Key messages
Please refer to our previous comment from 'Executive Summary' on chemical data and confidence level.
We think the main message for chemical status should be that 81% of surface waters in the EU are in good chemical status without ubiquitous priority substances. We therefore suggest that this point (3) is placed at the top.
"Inputs from urban waste water treatment plants are less significant but lead to contamination with PAHs, mercury, cadmium, lead and nickel."
Please report the level of significance here, this can help decision makers develop policies and identify priorities in water management.
CZ: PAH contamination can be referred to atmospheric depostion as well and in many cases atmospheric deposition would be main source, see the Text box on page 34.
Please, replace “problematic” with “Priority” substances, otherwise there is a need to define “problematic”; also, please, erase “heavy” and keep only “metals”. The report should also note that part of the change may be due to different measurement or implementation methods between both RBMP cycles. Of the effective measures, could this not just be linked to accounting for backgrounds and bioavailability by some MS?
Chemicals are used in products which we make use of in many different ways to try and improve our quality of life, from food production to health protection to transport and heavy industry. At some point in their lifetime, chemicals can enter the water cycle, whether by deliberate discharge following waste water treatment, or as a result of processes such as leaching from soils into groundwater, run-off from surfaces, or atmospheric deposition (including the “raining out” of small particles taken up into the atmosphere). Some chemicals can be very harmful through direct toxicity, such as through sublethal effects which affect an organism’s healthy functioning, or can become problematic as they accumulate up the food chain. Once in the environment, it can be very difficult both to clean up harmful chemicals and to prevent their migration to places distant from original use. Thus much source control legislation for chemicals, such as REACH and the Regulation on Biocidal Products, is aimed at minimising release of harmful substances into the environment. Monitoring under the WFD provides key feedback as to the success of measures intended to restrict harmful releases (chapter 6).
The WFD aims to ensure the good chemical status of both surface water and groundwater bodies across Europe. For surface waters this goal is defined by limits on the concentration of certain pollutants relevant across the EU, known as priority substances[1]. In addition, there may be other chemicals discharged in significant quantities within a river basin district. These River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) are part of the assessment of good ecological status (chapter 2).
Good chemical status means that no concentrations of priority substance exceed the relevant environmental quality standards (EQS) established in the Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC (as amended by the Priority Substances Directive 2013/39/EU[2]). EQS are set to protect the most sensitive species by direct toxicity, including predators and humans via secondary poisoning.
The WFD seeks to progressively reduce emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances to surface waters. Under the WFD, losses, discharges and emissions to water of a particularly harmful subset of these, priority hazardous substances, should be completely phased out within 20 years, and the uses of these substances have been significantly restricted.
A smaller group of priority hazardous substances were identified in the Priority Substances Directive as uPBTs (ubiquitous[3], Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic). uPBTs persist in the environment, can be transported long distances and pose long-term risks to human health and ecosystems. Owing to widespread environmental contamination, achieving concentrations at or below the EQS for this group of substances can be particularly challenging.
Text box: How chemicals can get into water
Further and detailed information on chemical status assessment is available in WISE · Monitoring of chemical status (see chapter 1) · Change in proportion unknowns unknown chemical status · Confidence in: SWB chemical status assessment Table and Graph*; |
* draft dashboards;
"Some chemicals can be very harmful through direct toxicity, such as through sublethal effects which affect an organism’s healthy functioning, or can become problematic as they accumulate up the food chain."
Please replace "such as" by "as well as".
"EQS are set to protect the most sensitive species by direct toxicity, including predators and humans via secondary poisoning."
This is not correct to our opinion. EQS is not set to protect the sensitivest species, because it is impossible to test all species in ecosystem. TGD EQS (2011) states: "EQSs should protect freshwater and marine ecosystems from possible adverse effects of chemicals as well as human health via drinking water or ingestion of food originating from aquatic environments. Several different types of receptor therefore need to be considered, i.e. the pelagic and benthic communities in freshwater, brackish or saltwater ecosystems, the top predators of these ecosystems and human health..
