Post a comment on the text below
Ecological status of surface waters
Ecological status is an assessment of the quality of the structure and functioning of surface water ecosystems, including rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. It shows the influence of both pollution and habitat degradation. Ecological status is based on biological quality elements, and supporting physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements.
During the first RBMP cycle (2009-2015), Member States have introduced better or new ecological monitoring programs with more sites and more quality elements. Many new assessment methods for biological quality elements have been developed. Overall, this has reduced the proportion of water bodies in unknown ecological status from 16 % to 4 %, and has improved the proportion of water bodies classified with high or medium confidence from one third in the first RBMPs to more than half in the second RBMPs. Higher confidence is also ensured through intercalibration of good ecological status. Since 2008, the number of intercalibrated biological assessment methods has generally increased three-fold for rivers, lakes and coastal waters making results much more comparable than for the first RBMP.
In the second RBMPs more than two thirds of all water bodies are classified with at least one biological quality element. For most of the remaining water bodies status assessment is based on supporting physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality element. All in all, these improvements mean that the ecological status classification results are now a better interpretation of the general health of the water environment.
Overall, 40 % of the surface water bodies have good or high ecological status, with lakes and coastal water bodies having better status (ca. 50%) than rivers and transitional waters bodies (ca. 30-35%). The northern countries show a high proportion of water bodies in high or good ecological status. In contrast, the central European river basin districts, as well as some of the southern RBDs show the highest proportion of water bodies not achieving good ecological status or potential. There is improvement in the ecological status of some of the biological quality elements, while the overall ecological status has not improved since the first RBMPs.
For surface water bodies, the main significant pressures are hydromorphological pressures (41 %), atmospheric deposition (40 %) and diffuse source pollution (37 %), followed by point source pollution (18 %) and water abstraction (7 %). The main impacts on surface water bodies are nutrient enrichment, chemical pollution and altered habitats due to morphological changes.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
If ecological potential is covered by this chapter, it would be helpful to clearly indicate this in the title of the chapter and in the text.
We are not sure if we should consider status assessments which are based on only one BQE as a real improvement.
BE-FLA (VVDL): p. 5, §5 Ecological status SW: in the second RBMPs more than two thirds of all water bodies are classified with at least one biological quality element
Ecological status is the combination of all biological quality elements and requires the evaluation of more than ‘at least 1’ biological quality element. § needs to be completed with the share of water bodies for which at least (f.e.) 4 or all relevant quality elements were assessed.
BE-FLA (RV): p. 5, §6 Significant pressures
Share of point sources pressures is only 18% and much lower than atmospheric deposition (40%) and diffuse pollution (37%). Needs to be explained. There are serious doubt about the basis of these figures. Tick boxes will reveal the frequency/occurrence of (significant) pressures, which is different from a quantification of pressures.
It is essential to understand that the term "pressure" is not necessarily synonymous to “degradation”. The example of the large reservoirs of France today constitutes places of high biodiversity value, associated with a good chemical quality of water. The same is true for rehabilitated gravel pits along the major stream beds that are now recognized as an integral part of the landscape and regional biodiversity.
In chapter 6 Key messages:
"Diffuse sources (62 %) and hydromorphological pressures (40 %) are the main significant pressures on surface water bodies, followed by point sources (21 %) and abstraction (7 %)."
Which percentages are OK?
Here, hydromorphological pressures are the most significant pressure and in the other hand, in chapter 6, most significant pressure is diffuse source pollution. This need some clarification.
Maybe other order:
altered habitats, chemical pollution and nutrient enrichment
Because hymo-pressures 41%, atmos.depos. 40% and diffuse sourse and point source 37% and 18%
Or if the significant pressure list is more like stated in chapter 6 Key messages, then the order should follow that list.
Page 5 – it mentions water abstraction 7% yet in the narrative we said 6% - difficult to tell if its completely the same context, guess the document is referring to 7% of all WBs for member states?
"Two thirds of WB are classified with...": this proportion is weak. It raises the question of robustness of data and their comparability. An explanation/comment would be useful here.
"Atmospheric deposition (40%)": The figure is surprisingly high for atmospheric deposition. Can you detail more precisely how it was obtained and analyse further how the MS have interpreted such a pressure? (In France we did not identify such a high pressure).