The table below lists the proportion of all surface water bodies (SWBS) already in High/Good ecological status/potential; the numbers failing to achieve good status with or without exemptions and the water bodies with unknown status. The results show that based on SWBs with “no exemptions”, improvements in ecological status over the second RBMP cycle are expected to be limited (3.3 %).
Table: Surface water bodies in at least good status, with and without exemptions. <Similar results may be produced for chemical and quantitative status>
Source: Preliminary results based on WISE-SoW database including data from 24 Member States (EU28 except Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Lithuania). Denmark reported a small number of water bodies with exemptions but have a relative high proportion of surface water bodies with unknown status.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
"... with or without exemptions ..." is this in line with the provisions of the WFD? If good status is not achieved, exemptions have to be applied for these water bodies. So how is possible that good status is not reached and that no exemptions are applied?
"High/Good (2013)" please delete "2013" in the table.
If Denmark has reported through the WISE database, figures should also be included in the table.
The numbers are surprising: Only 3% of progress on ecological status for the second RBMP but more than 50% of progress expected during the two following periods? This part should probably be moderate with realistic hypothesis.
<Similar results may be produced for chemical and quantitative status>
What do the brackets mean?
(AT) <Similar results may be produced for chemical and quantitative status>
Difficult to understand
SK: Page 72, Table: Add reference year in title of table.