Post a comment on the text below
Table 3.1 Broad approaches to chemical status reporting, based on results shown in Fig 3.2.
|
With uPBTs |
Without uPBTs |
Approach taken |
Countries using this approach |
|
Widespread (80-100%) failure to achieve good chemical status |
Few failures to achieve good chemical status |
Extrapolation of monitoring results – usually, mercury in biota |
AT, (BE), DE, FI, (LU) SE, SI |
|
Frequent (30-50%) failure to achieve good chemical status |
Frequent/widespread failure to achieve good chemical status |
Other priority substances identified as causing failure to achieve good chemical status |
(BE), CZ, (LU), MT, NL |
|
Widespread good chemical status |
Widespread good chemical status |
Extrapolation not widely applied: status shows confirmed status only |
CY, ES, FR, HR, IT, PL, RO, SK, UK |
|
Frequent/widespread unknown chemical status |
Frequent/widespread unknown chemical status |
Extrapolation not widely applied: status shows confirmed status only |
BG, DK, EE, HU, LV, PT |
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
We suggest to add an additional row:
In the first row, the reference to Luxembourg can be maintained but the text should be replaced as follows "LU (when applying the 2008 EQS)".
In the second row, the reference to Luxembourg should be deleted.
BE-FLA (RV): p. 37, Table 3.1
Explain the criteria used to mention BE and LU in brackets
BE-WAL (EC): p. 37, Table 3.1
Why is BE between brackets?
Why is BE in the different lines? We think that Wallonia is in line1
Table 3.1 is missing a row between frequent (30-50%) and widespread (80-100%). Finland should be in that (51%).
This Table 3.1 is not clear. We do not know if it explains the previous figures or if it presents the monitoring strategies of MS. In the latter case, it is too simple and probably induces some mistakes (can each country be limited to one box?). We suggest to delete this Table (or, at least, to explain how it is constructed)