Post a comment on the text below
Figure 5.4. Proportion of classified water bodies in different River Basin Districts affected by pollution pressures for rivers and lakes (left panel) and for coastal and transitional waters (right panel) (percentage, based on number of classified water bodies).
Notes: A water body is defined as affected by pollution pressures if it is reported with the aggregated pressure type “Point sources” and/or “Diffuse sources“ and/or any of the corresponding disaggregated pressure types. Swedish surface water bodies where the pressure reporting is considered only to be related to airborne mercury contamination are defined as not affected (see text). See appendix for further details. Member states which have reported pressures, but where certain RBDs are marked as “no data reported” should indicate whether this particular pressure has not been reported in this RBD or whether no water bodies in this RBD are affected by this particular pressure.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
"No data reported" is not appropriate for Cyprus' coastal waters.
In the Cyprus "EU-summary report Articles 5 & 6" (submitted March 2005), in Table SWPI2-4, four out of 25 coastal water bodies (16%) were reported to be impacted by pollution (nutrients; BOD). Please revise the map accordingly. We are available for any clarifications.
Because reporting of pressures has been reported by member states very differently, at least the title of this figure should be changed
Not like:
” Ecological status or potential, pressures and impacts of classified lake water bodies in different member states…”
preferred:
”…..as reported by different member states…”
Or is it possible to explain in more detailed these reporting differences?