Post a comment on the text below
significantPressureOrSubstanceFailing - Required.(SignificantPressureOrSubstanceFailingType_Union_Enum)
Select in turn:
- each significant pressure type in turn from the enumeration list that is, by itself or in combination with other pressures, significant in terms of Environmental Objectives not being met (i.e. is causing failure of good ecological status or potential or failure of good chemical status),
- each Priority Substance that is causing failure of good chemical status
- each RBSP that is causing failure of good ecological status or potential
and for which measures are required to reduce the pressure to a level and extent that enables the Environmental Objectives to be met. More than one significant pressure type may be selected.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
we propose to implement the following quality check:
The option ‘No significant pressure” is not valid.
It is not clear if pollution by Priority substancess and river basin specific pollutants should be reported double. As a consequence of a significant pressure leading to need of measures and/or as lines of its own whith different measures (KTMs) to remedy the problem? With seperat lines för the chemical pollutants, the pressure causing the problem will not be noted. And chemical pollutants reported under sigificant pressures views the whole chain from pressure to measure. And it is fully possible to evaluate the need of measures per chemical substance any way, since it is reported as indicatorGap. Not good to have different ways to report like this.
"- each significant pressure type in turn from the enumeration list that is, by itself or in combination with other pressures, significant in terms of Environmental Objectives not being met (i.e. is causing failure of good ecological status or potential or failure of good chemical status),..."
Using this term ’i.e.’, this phrase can be interpreted as we do not deal with significant pressures causing failure of good quantitative status of groundwater bodies. However, in the Hungarian WISE2016 report for example, water abstractions from groundwater were also considered as a pressure "causing failure of good quantitative status". If this was the correct interpretation, then we propose to clarify it in this guide.
In order to facilitate reporting, it would be very helpful if only the substances and pressures causing failure of good status that have been previously selected by the MS would be included in the drop-down list and not the whole lists of substances and pressures.