In reference to " heavy industry": In the European Union, a vast majority of aggregates extraction sites are dealing with inert materials such as sand, gravel and crushed rock, and produce inert wastes according to EU definitions and criteria included in EU Directives. The industry’s production process does not include the use of chemicals and therefore does not represent a threat for water quality. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the concept of mining and quarrying, as the nature of their activities and the properties of the materials they extract are very different. It is therefore essential to define clearly in the report what is meant by heavy industry or mining. As mining sites counting for less than 5% in comparison with quarries, sand and gravel extraction sites representing 95%, it would be recommended to clearly define which measures apply to mining and which ones to the Aggregates Industry rather than addressing the entire extractive industry.
In text box is written: "Approximately 50 % of the mercury atmospherically deposited in Europe comes from legacy or natural sources, for example, during volcanic eruptions."
The proportion of legacy & natural sources in Europe is clearly higher than 50%. According to AMAP/UNEP report it is more than 60%. Suggested formulation "almost 2/3 of the mercury..."
In Finland, acid sulfate soils are concern as the highest source for Cd (and for several other metals).
Reporting under the second RBMP shows that 38 % of surface water bodies are in good chemical status (by number of waterbodies), while 46 % are not achieving good status and the status of 16 % is unknown (Figure 3.1). While the percentage of water bodies in good status is more or less similar in rivers and in transitional and coastal waters at 40-58 %, that in territorial waters and lakes is considerably lower (15-24 %). The lower quality of lakes is driven by widespread contamination by mercury in Finland and Sweden.
Figure 3.1: Chemical status of surface water bodies, with and without and uPBTs
Note: For some surface water bodies in Poland (1265 WBs) and Italy (265 WBs), there is no information on the priority substances causing failure and it is therefore not possible to identify if the failure is caused by uPBTs or other priority substances.
Source: Preliminary results based on WISE-SoW database including data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).
The uPBTs are mercury, polybrominated diphenylethers (“BDEs”), tributyltin and certain[4] polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Widespread failure of mercury, and to a lesser extent BDEs (used as flame retardants), leads to significant failure to achieve good chemical status, as can be seen in Figure 3.2, where omission of the uPBTs shows 3 % of the surface water bodies as not being in good chemical status.
"The uPBTs are mercury, polybrominated diphenylethers ("BDEs"), tributyltin and certain23 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Widespread failure of mercury, and to a lesser extent BDEs (used as flame retardants), leads ..."
Please replace "BDE" by "PBDE"- also in the next sentence and the rest of the text (the abreviation BDE is used in the report at some pages)
In the legend of figure 3.1 ”less than good” should be replaced by ”failing to acheive good”.
"The uPBTs are mercury, polybrominated diphenylethers (“BDEs”) ... as can be seen in Figure 3.2..." shouldn't it be figure 3.1?
"The lower quality of lakes is driven by widespread contamination by mercury in Finland and Sweden."
This is "skewed" interpretation. Fish-Hg is just not regularly measured in other EU member states.
Suggested addition: However, the mercury concentration in fish is likely to exceed the EQS in other member states as well and the situation is not necessarily worse in Finland and Sweden than elsewhere in EU. The reason to these apparently unblanced percentages is that Finland and Sweden have more lakes than other member states and they have used Hg in fish in the classification.
Additional difference between the classification in these two countries comes from the fact that Finland has estimated background concentration for Hg in fish, whereas Sweden has not.
In fig 3.1 and 3.2 the chemical status of surface water bodies, SWB, with uBPTs is 46% chemical status is less than good while this is 50% in figure 3.4.
CZ: “The lower quality of lakes is driven by widespread contamination by mercury in Finland and Sweden”.
This is the same story as for 1st RBMP, clear effect of mercury being monitored in biota and assessed using EQS for biota contrary to the rest of MS monitoring mercury in water (mercury being hydrophobic and lipophilic). Please be careful with such statements or at least comment on it as done on page 36.
"Reporting under the second RBMP shows that 38 % of surface water bodies are in good chemical status (by number of waterbodies", whereas it seems it is 41% on page 56
Map 3: Chemical status per RBD – one map with uPBTs and one map without uPBTs A map has not been included – EEA is exploring different option on presenting the information on interactive map services. The map service should present chemical status per RBD for either the first or second RBMP with filters for the four categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) and by count of water bodies and by size (Length for rivers; and area for the other categories) and with pop-up windows with the results for the specific RBD. See results for map Table
There are substantial differences between Member States. Some report that over 90 % of their surface water bodies are in good chemical status, while others report that fewer than 10 % are in good chemical status (Figure 3.2). In addition, the proportion with status reported as “unknown” differs widely between Member States. For several Member States there is a marked change in the proportion failing to achieve good chemical status when the water bodies failing due to uPBTs are omitted.
