Post a comment on the text below

6.1. Current status and overall progress since the first RBMPs

The results in the previous chapters show that with the second RBMPs the quantity and quality of available evidence has grown significantly. Many Member States and RBDs have invested in better or new ecological and chemical monitoring programs, with more monitoring sites, more quality elements assessed and more chemicals analysed. These improvements in monitoring and assessment mean that the status classification results are now a better interpretation of the general health of the water environment.

Groundwater status across Europe is generally better than surface waters (Figure 6.1). Good chemical and quantitative status was achieved for 70 % and 86 % of groundwater bodies. Around 40 % of surface water bodies have good ecological and 41 % good chemical status.

Compared to the first RBMPs, there are for all four measures of status[1] a higher proportion of water bodies in good status in the second RBMP. However, there are also for surface waters a higher proportion of water bodies in less than good status. Both the changes in proportion of good and less than good status is due to improved knowledge of the water environment (i.e. fewer water bodies have unknown status).

The analysis of the second RBMPs shows that there is progress in the status of single quality elements and single pollutants. In particular, ecological status has improved for many biological quality elements from the first to the second RBMPs.

For chemical status, a very low proportion of surface water bodies (3 %) are reported to fail to achieve good status if ubiquitous substances, especially mercury, are omitted, and in most Member States only a few priority substances (mainly heavy metals like cadmium, lead and nickel) are responsible for the poor chemical status observed. Improvement in status for several priority substances shows that Member States are making progress in tackling sources of contamination.

Previous comments

  • mohauvol (Volker Mohaupt) 23 Feb 2018 17:20:55

    As a generall comment for chapter 6:

    Please check the content of this chapter 6 and please modify contents describing the "overall status".

    Explanation: As described before (in above comments) the WfD does not contain a "overall good status" per definition.

    And no "overall good status" is reported to the EU-Commission. According to the WfD each water body need to be in "good ecological status / potential" and in "good chemical status" (and both are reported to the EU).

     

  • mohauvol (Volker Mohaupt) 23 Feb 2018 17:22:37

    "The results in the previous chapters show that with the second RBMPs the quantity and quality of available evidence has grown significantly."

    Please delete "evidence" and replace by "data".

  • mohauvol (Volker Mohaupt) 23 Feb 2018 17:23:59

    "These improvements in monitoring and assessment mean that the status classification results are now a better interpretation of the general health of the water environment."

    Please change to "These improvements in monitoring and assessment mean that the status classification results allow now a better interpretation of the general health of the water environment."

  • reckinann (Anne-Marie Reckinger) 26 Feb 2018 11:31:53

    "Compared to the first RBMPs, there are for all four measures of status a higher proportion of water bodies in good status in the second RBMP. However, there are also for surface waters a higher proportion of water bodies in less than good status." we find these 2 sentences a bit confusing and in order to avoid any confusions it would be helpful to add an explanation how this is possible. Is it due to less surface water bodies in unknown status?

  • reckinann (Anne-Marie Reckinger) 26 Feb 2018 11:32:52

    "(mainly heavy metals like cadmium, lead and nickel)" please add PAHs to the list.

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 26 Feb 2018 15:29:52

    BE-FLA (RV): Chapter 6 General comments

    1) Significant overlap of content with the Summary chapter. Maybe this should be avoided.

    2) Differences in figures compared with those mentioned in previous chapters.

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 28 Feb 2018 10:25:35

    BE-WAL (EC): p. 56 §1

    We are not sure about this affirmation. The change from 38% to 40% doesn’t mean necessarily an improvement. The 2% extra could also come from unknown sources.

  • groforen (Renata Grofova) 28 Feb 2018 11:38:39

    SK: Chapter 6 - In general: We propose to create links into the WISE WFD reporting statistics tables, too. Trend of EU water quality is rather low-value chart. We propose to consider presenting of water quality changes for individual significant rivers/catchments, too.

  • scheidand (Andreas Scheidleder) 28 Feb 2018 11:40:32

    (AT) 2nd para, 2nd sentence: please check the figures.

    Good chemical and quantitative status was achieved for 70 74 % and 86 89 %  of groundwater bodies area

  • farrereg (Regis Farret) 07 Mar 2018 19:53:10

    * 70%or 74 % ? 41% or 38% as written page 35, 5 and 6 ?

    * Significant overlap with other intermediate summaries / global summary

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