Navigation
Notifications
Post a comment on the text below
- For surface waters (rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters) the percentage in good ecological status is around 40 %, while only 38 % of surface waters are in good chemical status.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
Please clarify if his information is ”only” referring to ecological status or also to ecological potential. The differentiation between ecological status and potential is not always very clear in the document and this should be further specified in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
BE-FLA (KB): p.4, 5 Key messages. For surface waters (rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters) the percentage in good ecological status is around 40 %, while only 38 % of surface waters are in good chemical status.
These figures seem too optimistic, as they are based on only a single, or even none biological quality element.
Please clarify/indicate if the percentage refers both to natural WBs and HMWBs and AWBs.
We wonder if the same waterbodies are included for those with ’good status’. I.e. if a waterbody fails good chemical status, can it still pass ecological status, and vice versa? What is the correlation between failure of good ecological and good chemical status? We believe it would be interesting to check on the correlation between the two, as well as to know for the ecological status those water bodies that passed all RBSP, but failed on biology.
We also wonder whether the precision of these data really facilitate differentiation of these values: around 40% as compared to 38%. There are inevitably errors associated with measuring, reporting and modelling data. A welcome addition to this report throughout, and an anchor back in reality, would be an acknowledgement of these uncertainties. Without, decision makers are left wondering if the percentage differences are significant, and if so by how much. “Confidence” in the report is not related to quantitative confidence. Perhaps a statement in Section 1.3 in this regard. For example, Figures 4.4 and 4.5, error bars here would be most helpful, are these changes significant at any level? It is at the moment difficult to interpret the multiple figures and graphs throughout the report without the appropriate context in regard to how important the changes reported might be, beyond qualitative indications.