Figure 3.2: Chemical status of all surface water bodies, with all priority substances (on left) and without uPBTs (on right)
Note: For some surface water bodies in Poland (1265 WBs) and Italy (265 WBs), there is no information on the priority substances causing failure and it is therefore not possible to identify if the failure is caused by uPBTs or other priority substances.
Source: Preliminary results based on WISE-SoW database including data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).
Some variation between Member States might be expected, owing to differences e.g. in population density, industry or geography, but such extreme variation needs to be understood. Member States have interpreted information in different ways, leading to some variation. For example, some Member States applied the revised – generally stricter - EQS set out in the 2013 amendment to the Priority Substances Directive (LU, NL, SE) while most countries used those from the 2008 version of the Directive. However, the major contribution to variability seems to arise from the approach taken to monitoring, modelling and extrapolation of results, and from the choice of monitoring matrix – water, sediment or biota (e.g. fish). Some countries extrapolated failure of the standard at monitoring sites to all water bodies, while others reported failure only where failure was confirmed (Table 3.1). Typically, measurements of mercury in biota extrapolated to all similar waterbodies lead to widespread failure to meet the EQS.
Luxembourg failed to achieve good chemical status in any of its surface water bodies, owing to application of the 2013 EQS for fluoranthene, while neighbouring countries applied the 2008 standard.
“Luxembourg failed to achieve good chemical status in any of its surface water bodies, owing to application of the 2013 EQS for fluoranthene, while neighbouring countries applied the 2008 standard.” Please add: In The Netherlands about 50% of the surface water bodies failed for the 2013 EQS for fluoranthene. This indicates that the graph underestimates the challenge to reach the chemical status in the next cycle, in case the 2013 EQS standards have not been applied.
In the legend ”less than good” should be replaced by ”failing to acheive good”.
In order to avoid any confusion, it would be helpful to indicate which EQS have been used for this evaluation.
For Luxembourg, we made 4 assessements of the chemical status: one on the basis of directive 2008/105/EC (with and without uPBTS) and another on the basis of directive 2013/39/UE (with and without uPBTS). The results of these 4 assessements are described in chapter 6 of the 2nd RBMP. The results shown on the right are those for directive 2013/39/UE.
"For example, some Member States applied the revised – generally stricter - EQS set out in the 2013 amendment to the Priority Substances Directive (LU, NL, SE) while most countries used those from the 2008 version of the Directive." please delete Luxembourg from the enumeration list. We made 4 assessements of the chemical status: one on the basis of directive 2008/105/EC (with and without uPBTS) and another on the basis of directive 2013/39/UE (with and without uPBTS). The results of these 4 assessements are described in chapter 6 of the 2nd RBMP.
The figure leaves a wrong impression as the methods for measurements applied in the Member States can't be compared. In this instance, the figure is closely linked to the tabled below which should at least be clarified in the text.
"Member States have interpreted information in different ways, leading to some variation. "
Important notice.
Figure 3.2 is depicting incorrect information for Malta. Malta reported failure of chemical status in surface waters (9 water bodies) due to exceedance of mercury. If Mercury is omitted, all water bodies are in good chemical status (19 water bodies). The dashboard at the following link is showing the correct scenario.
"Member States have interpreted information in different ways, leading to some variation. For example, some Member States applied the revised – generally stricter - EQS set out in the 2013 amendment to the Priority Substances Directive (LU, NL, SE) while most countries used those from the 2008 version of the Directive."
The report indicates that some MS used new EQSs whereas some do not. We acknowledge this indication; however, we believe more detail would be beneficial here for this to be an even comparison. Also, other possibilities (e.g. use/lack of use of bioavailability normalization) should be further considered. The inclusion of a figure similar to Fig. 3.1 to show chemical status with and without bioavailability normalization would be mostly helpful and welcome.
"Typically, measurements of mercury in biota extrapolated to all similar waterbodies lead to widespread failure to meet the EQS."
We agree with the need for improving the assessment of compliance with the mercury EQS. Is this something that could be developed within the EEA or the Commission’s assessment, or later on?
Referring to our general comments, with regard to the assessment of compliance with the mercury EQS, we would like to suggest that biological background for mercury should be taken into consideration.
