

    These include pressures from … >> Pressures include …

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 26 Feb 2018 11:29:13

    BE-FLA (RV): p. 22, §3 methodology

    There is only 1 methodology on intercalibration, that resulted in a large number of approaches applied by MSs.

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 26 Feb 2018 11:30:40

    BE-FLA (RV): p. 22, §4-7 In the second RBMPs more than two-thirds of all water bodies are classified based on at least one biological quality element (Figure 2.1). For most of the remaining water bodies, status has been assessed based on supporting physico-chemical and/or hydromorphological quality elements.

    This conflicts with p. 13 §1: “requires that all biological elements and supporting quality elements achieve at least good status.“

    How does ‘High/medium/low/unknown’ in the table “Confidence in: ecological status assessment Table” relate to # or % in Fig 2.1?

  • mitiksar (Sari Mitikka) 26 Feb 2018 18:21:14

    It is good that the report advise to take caution in comparison between the results of the 1st and 2nd RBMPs. The results of the 1st and 2nd RBMPs may be incomparable because of (i) the differences of the coverage of data included in the status assessments and of (ii) the fact that that the class boundaries (H/G and G/M) were in many cases tightened as a consequence of the second intercalibration exercise, as was the case in the Finnish coastal waters.

  • Martin Schönberg (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 27 Feb 2018 13:01:49

    below Figure 2.1:

    Unclear where the asterisk refers to (figure in bad quality)

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 28 Feb 2018 10:05:13

    BE-WAL (EC): p. 22 § blue figure 2.1

    Problem with the figures display in the table

  • groforen (Renata Grofova) 28 Feb 2018 11:06:30

    SK: Page 22, 3rd paragraph: The correct years for first RBMP cycle is “2010 – 2015” and not “2009- 2015”.

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.