Navigation
Post a comment on the text below
Class SignificantPressureSubstanceFailing
- Please include here any comments which apply to all the schema elements in this Class.
- In addition to those general schema element level comments, we welcome your views on: a) whether you think this Class can be simplified; and b) whether you think the linkages with other reporting Classes or Schemas can be improved, and how;
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
Similar comment to SWsignificantPressureType
The codelist of Annex 1a shouldn't be splitted by drivers as usually the relation pressure- driver is 1:n
RO agrees.
It should be clarified if GW significant pressures should be included also and the same with pollutants causing failure in GW chemical status
We support the comment from ES.
Will these tables be automatically filled by the EC based on previous round reporting? In that case, it could be interesting to give MS the possibility to add or modify indicators.
We wish to keep this as it is, since a lot of information would be lost if it was simplified. We see the problem with many drivers per pressure type in a WB, but then it is better to add several pressure types. An example is a dam for drinking water and hydropower. The measures here will be different, and we wish to keep them separate to be able to point to the right sector.