However, Member States are making significant progress on tackling certain individual priority substances, excepting mercury, BDEs and PAHs. In several cases, a third of waterbodies improved between the first and second RBMP cycle for a particular priority substance (Figure 3.5).
For cadmium, nickel and lead, 969 water bodies improved in status during the first RBMP cycle compared to 2288 water bodies still failing in the second RBMPs. For pesticides (isoproturon, endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, diuron, DDT, total DDT, cyclodiene, trifluralin, atrazine, alachlor), 554 water bodies improved from failing to good compared to 525 water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status in the second RBMPs. If this development continues in the next RBMP cycle, the number of water bodies failing to achieve good status as a result of priority pesticides may become very low.
Figure 3.5: Numbers of water bodies where status of a priority substance has improved since first RBMP and the number failing in the second RBMPs.
Note: Member States have reported if a priority substance improved from failing to achieve good to good chemical status since the first RBMP. This is compared with the number of water bodies failing in the second RBMPs. The diagram has been split into two to account for differences in number of water bodies. Mercury and brominated diphenylethers were causing failure in 45973 and 23331 water bodies, respectively.
Source: Preliminary results based on WISE-SoW database) including data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
"However, Member States are making significant progress on tackling certain individual priority substances, excepting mercury, BDEs and PAHs." please delete "excepting mercury, BDEs and PAHs".
"If this development continues in the next RBMP cycle, the number of water bodies failing to achieve good status as a result of priority pesticides may become very low." please delete this sentence.
"For cadmium, nickel and lead, 969 water bodies improved in status during the first RBMP cycle compared to 2288 water bodies still failing in the second RBMPs."
Regarding the EQS compliance assessment for the metals in general, please, consider our general comments on the to take into account bioavailability for those metals that have a bioavailability model (e.g. Pb, Ni) and natural background (BG), since metals are naturally occurring in the environment, and their natural BG, e.g. in water, varies with geological conditions. In fact, the non-compliance rates of the metals figuring in the present report will significantly decrease when the factors mentioned above are properly being taken into account.
It would be interesting to say if the substances are forbidden (and if yes, since when)