Post a comment on the text below

Overall status and overall progress since the first RBMPs

According to the WFD, EU Member States should aim to achieve good status in all bodies of surface water and groundwater by 2015 unless there are grounds for exemption. Only in this case may achievement of good status be extended to 2021 or 2027 or less stringent objectives be set. Achieving good status involves meeting certain standards for the ecology, chemistry, and quantity of waters. In general, good status means that water shows only a slight change from what would normally be expected under undisturbed conditions (i.e. with a low human impact).

Compared to the first RBMPs, there are for all four measures of status[3] a higher proportion of water bodies in good status in the second RBMPs. 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 are due to improved knowledge of the water environment (i.e. fewer water bodies have unknown status).

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 %) is reported to fail to achieve good status, if ubiquitous substances, especially mercury, is discounted, and only few priority substances are causing poor chemical status (mainly heavy metals like cadmium, lead and nickel). Improvement in status for several priority substances shows that Member States are making progress in tackling sources of contamination.

There are several possible explanations of the limited improvements in overall status from the first to the second RBMPs.  

  • First, additional biological and chemical monitoring was put in place after 2009 and the classification methods were improved and in some cases the standards were tightened.
  • Second, for some water bodies some quality elements have improved in status, but there has been no improvement in the overall status. 
  • Third, the second RBMPs generally show status classification up to 2012/13 and at that time, many measures were only in the process of being implemented and there may be a lag time before the pressures are reduced and there are improvements in status.
  • Finally, some pressures may have been unknown in 2009; and the measures implemented may not have been sufficient and as effective as expected at reducing all the pressures.  

Previous comments

  • mohauvol (Volker Mohaupt) 23 Feb 2018 15:32:11

    "....if ubiquitous substances, especially mercury, is discounted " Please replace "is" by "are".

  • reckinann (Anne-Marie Reckinger) 26 Feb 2018 09:53:58

    "Overall status and overall progress since the first RBMPs" it would be helpful to explain what you understand by ”overall status” as the WFD doesn’t use such a concept.

  • reckinann (Anne-Marie Reckinger) 26 Feb 2018 09:55:21

    "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 RBMPs. However, there are also for surface waters a higher proportion of water bodies in less than good status." These 2 sentences are a bit confusing and it is not clear whether the proportion of water bodies in good status in the 2nd RBMPs is higher or lower than in the 1st RBMPs...

  • reckinann (Anne-Marie Reckinger) 26 Feb 2018 09:56:56

    "Second, for some water bodies some quality elements have improved in status, but there has been no improvement in the overall status." could be replaced as follows "Second, for some water bodies some quality elements have improved in status, but due to the one-out-all-out principle there has been no improvement in the ecological status/potential, the chemical or quantitative status."

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 26 Feb 2018 10:21:30

    BE-FLA (RV): p. 7, §1 1 p. 12, §7 Good status

    High status compares with a small deviation from undisturbed (= pristine) conditions. Good status means that the observed status meets the EQSs or other requirements. (Note: Good status EQSs reflect an acceptable level of harm, and not (almost) undisturbed states).

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 26 Feb 2018 10:23:12

    BE-FLA (RV): p. 7, §1 Ecological status

    Ecological status must be first defined as the combined status of biological + hydro-morphological + physico-chemical status

  • voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 26 Feb 2018 10:24:22

    BE-FLA (KB): p. 7, §3 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 %) is reported to fail to achieve good status, if ubiquitous substances, especially mercury, is discounted, and only few priority substances are causing poor chemical status (mainly heavy metals like cadmium, lead and nickel). Improvement in status for several priority substances shows that Member States are making progress in tackling sources of contamination.

    Very optimistic conclusion. The results rather tend to reflect the differences between the monitoring programs of the member states. It is obvious that heavy metals exceedings are expected, as they are largely monitored.

  • tuchiele (Elena Tuchiu) 27 Feb 2018 09:26:45

    it is suggested that

    ........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 RBMPs.

    to be changed into

    ......Compared to the first RBMPs, there is for all surface water bodies categories and groundwaters  a higher proportion of water bodies in good status in the second RBMPs.