In figure 3.2 we suggest to add information to the note under the figure: Member states have used different standards for chemical status.
Figure 3.2: Please refer to our previous comment on chemical data and confidence level (from 'Executive Summary').
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 |
We suggest to add an additional row:
With uPBTs | Without uPBTs | Approach taken | Countries using this approach |
Widespread (80-100%) failure to achieve good chemical status | Frequent/widespread failure to achieve good chemical status | LU (when applying the 2013 EQS) |
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)
Further and detailed information on chemical status is available in WISE · Surface water bodies: Number and Size, by Chemical status Table · Chemical status by category, Member States – Table and with and without uPBTs graphEU - graphMS - MemberStates · Chemical status by RBDs (Maps) results for map Table - with and without uPBTs · Chemical status in 2015 Table |
* draft dashboards;
Chemicals legislation focuses on controlling the use of a particular substance, supported by regulation to control emissions. Chemical status under the WFD provides an overview of contamination and the effectiveness of measures. If a priority substance is causing failure, either pollution prevention is not yet delivering the required environmental objective, or the contamination results from historic sources. For some substances, chemical pollution may be a local issue which can be controlled within the river basin district. But where several Member States report that a substance is not meeting the standard for good chemical status, and a significant number of waterbodies are failing the standard, the issue may be of wider concern, particularly where persistent, bioaccumulative and/or toxic substances are concerned.
Table 3.2 shows the most frequently reported “top 15” priority substances found in surface water bodies; all the uPBTs are in this list. Looking at the number of water bodies it is clear that mainly mercury and brominated diphenylethers are responsible for failure to achieve good chemical status. The other substances cause failure in relatively low numbers of water bodies. Table 3.2 shows that large numbers of records from a particular Member State can significantly impact the listing of “most frequently reported” substances failing a standard. Therefore, in terms of understanding the relevance of a pollutant at a European scale, a larger number of countries reporting a particular substance is indicative of more widespread issues.
Note * shows where substance is a uPBT.
Source: Preliminary results based on WISE-SoW database) including data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).
BE-FLA (KB): p.37-38 Chemical status and chemical substances causing failure in achieving good status
It must be clear that the conclusions are seriously biased, with monitored data on the one hand, and reported data based on ‘what is likely to occur’ on the other hand. The decisions are different, depending on the substance considered and the member state.
BE-FLA (RV): p. 38 Some priority substances are causing causing few or no failures to achieve good chemical status,…
Some priority substances are on their own causing few or no failures to achieve good chemical status, but may contribute to cause failure, …
Table 3.2
The report identifies that a small percentage of water bodies are not achieving good chemical status for Pb (0.42%), but it is reported that there are 19 Member States with waterbodies not achieving good chemical status for Pb. Does EEA know if MSs reporting failure are using appropriate analytical and bioavailability tools? We suggest this is clarified in the report.
It would be interesting to say if the substances are forbidden (and if yes, since when)
Some priority substances are causing few or no failures to achieve good chemical status, suggesting that efforts to control them have been effective [ref ch 6 / 1.5.2a chemicals report]. Those affecting fewer than 15 waterbodies are shown in table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Priority substances where good chemical status reported in all but 15 waterbodies or fewer (out of 111 062 surface water bodies)
Source: Preliminary results based on WISE-SoW database) including data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).
Table 3.3:
The titel of table 3.3 is not very clear / not easy to understand. Please rephrase the titel of the table.
BE-FLA (RV): p. 38, Table 3.3
How realistic or relevant is this table?
(AT) Table 3.3
Hexachlorobutadien is missing.
Further and detailed information on priority substance causing failure is available in WISE · Surface water bodies: Priority substances Table – TableEU - graph |
Priority substances are or have been emitted to water bodies through a range of pathways and from a variety of sources, including industry, agriculture, transport, mining and waste disposal, as well as from our own homes. Significant levels of some priority substances have built up from historic use and this legacy pollution may persist in water bodies long after polluted discharges and inputs have ended. In addition, some priority substances occur naturally, e.g. metals and PAHs, so achieving near natural, “background” concentrations is the objective for such substances.
