For one third of the RBDs (46 out of 135) Members States applied for exemptions for not reaching good quantitative status, either by extending the deadlines or by achieving less stringent objectives (Table 5.2). Out of the 46 RBDs, 50% applied for extension of deadline due to technical feasibility, 43% applied for extension of deadline due to disproportionate cost, 37% applied for extension of deadline due to natural conditions, 26% applied for less stringent objectives due to technical feasibility, and 17% applied for less stringent objectives due to disproportionate cost.
The Member States that applied almost exclusively for extended deadlines are
Table 5.2 - Exemptions applied for reaching good quantitative status (number of RBDs concerned).
# of RBD |
Exemptions |
23 |
Article4(4) – Extension of deadline – Technical feasibility |
20 |
Article4(4) – Extension of deadline – Disproportionate cost |
17 |
Article4(4) – Extension of deadline – Natural conditions |
12 |
Article4(5) – Less stringent objectives – Technical feasibility |
8 |
Article4(5) – Less stringent objectives – Disproportionate cost |
46 |
Total number of RBDs where exemptions were reported |
135 |
Total number of RBDs where data were uploaded to WISE |
Figure 5.6 – Type of exemptions per * Number in brackets indicate the number of GWBs Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012 |
Figure 5.7 – Justification of exemptions per * Number in brackets indicate the number of GWBs
Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012 |
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.