Post a comment on the text below

Previous comments

• voet (Jan Hendrik Voet) 26 Feb 2018 10:02:56

  BE-FLA (KB): p. 4, .7 Key messages. In most Member States, a few priority substances account for much of the poor chemical status. Improvements for individual substances show that Member States are making progress in tackling sources of contamination. The substance most commonly causing failure in good chemical status is mercury. If mercury and other ubiquitous priority substances are not considered, only 3 % of surface water bodies would fail to achieve good chemical status.
  

  Only a few member states applied an extrapolation of Hg exceedings in biota, as a means to explain the bad chemical state. Omitting this extrapolation, however, does not mean other chemical substances do not cause any problem. A reliable assessment requires to consider the monitoring program of other substances. When filling in the table on ‘Chemical monitoring’, substances had to be reported for each surveillance monitoring station.  Therefore, conclusions should be restricted to that set of monitoring stations.

• scheidand (Andreas Scheidleder) 27 Feb 2018 16:46:52

  (AT) In the 1. sentence: ’for much of the poor status’ does not sound very English.

• Annalisa Bortoluzzi (invited by Caroline Whalley) 28 Feb 2018 12:15:49

  We recognize that Mercury causes a lot of waters to fail. A potential challenge highlighted by this bullet seems to be the need to assess small changes in status from other pressures beyond mercury and other persistent historic chemicals. How in the future does the EEA see tackling this in order to identify the relative small scale chemical pressures?

• eklunkla (Klara Eklund) 28 Feb 2018 17:38:58

  It says here that "only 3 % of surface water bodies would fail" but in chapter 6; key messages, it says 4 %. Which one should it be?