Chemicals used in industrial processes and products sometimes enter sewers and, via waste water treatment plants, are discharged into water bodies. Burning of fossil fuels and waste leads to emission of some hazardous substances, and subsequent deposition from the atmosphere can be a major pathway for such substances to move long distances before they enter the water environment. Pesticides used in agriculture have been widely detected in groundwater and surface water. Mining can exert locally significant pressure upon the chemical quality of water resources in parts of Europe, particularly with respect to the discharge of heavy metals. Landfill sites and contaminated land from historical industrial and military activities can be a source of pollution for the aquatic environment. Shipping, harbour and port activities, and aquaculture can lead to the emission of a variety of chemical pollutants.
In reference to the first paragraph, in the European Union, a vast majority of aggregates extraction sites are dealing with inert materials such as sand, gravel and crushed rock, and produce inert wastes according to EU definitions and criteria included in EU Directives. The industry’s production process does not include the use of chemicals and therefore does not represent a threat for water quality. It is therefore essential to define clearly in the report what is meant by industry, mining or heavy industry.
In reference to the second paragraph: In the European Union, a vast majority of aggregates extraction sites are dealing with inert materials such as sand, gravel and crushed rock, and produce inert wastes according to EU definitions and criteria included in EU Directives. The industry’s production process and treatment plants do not include the use of chemicals as in most of the cases the processes are based on mechanical crushing, milling, grinding, and size grading, Therefore, the Aggregates Industry does not represent a threat for water quality. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the concept of mining and quarrying, as the nature of their activities and the properties of the materials they extract are very different. It is therefore essential to define clearly in the report what is meant by heavy industry or mining. As mining sites counting for less than 5% in comparison with quarries, sand and gravel extraction sites representing 95%, it would be recommended to clearly define which measures apply to mining and which ones to the Aggregates Industry rather than addressing the entire extractive industry.
"Significant levels of some priority substances have built up from historic use and this legacy pollution may persist in water bodies long after polluted discharges and inputs have ended."
We would suggest adding here “Priority Substances like Cd, Ni, and Pb are naturally occurring trace elements, and will occur to some extent in all river basins.”
"some priority substances occur naturally, e.g. metals and PAHs, so achieving near natural, “background” concentrations is the objective for such substances."
It should be noted that natural background concentrations for metals like Ni vary across Europe by orders of magnitude based on natural geological features. Moreover, it is not an objective of the WFD to reduce emissions of naturally occurring chemicals to natural background. Cessation of emissions might be, but reduction to natural background concentrations is likely to be, at best aspirational, and at worst impossible to achieve.
The major pressure reported by Member States as causing failure in good chemical status, was atmospheric deposition leading to contamination with mercury. Inputs from urban waste water treatment plants were less significant but led to contamination with PAHs, mercury, cadmium, lead and nickel.
Member States have reported an inventory of priority substances emitted into each river basin. The input most commonly recorded was that from waste water treatment plants, which may reflect the relative ease of monitoring such sources as compared with others, such as run-off or diffuse pollution (e.g. atmospheric deposition). The most frequently reported substances were the metals - mercury, lead, cadmium and nickel, which occurred in nearly all river basins (110 at May 2017) while all the priority substances were reported as being emitted into at least [25] river basin districts. The presence of a priority substance in a river basin, without causing many failures of chemical status, indicates that controls to maintain concentrations below the environmental quality standard are effective. All the priority hazardous substances were recorded as being emitted into some river basins, suggesting the cessation of emissions target for such substances remains challenging (WFD Art. 6(6)). (See also RBSPs in chapter 2.3 and discussion in chapter 6.) |
Further and detailed information on pressures and impact results is available in WISE · Main pressures by category table, · Main impacts by category table · Detailed pressures table; point source pressures table, diffuse source pressures table and other pressures table |
BE-FLA (RV): p. 40, §2 The presence of a priority substance in a river basin, without causing many failures of chemical status, indicates that controls to maintain concentrations below the environmental quality standard are effective.
This is only on the condition monitoring is sufficient, but not all dangerous substances are monitored.
I have checked the figures in the Pressures tables and there seems to be a disparity between the total value shown at the bottom and the individual pressure values for the 'Point' and 'Diffuse' categories. They do not seem to add up. I have also cross checked the values reported with those submitted as part of RBMP reporting and the figures are consistent but it is just the total figures that do not seem right.