  • tuchiele (Elena Tuchiu) 27 Feb 2018 09:31:28

    Concerning the overall status , it would be helpful to explain this concept  as the WFD does not  provide it

  • scheidand (Andreas Scheidleder) 27 Feb 2018 17:19:29

    (AT) The 2nd para 'Compared to the first....'

    difficult to understand, should be simplified, e.g. improved knowledge of the water environment (i.e. fewer water bodies have unknown status) results in a higher proportion of water bodies in good but also in less than good status

  • mitiksar (Sari Mitikka) 28 Feb 2018 10:18:38

    "Ecological status has improved for many biological quality elements"

    But it is not seen clearly in the overall status because of the one-out-all-out rule.

  • groforen (Renata Grofova) 28 Feb 2018 10:47:13

    SK: Page 7, 2nd paragraph: Add the following words to the sentence “...due to improved knowledge of the water environment and improved water monitoring programmes (i.e. fewer...”.

  • groforen (Renata Grofova) 28 Feb 2018 10:49:02

    SK: Page 7,  4th paragraph, second bullet: There is mentioned “status” and also “overall status” in one sentence. Although this is outlined in the Figure 1.1, the explanation of term “overall status” should be mentioned in the text as well, because the term “overall status” is not officially used and defined in the WFD.

  • Annalisa Bortoluzzi (invited by Caroline Whalley) 28 Feb 2018 12:18:58

    "and only few priority substances are causing poor chemical status (mainly heavy metals like cadmium, lead and nickel)."

    Please, erase “heavy” and keep only “metals”. The term “heavy metals” is poorly defined and should not be used – this comment applies throughout the report. Also, were these metals (Ni, Pb) assessed appropriately, accounting for bioavailability? If not, or if this was not assessed, then this needs to be explicitly stated – the EQS is not failed if the EQS has not be used appropriately, i.e. as shown in the directive. This would be the same for any other operationally derived standard (e.g. biota-based for mercury or PAHs). We suggest this point to be explicitly made in Section 1.3.

  • Annalisa Bortoluzzi (invited by Caroline Whalley) 28 Feb 2018 12:20:11

    "There are several possible explanations of the limited improvements in overall status from the first to the second RBMPs"

    As mentioned in the ’general comments’, it is important for those metals with a Biotic Ligand Model to include a bioavailability correction, and for the background concentrations to be incorporated.

  • vyskopet (Petr Vyskoc) 02 Mar 2018 10:09:46

    CZ: One of the reasons for little improvement may also be incomparable sets of pollutants assessed and also different EQS or threshold values applied in 1st and 2nd RBMPs.

  • WWF (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 05 Mar 2018 05:18:08
    • Third paragraph: It would be useful to outline whether the chemical status monitoring is adequate enough across all the EU MS to make such a statement without any doubt or whether there is uncertainty or low confidence in the data submitted. Reading the text further down doesn’t suggest that the chemical status is as good as presented with this statement. Please reflect this also in the summary box.
    • Paragraph four: We believe this is a limited set of reasons that needs to be complemented with others to give a more adequate picture of the situation in the EU. The most important elements that are missing are the following: - RBMPs/PoM were not ambitious enough and the necessary measures to achieve the WFD good status/potential objectives or prevent deterioration have not been taken; - Lack of regulatory measures and overreliance on voluntary measure for main pressures; - Overuse and misuse of exemptions (for postponement of deadlines, but also Art 4.7 ones); furthermore in the case of the latter it should also be mentioned that deterioration is not picked up, which allows projects with negative impacts for water status to be implemented. It could also be useful to add the number of exemptions applied to demonstrate the problem. These aspects should also be reflected in the summary box.
    • Paragraph four, point two: However, it is important to point out that the water body is considered healthily only if all elements are in good status. We would not want the report giving an impression that ‘one-out-all-out’ principle should be challenged. 

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