Navigation
Notifications
Post a comment on the text below
- Compared to the first RBMP, this results in a marginal improvement in the overall quality status because if one of the elements fails, the entire water body quality fails (one-out-all-out rule). The same rule applies to chemical status: if one priority substance poses a risk, the chemical status is identified as bad.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
The criteria to evaluate the chemical status should be reviewed and modified. Because, if a single parameter is out of range, the whole water body is qualified as bad chemical status.
Then the global picture is worst than the real one and most of the improvements are hidden.
While, in fact, it is possible that other parameters improved in the period.
So a finer tune methodology is needed to better show improvements and to better evaluate the situation in Europe.
We suggest to delete this sentence.
It is suggested to be changed into
Compared to the first RBMP, this results in a marginal improvement in the overall quality status because if one of the elements fails, the entire water body status
qualityfails (one-out-all-out rule).(AT) The last sentence should be deleted because it is not particular for chemical status. Anyhow, don’t mix ’risk’ with ’status’ and ’bad’ is not a WFD term.
It is important to emphasise that the water body is considered healthily only if all elements are in good status. Report now gives an impression that ‘one-out-all-out’ principle should be challenged and it is because of this principle that state of waters is less than good. Although the real reasons are elsewhere (eg ineffective management measures).