I have checked the figures in the Pressures tables and there seems to be a disparity between the total value shown at the bottom and the individual pressure values for the 'Point' and 'Diffuse' categories. They do not seem to add up. I have also cross checked the values reported with those submitted as part of RBMP reporting and the figures are consistent but it is just the total figures that do not seem right.
"The most frequently reported substances were the metals - mercury, lead, cadmium and nickel, which occurred in nearly all river basins (110 at May 2017) while all the priority substances were reported as being emitted into at least [25] river basin districts."
With respect to diffuse sources, significant works were performed by the industry to determine the contributions of different sources to different environmental compartments, as part of REACH and the previous ESR (Existing Substances Regulation). The information provided in these reports may be helpful to better identify the relative importance of different inputs (point sources and diffuse emissions) in determining concentrations in water (e.g. Fact Sheet 7 – 2015 “European Union Environmental Risk Assessment of Nickel”). In this context also, it is important to consider natural metal levels and metal loadings into e.g. STP (Sewage Treatment Plant).
"The presence of a priority substance in a river basin, without causing many failures of chemical status, indicates that controls to maintain concentrations below the environmental quality standard are effective."
The absence of failures from some priority substances, including metals, is strongly attributed to ‘better controls’ by the report. Evidence to support this is not presented. Could not a contributory factor also be the appropriate implementation of the EQS, including accounting for bioavailability and ambient background concentrations? We suggest this is also reflected in the text.
"The major pressure reported by Member States as causing failure in good chemical status, was atmospheric deposition leading to contamination with mercury": How did you make this assessment ? We cannot find the elements that allow to do this analysis (as already mentioned, the high influence for atmospheric deposition is surprising)
Some of the substances quoted are forbidden in Europe. Il would be interesting to have a separate analysis for these forbidden substances
Please explain the provenance of the data that are taken into account for the inventory of emissions into water (e.g. in a footnote)
Comparison of the chemical status reported in the first and second RBMPs shows that the proportion of water bodies with unknown chemical status has dropped significantly. Chemical status has improved in transitional and coastal waters, remained similar in rivers and declined slightly in lakes (Figure 3.3). Thus, the knowledge on chemical status has improved, but, in return, a higher number of water bodies is classified as failing to achieve good chemical status.
Figure 3.4 Change in chemical status of surface water bodies by water category
Note: Proportion of surface water bodies in good and failing to achieve good chemical status. Overall percentage is different from that in Fig 3.2 owing to the need to compare similar water bodies in each period. Based on all water bodies in first and second RBMPs the change in unknowns is from 39 % to 16 %.
Source: Preliminary results based on WISE-SoW database) including data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).
Further and detailed information on chemical status results is available in WISE · Comparison of chemical status in first and second RBMP periods table* - graphEU - graphMS – MemberStates - |
* draft dashboards;
50% chemical status less than good in Fig 3.4, while this is 46% in Fig 3.2 and 3.1.
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).
"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)
Chemicals designated in 2001 (and listed with EQS in 2008) as priority substances represent those recognised for a long time as being harmful to or via the aquatic environment. They are a small subset of the thousands of chemicals in daily use and in many cases restrictions have been in place for decades. More recent concerns, for example newly-identified harmful substances or issues such as toxicity of mixtures of chemicals, are not reflected in the list of priority substances relevant for the second RBMP reporting. However, some indication of the on-going challenge for chemicals is provided by reporting of certain countries which applied the new and revised standards under the Priority Substances Directive. These standards, which should be met in 2021, were applied by e.g. Sweden, where the revised biota standard for brominated diphenylethers (flame retardardants) was failed in all waterbodies; and Luxembourg, where the revised standard for fluoranthene (a PAH) was failed in all surface waterbodies.
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/pri_substances.htm
[2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:226:0001:0017:EN:PDF
[3] Definition of ”ubiquitous” - present, appearing, or found everywhere
[4] Benzo(a)pyrene , benzo(g,h,i)perylene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(b)fluor-anthene and benzo(k)fluor-anthene
BE-FLA (RV): p.42 (additional)
The ultimate check could be to compare the chemical status of water bodies with the ecological status.
BE-FLA (RV): p. 33 Key messages (all)
1) Messages seem too optimistic, maybe because of the limited monitoring of dangerous substances.
2) These messages conflict with other and recent observations of overall decreasing biodiversity and/or species populations, of which the use of chemicals are considered to be the cause.